Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: The Ethical and the Moral
- Bill, yes, we do "relate to the eternal" in a generic sense before becoming Christians. But that relationship is very different in the Ethical sphere and in Religiousness A and in Religiousness B. Embrace of the eternal as a hidden quality of everything is Religiousness A. Embrace of the eternal as the paradox of the god in time -- that the eternal entered history -- refers only to Christ and is characteristic of Religiousness B. Climacus is very clear about this in CUP.
It seems that to you Christ is "just Christ" -- limited and parochial, the figurehead of one religion alone, while "the eternal" seems like a grand category by which all religions can be encompassed. And that is precisely the point of view of Religiousness A -- Climacus called it the sphere of all religions. Kierkegaard views this as a subordinate, inferior stage to becoming a Christian, which involves the acceptance by faith of the incarnation of Christ as a historical fact. That in time (our lives now) we relate in time to the eternal (Christ incarnate 2000 years ago). Climacus describes many contradictions, but this is the only contradiction that fills the role of the paradox.
I think you need to understand that Kierkegaard really believed that Christianity was the only true religion and that Christ was the only full expression of the deity on earth, and that because of that Kierkegaard's viewpoint is very very different from your own, Hegel's, Hannay's, and Nietzche's. He wrote as he did because he was immersed in a culture in which everyone very complacently believed Christianity was the only true religion -- he had to defamiliarize his audience with Christianity so they could embrace it in inwardness, with infinite passion. Just read the first two paragraphs of CUP. Had he been writing in the US today I suspect he would have written very differently. Much more like direct preaching.
- --- 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