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

Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: The Royal Joust--Sixth Tilt

Expand Messages
  • James Rovira
    Don -- Do you really think K is indifferent to the object of our faith? For example, in this sentence:
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Don --

      Do you really think K is indifferent to the object of our faith? For
      example, in this sentence:

      <<Our expectation is of reaching "The Good," the unknown goal, but we
      do not know and cannot say what "The Good" is or will be. It isn't
      even a concern or at least should not be.>>

      You don't think K identified "the good" with the Christian God? What
      constitutes the paradox of RB, then?

      Jim R
    • Don
      Aloha, How does anything I said translate to indifference? don
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Aloha,
        How does anything I said translate to
        indifference?
        don

        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
        >
        > Don --
        >
        > Do you really think K is indifferent to the object of our faith? For
        > example, in this sentence:
        >
        > <<Our expectation is of reaching "The Good," the unknown goal, but we
        > do not know and cannot say what "The Good" is or will be. It isn't
        > even a concern or at least should not be.>>
        >
        > You don't think K identified "the good" with the Christian God? What
        > constitutes the paradox of RB, then?
        >
        > Jim R
        >
      • Don
        Woilly, And who s the they that did the kicking? You seem a bit too familiar with the situation. I wondered who was behind the conspiracy. Now it all starts to
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Woilly,
          And who's the they that did the kicking? You seem a bit too familiar with the situation. I wondered who was behind the conspiracy. Now it all starts to clear up.
          Don the Beachcomber


          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > So, they kicked you out of Santa Rosa area, eh, serves you right.
          >
          > <<Perhaps our disagreement is a figment of your very fertile
          > imagination.>>
          >
          > More than likely. [wb]
          >
        • Will Brown
          They is perhaps a figment of your over fertile imagination? ... all
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            They is perhaps a figment of your over fertile imagination?   

            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Don" <don@...> wrote:
            >
            > Woilly,
            > And who's the they that did the kicking? You seem a bit too familiar
            > with the situation. I wondered who was behind the conspiracy. Now it all
            > starts to clear up.
            > Don the Beachcomber
            >
            > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" wilbro99@
            > wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > So, they kicked you out of Santa Rosa area, eh, serves you right.
            > >
            > > <<Perhaps our disagreement is a figment of your very fertile
            > > imagination.>>
            > >
            > > More than likely. [wb]
            > >
            >
          • Don
            James, Getting back to this post let me say I think I at least partly address your question in post 7118 To Willy. But I want to point out that my quote below
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 5, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              James,
              Getting back to this post let me say I think I at least partly address your question in post 7118 To Willy. But I want to point out that my quote below capitalizes 'The Good.' The capitalization has meaning to me in that I am not talking a bout any thing but only 'The Good.' Do you still want to ask your question?
              Don

              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
              >
              > Don --
              >
              > Do you really think K is indifferent to the object of our faith? For
              > example, in this sentence:
              >
              > <<Our expectation is of reaching "The Good," the unknown goal, but we
              > do not know and cannot say what "The Good" is or will be. It isn't
              > even a concern or at least should not be.>>
              >
              > You don't think K identified "the good" with the Christian God? What
              > constitutes the paradox of RB, then?
              >
              > Jim R
              >
            • James Rovira
              Don -- Thanks for the reply. Post 7118 does and does not answer my question. Here s your response:
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Don -- Thanks for the reply. Post 7118 does and does not answer my
                question. Here's your response:

                <<The third is always only God, the infinite, and the infinite always
                trumps the human in terms of who is in control whether we call it fate
                or God or the eternal or whatever. What we call it is not important,
                how we respond is.>>

                When you say at first without qualification that "the third is always
                only God, the infinite," yes, I think that is K's point of view.

                But you go on to say it doesn't matter what we call it -- fate, God,
                or the eternal -- but how we respond to it is important. That I don't
                think is K's view at all. It does matter what we call it in K. CA
                makes a very serious distinction between "fate," which is a
                Greek/aesthetic category, and the ethical (represented by Judaism),
                and the religious (represented by Christianity properly related to).

                Now when you identify "the Good" in caps, that seems to me to point to
                Greek conceptions, specifically Socratic. And I think K starts there
                but develops it into a very specific Christian notion.

                So, anyway, if you'd still like to elaborate, I'd appreciate it.

                Jim R

                On Dec 5, 2007 7:29 PM, Don <don@...> wrote:

                > James,
                > Getting back to this post let me say I think I at least partly address your
                > question in post 7118 To Willy. But I want to point out that my quote below
                > capitalizes 'The Good.' The capitalization has meaning to me in that I am
                > not talking a bout any thing but only 'The Good.' Do you still want to ask
                > your question?
                > Don
              • Don
                James, you are thinking in terms of conception. That is different from what I am talking about. I am talking about the existential fact, what happens. It is
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  James, you are thinking in terms of conception. That is different from what I am talking about. I am talking about the existential fact, what happens. It is the same existential reality no matter what you call it. The concept you use to reflect on the reality is likely to have an effect on how you respond to it  but it doesn't change the way the fact or reality presents itself. Things happen to us in life, things we have little if anything to say about and have little if any control over. We can call these things fate or we can call them an act of God but that does not change what has happened and what will happen in the future. The concepts you use to reflect on what has happened may effect how you respond, yet if you have a wrong concept and somehow respond rightly, will God quibble about your concept and condemn your right action? If your an enlightenment rationalist God you probably will but if your K's God you will not. How you respond is the bottom line. What you call it is secondary and matters only if it leads you to the wrong 'how.' However grace overcomes even a wrong how. The task is to venture even with a wrong concept and a wrong how rather than sit back and keep analyzing the situation ad infinitum. As you keep on this way you have a chance to finally get it right as you grapple with the reality as it is. If you sit back and keep working on the conception you will never get it right.
                  DDD

