Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

An Ode to Roast Post

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Ok, it is time to breath some life into this baby. Here is a post I have not yet posted in Don s group. I will post it tomorrow in response to something
    Message 1 of 4 , May 24, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Ok, it is time to breath some life into this baby. Here is a post I have not yet posted in Don's group. I will post it tomorrow in response to something Seattle Bill wrote. If it stirs anyone into action, all the better.      

      << Bill, the difficulty between us here boils down to the fact that that there are two incommensurate ways of reading the message that is Kierkegaard. That difference can be pinned down as to how the transition from the esthetic sphere of existence to the ethical sphere of existence is taken. Either one views the spheres as representing a category of self in which there is absolutely no connection between the self that defines the esthetic sphere and the self that defines the ethical sphere or one does not. Your view does not, which indicates that the category of self you and I entertain, when it comes to interpreting Kierkegaard, is of such a difference as to represent separate universes of discourse.

      If the subject of Kierkegaard's message is subjectivity, which I see it as being, then you and I will never agree. You will continue to see my view as not addressing Kierkegaard's message. Since you cannot imagine what I am going on about, you will continually say that I am not addressing anything other than what I imagine. Your characterization of my view, however, is something I do find entertaining, so, please, please, do not cease trying to reprogram me.   ----willy

      >>

    • Bill
      ... wrote: Willy, It is extremely simplistic, to think Kierkegaard can define subjectivity, and then go on to create a philosophy. Philosophy for both
      Message 2 of 4 , May 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
        wrote:
        Willy, It is extremely simplistic, to think Kierkegaard can define
        subjectivity, and then go on to create a philosophy. Philosophy for
        both Kierekegaard and Hegel begins by avoiding to posit such a
        principle, since this will only lead to an infinite regress. Both
        seek a method by which to understand the study of philosophy without
        controdiction.

        Your lack of understanding of what Kierkegaard is trying to
        accomplish leaves you always seeking to fill in some sort of mystery
        that supposedly Kierkegaard leaves open. Someone in the esthitic
        sphere is commiting a mistake. This can be seen more clearly in
        Hegel. I agree there need be no connection with the next sphere.
        Hegel doesn't bother trying to explain every transisition either.
        But, he does explain that the self is /active/. The self finds an
        explination for realising it is better than not having any
        explination at all. The self is always seeking itself, unlike all of
        eastern philosophy.

        You misunderstand Kierkegaard by failing to understand the nature of
        his subjectivity. Like Hegel's, but unlike yourself, for Kierkegaard
        the self is seeking eternity, or to be unique. For you however,
        uniqueness is just a silly question that you can't answer. In
        eastern philosophy there is revelation, but for Kierkegaard
        revelation involves a self that actively seeks its own self-
        affirmation. It does accept what it is being "taught", for example.
        It unlike your thinking doesn't just fall from the sky. There is a
        decieveness about the transistions in Hegel and Kierkegaard that is
        missing in your understanding of Kierkegaard.

        I highly recommend you get a copy of Between Kant and Hegel, and see
        how the definition of subjectivity changes from one philosopher to
        the other, but remains consitent for both Kierkegaard and Hegel
        (though the authour compares the self of Kierkegaard to a longing, or
        privation).

        Subjectivity means what is priviledged to a single individual. The
        problem for Kierkegaard is /how/ this is possible. Like those
        previous he sees the difficulty with trying to understand reflection.
        This is what you over look before you go on and try to mediate it
        with your two-selves theory.

        You claim to know that Kierkegaard is concerned with 'subjectivity'.
        Well, what does he mean by it? What is his conception of
        subjectivity? I don't believe you will be able to formulate a
        principle unless you understand what he means by reflectivity, and
        how he tries to overcome it.

        Reflectivity, or reflection, takes the immediate starting point to be
        something inessential.

        The problem since Descartes, is how would one be /certain/ of such a
        starting point? Kierkegaard believes such an understanding to be
        false, as you agree, but how does he explain this without an infinite
        regress?

