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

Re: No Justifications

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Bill, never mind, my source gave me the correction; it is below what you offered. You changed the period to a comma and added your extra line. I guess you did
    Message 1 of 92 , Sep 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Bill, never mind, my source gave me the correction; it is below what you offered. You changed the period to a comma and added your extra line. I guess you did all of that before you had your morning cup of coffee.  wb

      Bill: "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".

      Westphal: "But with references to ethical-religious matters, or what Kierkegaard calls eternal truth, 'the crowd is untruth,' that is, human consensus is not the final standard. Moreover, here a more radical democracy obtains, for here there are no experts and all are equally learners. This is why 'it is only religion that can, with the help of eternity, carry human equality to the eternal limitÂ…[and why] religion is the true humanity.'  (PV, 107-118) The only teachers here are God and the apostle, who, by a miracle that can be believed but not guaranteed by either authority or social institutions, speaks as the direct representative of God. In matters of spirit, short of apostolic authority, the pastor, the professor, and yes, even the genius, are every bit as much learners as those they would instruct. Under the rubric "without authority" Kiekegaard voluntary adopts this posture as an essentially religious act."


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > 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 kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.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 kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" wilbro99@
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > apoorear is a tad better than those who do not have "an ear to
      > > hear".
      > > >
      > > > (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
      > > aesthetic
      > > > 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
      > > of
      > > > 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
      > > space,
      > > > and as a consequence the religious condition: simultaneously to be
      > > out
      > > > 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-
      > > views
      > > > or stages.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > (jj) That, of course, does depend upon who the reader is. I
      > > understand
      > > > that there are some who might disagree with you.
      > > >
      > > > (jjj) A poor ear, that is good! ~~~~willy
      > > >
      > > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.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
      > > life
      > > > > is somehow superior to an ethical life or an ethical life to an
      > > > > aesthetic one.
      > > > >
      > > > > (ii) They contain no attempt whatsoever to describe realistic
      > > life-
      > > > > views or stages.
      > > > >
      > > > > Any thoughts?
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Bill
      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
      Message 92 of 92 , Sep 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
        <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
        >
        > See, Bill, I think we're reading apoorear's posts differently.
        From my
        > point of view, I'm the one saying there's ultimately no single, set
        > interpretation, while he's saying there is (i.e., the theory of the
        stages
        > has "no justification" at all).
        >
        > I think Kierkegaard follows the methodology Plato described in his
        7th
        > letter--dialogic rather than direct description of the thing, so
        that the
        > writing provokes meditation upon the subject (God, etc.), without
        giving
        > definitive answers. When K did rely on definitive answers, they
        came from
        > Christian dogma, and they were used as the starting point for
        thought, not
        > the end point.
        >
        > Jim R
        >
        > On 9/7/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Jim R., I know my remark about interpreting Kierkegaard based
        on a
        > > poll might be misinterpreted. But, thanks for your remarks.
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.