Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: The Ethical and the Moral
- Bill, what are you talking about? Quote me and show me where I say any of this. How can I possibly mean "inward is understood to be looking outside"? Those words don't even make sense.
Jim ROn 4/1/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:
--- In email@example.com, "James Rovira"
JIm R., "Inward" is understood to be looking outside. This is your
misunderstanding. You insist to want Kierkegaard to conform to this
mediocrity. You simply cannot take time out a pre-established
spatialized continuum and impose your own privileged seriality on to
the "instant". The moment is basic to Kierkegaard, and either you
know where you've read it, or not. Either you read Kierkegaard or
make it up. That is your choice, not mine.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James Rovira"
Jim R., Don't understand what you mean that "freedom is posible".
God is decidely not a paradox self-consciously given. We would have
to understand what freedom is prior to claiming it exists. Our
understanding of God is something willed that is a change in
ourselves, and not the other way around. There isn't a change in
ourselves that creates our understanding of God, or a sense of our
understanding of freedom. Bill
As Kierkegaard writes, there is
"passion for a paradox not a search for understanding that inspires
that leap" (Philosophical Fragments, p. 37 ff)".
As I've written before, I don't think you understand what Kierkegaard
is about, since you lack any experience of what he describing. Bill
> Bill -- I don't think the incarnation moves us toward understandingthe
> totality of what God has created so much as brought God down to ourfinitude
> so that we can comprehend what we need to know of him, and so thatfreedom
> is possible -- rather than just being overwhelmed with a Divinevision.
> Kierkegaard --or at least Climacus in CUP -- makes quite a bit deal
> fact that we never escape our own finitude, that our understandingof "it
> all" is always from within it all and not above it all. So we never40yahoogroups.com>,
> comprehend any totality. That is reserved for God.
> Jim R
> On 6/9/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com<kierkegaardians%
> > "James Rovira"could
> > <jamesrovira@> wrote:
> > Jim R., I'm a bit confused, since if God becomes human then we
> > believe that God gives us the will to understand him, and that hehas
> > no needs because he created for himself our understanding of him?In
> > fact, the idea of being forgiven for sin is possibly his attemptto
> > relieve us of the burden of our own limited understanding.that
> > Of course this belief in our ability to understand the totality of
> > what God created is dependent on the idea of freedom. It is this
> > gives us the ability to decide what it is that God created.what
> > Otherwise, why would we as Kierkegaard describe our existence as
> > we "strive" to understand? Thanks for your helpful insights, asthey
> > usually are.
> > Bill