        If you want to compare this idea of reflection to eastern philosophy,
        then that is not something unique to your own analysis. Others have
        done it. In The Logic of Hegel's Logic, John W. Burbidge compares
        Hegel's understanding of reflection to "maya" (see pages 62-3.).

        Bill


        >
        > Ok, it is time to breath some life into this baby. Here is a post I
        have
        > not yet posted in Don's group. I will post it tomorrow in response
        to
        > something Seattle Bill wrote. If it stirs anyone into action, all
        the
        > better.
        >
        > << Bill, the difficulty between us here boils down to the fact that
        that
        > there are two incommensurate ways of reading the message that is
        > Kierkegaard. That difference can be pinned down as to how the
        transition
        > from the esthetic sphere of existence to the ethical sphere of
        existence
        > is taken. Either one views the spheres as representing a category of
        > self in which there is absolutely no connection between the self
        that
        > defines the esthetic sphere and the self that defines the ethical
        sphere
        > or one does not. Your view does not, which indicates that the
        category
        > of self you and I entertain, when it comes to interpreting
        Kierkegaard,
        > is of such a difference as to represent separate universes of
        discourse.
        >
        > If the subject of Kierkegaard's message is subjectivity, which I
        see it
        > as being, then you and I will never agree. You will continue to see
        my
        > view as not addressing Kierkegaard's message. Since you cannot
        imagine
        > what I am going on about, you will continually say that I am not
        > addressing anything other than what I imagine. Your
        characterization of
        > my view, however, is something I do find entertaining, so, please,
        > please, do not cease trying to reprogram me. ----willy >>
        >
      • James Rovira
        Gad, come back after a month and Will s still saying the same thing. Bill deserves some credit for writing much more clearly than he has in the past, but he s
        Message 3 of 4 , May 24, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Gad, come back after a month and Will's still saying the same thing.
          Bill deserves some credit for writing much more clearly than he has in
          the past, but he's still equating Hegel and Kierkegaard -- which on
          some points is valid, but on others, not.

          Will has written a great deal about subjectivity and reflection in the
          past and seemed to wind up with a workable, clear, and accurate
          definition (faithful to Kierkegaard as far as it goes). Reflection,
          if I recall Will correctly, is the self's grasp of itself, and the
          self is the act of grasping and the grasping itself.

          Now it's my turn to repeat myself: Either/Or I and II both
          consistently emphasize both continuity and discontinuity (in the form
          of an absolute disjunction) in the leap from the aesthetic to the
          ethical sphere. Will emphasizes discontinuity and simply ignores what
          E/O identfies as continuity. I've already quoted the texts to him and
          he just responds with something along the lines of, "Of course you'd
          point that out," but didn't really wrestle with Kierkegaard's text.

          The next limitation I see in Will's perspective is that discontinuity
          is itself a relative term, depending on the subjectivity involved.
          From the POV of the ethical individual, there is an absolute
          disjunction between his present self and his past, aesthetic self.
          From the POV of Religiousness A or B, however, the only absolute
          disjunction exists between RA and RB: all previous stages are
          "immanent" in various ways while RB alone breaks with immanence. This
          is all explained in CUP.

          So Will repeated himself, Bill repeated himself, and I've repeated
          myself. In the future I suggest we just copy and paste old posts back
          to one another. Saves reading and writing time.

          Jim R
        • Will Brown
          Bill, thanks for answering. This group needed a jump start and you do seem jumpy [place chuckle here]. Hey, you ve got me all figured out, so I have no
          Message 4 of 4 , May 24, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            Bill, thanks for answering. This group needed a jump start and you do seem jumpy [place chuckle here]. Hey, you've got me all figured out, so I have no response. Mu!   


