Re: No Justifications
Bill, I have it on good authority (someone just sent me a note) that your quote of p. 13 is not correct; there is no ",as he [Kierkegaard] learns like his readers in his pseudonymous writings," and no use of the word 'pseudonymous' anywhere on the page. Perhaps you could correct the quote? wb
--- In email@example.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@...> wrote:
> From Westphal's Becoming a Self, p. 13
> "All are equally learners, as he [Kierkegaard] learns like his
> readers in his pseudonymously writings. The crowd is the untruth....
> This is why only religion is the only true humanity. The only
> teachers here are God and the apostle, Under the rubric "without
> authourity" Kiekegaard voluntary adopts this posture as essentially a
> religious act".
> "Kierkegaar ridicules the idea that the religlious character of his
> authourship could be established on his own say so (p. 14, ibid.)."
> "In spiritual things all receptivity is productivity (JP 1.878,
> Kierkegaard)." Bill
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Will Brown" wilbro99@
> > apoorear is a tad better than those who do not have "an ear to
> > (i) They contain no attempt whatsoever to show that a religious
> life is
> > somehow superior to an ethical life or an ethical life to an
> > one.
> > (j) Would you consider the following as an attempt?
> > "The ethical sphere is only a transition sphere, and therefore its
> > highest expression is repentance as a negative action. The esthetic
> > sphere is the sphere of immediacy, the ethical sphere is the sphere
> > requirement (and this requirement is so infinite that the individual
> > always goes bankrupt), the religious the sphere of fulfillment, but,
> > please note, not a fulfillment such as when one fills an alms box
> or a
> > sack of gold, for repentance has specifically created a boundless
> > and as a consequence the religious condition: simultaneously to be
> > on 70,000 fathoms of water and yet be joyful." (Stages, Hong, pp.
> > 476-77)
> > (ii) They contain no attempt whatsoever to describe realistic life-
> > or stages.
> > (jj) That, of course, does depend upon who the reader is. I
> > that there are some who might disagree with you.
> > (jjj) A poor ear, that is good! ~~~~willy
> > --- In email@example.com, apoorear <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to canvass two negative theses about K's psuedonymous
> > > writings:
> > >
> > > (i) They contain no attempt whatsoever to show that a religious
> > > is somehow superior to an ethical life or an ethical life to an
> > > aesthetic one.
> > >
> > > (ii) They contain no attempt whatsoever to describe realistic
> > > views or stages.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
- Jim R., Thanks for your clarity.
But, if I'm not mistaken Kierkegaard writes that the self is
exhausted from the experience of God entering time, and therefore the
outcome of God's 'necessity' occurs with freedom. But, I don't
believe that Kierkegaard gives a positive account of freedom. If
there is mediation then it would be by becoming a third term by which
the self understands itself in terms of the power that constituted
it. In other words, the addressing of the the Other (God) is
inseperable to undertanding him, because we are given
the "condition". In understanding one's relation with God one also
is in a position to tell him my understanding. One does not refer to
God against the "background" of one's freedom, or 'power' to
determine him. I offer to God the expression of my understanding
that is already the 'conditon' for understanding him.
I'll let Levinas speak for himself, and welcome your interpretation.
"The relation to the other is therefore not ontology. This bond with
the other which is not reducible to the representation of the other,
but to his invocation, and in which invocation is not preceded by an
understanding, I call /religion/. (p. 7, Entre Nous, Levinas,E.,
Smith & Harshav, trans.)." Bill
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James Rovira"
> See, Bill, I think we're reading apoorear's posts differently.
> point of view, I'm the one saying there's ultimately no single, setstages
> interpretation, while he's saying there is (i.e., the theory of the
> has "no justification" at all).7th
> I think Kierkegaard follows the methodology Plato described in his
> letter--dialogic rather than direct description of the thing, sothat the
> writing provokes meditation upon the subject (God, etc.), withoutgiving
> definitive answers. When K did rely on definitive answers, theycame from
> Christian dogma, and they were used as the starting point forthought, not
> the end point.on a
> Jim R
> On 9/7/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:
> > Jim R., I know my remark about interpreting Kierkegaard based
> > poll might be misinterpreted. But, thanks for your remarks.