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

Re: The Stages in E/O 1

Expand Messages
  • Bill
    apoorear, Plants may not think their development, but as far as I know part of their development is not to understand that they don t acknowledge the unreason
    Message 1 of 50 , Sep 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      apoorear, Plants may not think their development, but as far as I
      know part of their development is not to understand that they don't
      acknowledge the unreason of their developoment. Their actual
      development occurs by other means, or what we term 'natural'. This
      obviously is not Kierkegaard's them of human responbsibility.

      If there are other means for our development, then these are
      acknowledged by letting them speak for themselves. Plants can't
      attribute natual or any other means to their development, since they
      can't reason.

      Again, why not discuss Kierkegaard using his own words instead of
      your own? Bill
      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, apoorear <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Just in case he has forgotten, Jim R. wrote:
      >
      > >The meat of your response here is that the erotic stages are
      clearly a
      > Hegelian structure, and can we attribute to> >Kierkegaard, the great
      > critic of Hegel and Danish Hegelianism, the creation and support of
      > something so Hegelian? This >is equivalent, though, to saying that
      the
      > Aesthete does understand the stages as descriptive of defining
      > characteristics >of persons.
      >
      > >Of course he does. It would really be a waste of time to talk
      about the
      > stages in any other way. Why bother writing >about an insignificant
      > part of a person's life? And if they aren't characteristics of
      persons
      > as a whole, how can we talk >about them as a form of -development-?
      >
      >
      > Each of these claims, as they stand, is manifestly false. No need
      for
      > distortion on my part.
      >
      > (i) It is false that 'the meat' of my argument was that
      Kierkegaard is
      > anti-Hegel. It was, rather, that the idea of world-historical
      > development (the Hegel-aesthete framework) is not what most people
      want
      > to attribute to Kierkegaard, even when they do want to attribute to
      him
      > a theory of stages.
      >
      > (ii) It is false that the claim that that the aesthete works
      within a
      > Hegelian framework of world-historical development is equivalent
      to the
      > claim that the aesthete offers a theory of personality-types . For
      if
      > anyone worked within a Hegelian framework it was surely Hegel
      himself,
      > but (as J. R. now seems to have realized) Hegel did not identify his
      > account of world-historical development with a taxonomy of
      > personality-types.
      >
      > (iv) It is false that it is just obvious, or a matter of course,
      that
      > the aesthete describes personality-types. There is, at the very
      least,
      > room for debate.
      >
      > (v) It is false that it would be a waste of time to talk about
      stages in
      > any way other than as theories of whole personality-types -
      developing,
      > say, a theory of erotic desire, and nothing else, would itself be a
      > interesting endeavour.
      >
      > (vi) It is false that in order to talk about a theory of stages as a
      > theory of development we must think of it as a theory of personality
      > types - this can be seen clearly from the case of a theory of the
      > development of plants, for example.
      >
      > I feel I'm being overly charitable in characterizing J.R's matchless
      > prose as a catalogue of errors. For all these manifestly false
      claims
      > were also deeply insulting in the context of our discussion.
      >
      >
      > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
      <jamesrovira@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > I can't let this pass--and it was not addressed in my previous
      > response to
      > > apoorear:
      > >
      > > <<But I will just say this: it is totally crass of you (I'm
      tempted to
      > say:
      > > stunted) to assume that any 'theory of stages' must somehow be
      about
      > the
      > > development of a person's life as a whole. It is absolutely clear
      that
      > the
      > > theory of stages of *Geist *in Hegel's *Phenomenology*, for
      example,
      > has
      > > nothing whatsoever to do with the development of an individual's
      life.
      > It's
      > > also perfectly clear that, if Mozart''s *Don Giovanni *is
      supposed to
      > > express the culmination of erotic desire, it does not follow that
      the
      > > demonic don is supposed to represent some (real or ideal) human
      > > personality-type. But - if your addled brain finds these examples
      too
      > subtle
      > > - think of a plant: of course we can say that it has stages of
      > development
      > > without attributing to it a personality-type or anything of the
      > sort.>>
      > >
      > > The above, to me, is about a clear an example of a subtle and
      elegant
      > > Completely Not Getting it possible. Yes, it is possible to talk
      about
      > a
      > > theory of the stages that doesn't pertain to human beings. Of
      course
      > > Hegel's description of the development of the Absolute Idea is
      not a
      > > description of any individual human development (or is it? Adorno
      said
      > that
      > > if Marx turned Hegel upside down, Kierkegaard turned him outside
      in),
      > and of
      > > course we can talk about stages in the development of plant and
      animal
      > life,
      > > etc., that have no bearing upon human development.
      > >
      > > But -the point- is that the Aesthete is -not- talking about
      anything
      > other
      > > than -human beings- when he's talking about the stages of erotic
      > desire, and
      > > that it doesn't make sense to talk about these at all unless they
      were
      > > defining characteristics of whole persons. I provided several
      > quotations to
      > > support this view; you did not bother to provide any in your
      > "refutation,"
      > > choosing instead to evade the issue with personal attacks.
      > >
      > > Jim R
      > >
      >
    • Bill
      apoorear, Plants may not think their development, but as far as I know part of their development is not to understand that they don t acknowledge the unreason
      Message 50 of 50 , Sep 27, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        apoorear, Plants may not think their development, but as far as I
        know part of their development is not to understand that they don't
        acknowledge the unreason of their developoment. Their actual
        development occurs by other means, or what we term 'natural'. This
        obviously is not Kierkegaard's them of human responbsibility.