            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" wilbro99@
            > wrote:
            > Willy, It is extremely simplistic, to think Kierkegaard can define
            > subjectivity, and then go on to create a philosophy. Philosophy for
            > both Kierekegaard and Hegel begins by avoiding to posit such a
            > principle, since this will only lead to an infinite regress. Both
            > seek a method by which to understand the study of philosophy without
            > controdiction.
            >
            > Your lack of understanding of what Kierkegaard is trying to
            > accomplish leaves you always seeking to fill in some sort of mystery
            > that supposedly Kierkegaard leaves open. Someone in the esthitic
            > sphere is commiting a mistake. This can be seen more clearly in
            > Hegel. I agree there need be no connection with the next sphere.
            > Hegel doesn't bother trying to explain every transisition either.
            > But, he does explain that the self is /active/. The self finds an
            > explination for realising it is better than not having any
            > explination at all. The self is always seeking itself, unlike all of
            > eastern philosophy.
            >
            > You misunderstand Kierkegaard by failing to understand the nature of
            > his subjectivity. Like Hegel's, but unlike yourself, for Kierkegaard
            > the self is seeking eternity, or to be unique. For you however,
            > uniqueness is just a silly question that you can't answer. In
            > eastern philosophy there is revelation, but for Kierkegaard
            > revelation involves a self that actively seeks its own self-
            > affirmation. It does accept what it is being "taught", for example.
            > It unlike your thinking doesn't just fall from the sky. There is a
            > decieveness about the transistions in Hegel and Kierkegaard that is
            > missing in your understanding of Kierkegaard.
            >
            > I highly recommend you get a copy of Between Kant and Hegel, and see
            > how the definition of subjectivity changes from one philosopher to
            > the other, but remains consitent for both Kierkegaard and Hegel
            > (though the authour compares the self of Kierkegaard to a longing, or
            > privation).
            >
            > Subjectivity means what is priviledged to a single individual. The
            > problem for Kierkegaard is /how/ this is possible. Like those
            > previous he sees the difficulty with trying to understand reflection.
            > This is what you over look before you go on and try to mediate it
            > with your two-selves theory.
            >
            > You claim to know that Kierkegaard is concerned with 'subjectivity'.
            > Well, what does he mean by it? What is his conception of
            > subjectivity? I don't believe you will be able to formulate a
            > principle unless you understand what he means by reflectivity, and
            > how he tries to overcome it.
            >
            > Reflectivity, or reflection, takes the immediate starting point to be
            > something inessential.
            >
            > The problem since Descartes, is how would one be /certain/ of such a
            > starting point? Kierkegaard believes such an understanding to be
            > false, as you agree, but how does he explain this without an infinite
            > regress?
            >
            > If you want to compare this idea of reflection to eastern philosophy,
            > then that is not something unique to your own analysis. Others have
            > done it. In The Logic of Hegel's Logic, John W. Burbidge compares
            > Hegel's understanding of reflection to "maya" (see pages 62-3.).
            >
            > Bill
            >
            >
            > >
            > > Ok, it is time to breath some life into this baby. Here is a post I
            > have
            > > not yet posted in Don's group. I will post it tomorrow in response
            > to
            > > something Seattle Bill wrote. If it stirs anyone into action, all
            > the
            > > better.
            > >
            > > << Bill, the difficulty between us here boils down to the fact that
            > that
            > > there are two incommensurate ways of reading the message that is
            > > Kierkegaard. That difference can be pinned down as to how the
            > transition
            > > from the esthetic sphere of existence to the ethical sphere of
            > existence
            > > is taken. Either one views the spheres as representing a category of
            > > self in which there is absolutely no connection between the self
            > that
            > > defines the esthetic sphere and the self that defines the ethical
            > sphere
            > > or one does not. Your view does not, which indicates that the
            > category
            > > of self you and I entertain, when it comes to interpreting
            > Kierkegaard,
            > > is of such a difference as to represent separate universes of
            > discourse.
            > >
            > > If the subject of Kierkegaard's message is subjectivity, which I
            > see it
            > > as being, then you and I will never agree. You will continue to see
            > my
            > > view as not addressing Kierkegaard's message. Since you cannot
            > imagine
            > > what I am going on about, you will continually say that I am not
            > > addressing anything other than what I imagine. Your
            > characterization of
            > > my view, however, is something I do find entertaining, so, please,
            > > please, do not cease trying to reprogram me. ----willy >>
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.