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

Re: No Justifications

Expand Messages
  • KTP
    Sorry Apo. You have to add the stuff from the second line. But, if you go to my member profile and look at the picture. That s it. BTW, google up Karagiozis
    Message 1 of 92 , Sep 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Sorry Apo. You have to add the stuff from the second line. But, if you go to my member profile and look at the picture. That's it.

      BTW, google up 'Karagiozis' for some background.

      'Karagioz the Prophet'X-(


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, apoorear <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thought I was on to something - but the link didn't work!
      >


      > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "KTP" nnn88388@ wrote:
      > >
      > > I think you may have hit on something enlightening here, Apoo!
      > > KTP
      > >
      > http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/4475d571z96927e07/nnn88388/__sr_/77f0s
      > c
      > > d.jpg?pfp9E3GB6m5vtEoH
      > > >
      > > > (I have one suggestion: think of how a caricature works to
      > clarify
      > > its
      > > > subject)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
      > > <jamesrovira@>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Ha..yeah, apoorear should have no problem getting the issues
      > > involved
      > > > in
      > > > > pseudonymity and the relationship of the names to the
      > > personalities
      > > > > involved. Should have a very good ear for that.
      > > > >
      > > > > I agree that much of this is subject to interpretation, but I
      > > don't
      > > > think
      > > > > its so much an interpretation of any individual work --
      > Climacus
      > > seems
      > > > very
      > > > > clear about how he feels about both these issues -- but an
      > > > interpretation of
      > > > > Kierkegaard's intent for the pseudonymous authorship as a whole
      > > > observed
      > > > > from a third position. If we take all pseudonyms as being
      > equal
      > > with
      > > > > Kierkegaard equally distant from them all, then I think
      > there's
      > > quite
      > > > a bit
      > > > > of justification for what apoorear says.
      > > > >
      > > > > However, I don't think that Kierkegaard is equally distant
      > from
      > > all
      > > > his
      > > > > pseudonyms. Concept of Anxiety was attributed to a pseudonym
      > > almost at
      > > > the
      > > > > last minute and changes were somewhat rushed. Kierkegaard lists
      > > > himself as
      > > > > editor of CUP. He also describes the position of the different
      > > > pseudonyms
      > > > > themselves in terms of developmental stages, and does this in
      > > Point of
      > > > View
      > > > > -- which he self-described as a "direct communication" and
      > signed
      > > > himself:
      > > > >
      > > > > <<The movement the authorship describes is: from "the poet,"
      > from
      > > the
      > > > > estheticĀ—from "the philosopher," from the speculativeĀ—to the
      > > > indication of
      > > > > the most inward qualification of the essentially Christian;
      > from
      > > the
      > > > > pseudonymous Either/Or, through Concluding Postscript, with my
      > > name as
      > > > > editor, to Discourses at the Communion on Fridays, of which
      > two
      > > were
      > > > > delivered in Frue Church. (POV 5-6 his emphases)>>
      > > > >
      > > > > CUP is clearly a middle work, both in terms of the
      > transitional
      > > stages
      > > > and
      > > > > in terms of closeness to Kierkegaard's own position. It is not
      > > > completely
      > > > > pseudonymous nor is it signed: he's an editor.
      > > > >
      > > > > At any rate, I don't think we can treat all pseudonymous works
      > the
      > > > same.
      > > > >
      > > > > Jim R
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > On 8/31/07, Will Brown wilbro99@ wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > (jjj) A poor ear, that is good! ~~~~*willy *
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >

    • 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.