        If there are other means for our development, then these are
        acknowledged by letting them speak for themselves. Plants can't
        attribute natual or any other means to their development, since they
        can't reason.

        Again, why not discuss Kierkegaard using his own words instead of
        your own? Bill
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, apoorear <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Just in case he has forgotten, Jim R. wrote:
        >
        > >The meat of your response here is that the erotic stages are
        clearly a
        > Hegelian structure, and can we attribute to> >Kierkegaard, the great
        > critic of Hegel and Danish Hegelianism, the creation and support of
        > something so Hegelian? This >is equivalent, though, to saying that
        the
        > Aesthete does understand the stages as descriptive of defining
        > characteristics >of persons.
        >
        > >Of course he does. It would really be a waste of time to talk
        about the
        > stages in any other way. Why bother writing >about an insignificant
        > part of a person's life? And if they aren't characteristics of
        persons
        > as a whole, how can we talk >about them as a form of -development-?
        >
        >
        > Each of these claims, as they stand, is manifestly false. No need
        for
        > distortion on my part.
        >
        > (i) It is false that 'the meat' of my argument was that
        Kierkegaard is
        > anti-Hegel. It was, rather, that the idea of world-historical
        > development (the Hegel-aesthete framework) is not what most people
        want
        > to attribute to Kierkegaard, even when they do want to attribute to
        him
        > a theory of stages.
        >
        > (ii) It is false that the claim that that the aesthete works
        within a
        > Hegelian framework of world-historical development is equivalent
        to the
        > claim that the aesthete offers a theory of personality-types . For
        if
        > anyone worked within a Hegelian framework it was surely Hegel
        himself,
        > but (as J. R. now seems to have realized) Hegel did not identify his
        > account of world-historical development with a taxonomy of
        > personality-types.
        >
        > (iv) It is false that it is just obvious, or a matter of course,
        that
        > the aesthete describes personality-types. There is, at the very
        least,
        > room for debate.
        >
        > (v) It is false that it would be a waste of time to talk about
        stages in
        > any way other than as theories of whole personality-types -
        developing,
        > say, a theory of erotic desire, and nothing else, would itself be a
        > interesting endeavour.
        >
        > (vi) It is false that in order to talk about a theory of stages as a
        > theory of development we must think of it as a theory of personality
        > types - this can be seen clearly from the case of a theory of the
        > development of plants, for example.
        >
        > I feel I'm being overly charitable in characterizing J.R's matchless
        > prose as a catalogue of errors. For all these manifestly false
        claims
        > were also deeply insulting in the context of our discussion.
        >
        >
        > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
        <jamesrovira@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > I can't let this pass--and it was not addressed in my previous
        > response to
        > > apoorear:
        > >
        > > <<But I will just say this: it is totally crass of you (I'm
        tempted to
        > say:
        > > stunted) to assume that any 'theory of stages' must somehow be
        about
        > the
        > > development of a person's life as a whole. It is absolutely clear
        that
        > the
        > > theory of stages of *Geist *in Hegel's *Phenomenology*, for
        example,
        > has
        > > nothing whatsoever to do with the development of an individual's
        life.
        > It's
        > > also perfectly clear that, if Mozart''s *Don Giovanni *is
        supposed to
        > > express the culmination of erotic desire, it does not follow that
        the
        > > demonic don is supposed to represent some (real or ideal) human
        > > personality-type. But - if your addled brain finds these examples
        too
        > subtle
        > > - think of a plant: of course we can say that it has stages of
        > development
        > > without attributing to it a personality-type or anything of the
        > sort.>>
        > >
        > > The above, to me, is about a clear an example of a subtle and
        elegant
        > > Completely Not Getting it possible. Yes, it is possible to talk
        about
        > a
        > > theory of the stages that doesn't pertain to human beings. Of
        course
        > > Hegel's description of the development of the Absolute Idea is
        not a
        > > description of any individual human development (or is it? Adorno
        said
        > that
        > > if Marx turned Hegel upside down, Kierkegaard turned him outside
        in),
        > and of
        > > course we can talk about stages in the development of plant and
        animal
        > life,
        > > etc., that have no bearing upon human development.
        > >
        > > But -the point- is that the Aesthete is -not- talking about
        anything
        > other
        > > than -human beings- when he's talking about the stages of erotic
        > desire, and
        > > that it doesn't make sense to talk about these at all unless they
        were
        > > defining characteristics of whole persons. I provided several
        > quotations to
        > > support this view; you did not bother to provide any in your
        > "refutation,"
        > > choosing instead to evade the issue with personal attacks.
        > >
        > > Jim R
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.