                  --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Don -- Thanks for the reply. Post 7118 does and does not answer my
                  > question. Here's your response:
                  >
                  > <<The third is always only God, the infinite, and the infinite always
                  > trumps the human in terms of who is in control whether we call it fate
                  > or God or the eternal or whatever. What we call it is not important,
                  > how we respond is.>>
                  >
                  > When you say at first without qualification that "the third is always
                  > only God, the infinite," yes, I think that is K's point of view.
                  >
                  > But you go on to say it doesn't matter what we call it -- fate, God,
                  > or the eternal -- but how we respond to it is important. That I don't
                  > think is K's view at all. It does matter what we call it in K. CA
                  > makes a very serious distinction between "fate," which is a
                  > Greek/aesthetic category, and the ethical (represented by Judaism),
                  > and the religious (represented by Christianity properly related to).
                  >
                  > Now when you identify "the Good" in caps, that seems to me to point to
                  > Greek conceptions, specifically Socratic. And I think K starts there
                  > but develops it into a very specific Christian notion.
                  >
                  > So, anyway, if you'd still like to elaborate, I'd appreciate it.
                  >
                  > Jim R
                  >
                  > On Dec 5, 2007 7:29 PM, Don don@... wrote:
                  >
                  > > James,
                  > > Getting back to this post let me say I think I at least partly address your
                  > > question in post 7118 To Willy. But I want to point out that my quote below
                  > > capitalizes 'The Good.' The capitalization has meaning to me in that I am
                  > > not talking a bout any thing but only 'The Good.' Do you still want to ask
                  > > your question?
                  > > Don
                  >
                • James Rovira
                  I understand what you re saying, Don, but I have no idea how you can say this represents K s own belief. Can you quote from him showing me where he says
                  Message 8 of 16 , Dec 6, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I understand what you're saying, Don, but I have no idea how you can
                    say this represents K's own belief. Can you quote from him showing me
                    where he says something like, "it doesn't matter what you call it?"

                    On the most fundamental level, yes, God is God no matter what we
                    think. But to Kierkegaard, God is not Fate (see Concept of Anxiety),
                    and it does make a difference to -us- (a very big difference) whether
                    we conceive of God as the Christian God or as fate. So far as I can
                    tell, neither Kierkegaard nor his pseudonyms comment on what God
                    thinks if we call God, God, or if we call God, fate. They're
                    primarily concerned with the conception end of it, in your words.
                    They don't seem to have quite the same confidence you do that it
                    doesn't matter to God or that they could even know.

                    I would think that if something makes so big a difference to us that
                    it would make a difference to God as well, since I don't think God is
                    indifferent to us.

                    Jim R

                    On Dec 6, 2007 1:36 AM, Don <don@...> wrote:
                    > James, you are thinking in terms of conception. That is different from what
                    > I am talking about. I am talking about the existential fact, what happens.
                    > It is the same existential reality no matter what you call it. The concept
                    > you use to reflect on the reality is likely to have an effect on how you
                    > respond to it but it doesn't change the way the fact or reality presents
                    > itself. Things happen to us in life, things we have little if anything to
                    > say about and have little if any control over. We can call these things fate
                    > or we can call them an act of God but that does not change what has happened
                    > and what will happen in the future. The concepts you use to reflect on what
                    > has happened may effect how you respond, yet if you have a wrong concept and
                    > somehow respond rightly, will God quibble about your concept and condemn
                    > your right action? If your an enlightenment rationalist God you probably
                    > will but if your K's God you will not. How you respond is the bottom line.
                    > What you call it is secondary and matters only if it leads you to the wrong
                    > 'how.' However grace overcomes even a wrong how. The task is to venture even
                    > with a wrong concept and a wrong how rather than sit back and keep analyzing
                    > the situation ad infinitum. As you keep on this way you have a chance to
                    > finally get it right as you grapple with the reality as it is. If you sit
                    > back and keep working on the conception you will never get it right.
                    > DDD
                    >
                  • Don
                    Here is a quote: If someone who lives in the midst of Christianity enters, with the knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God, the house of the true
                    Message 9 of 16 , Dec 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Here is a quote:

                       "If someone who lives in the midst of Christianity enters, with the knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God, the house of the true God, and prays, but prays in untruth, and if someone who lives in an idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his eyes are resting upon an idol – where, then, is there more truth? The one prays in truth to God although he is worshipping an idol; the other prays in untruth to the true God and is therefore in truth worshipping an idol." (CUP, Hong, p. 201; Lowrie, p. 179-80)

                      Don
                      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I understand what you're saying, Don, but I have no idea how you can
                      > say this represents K's own belief. Can you quote from him showing me
                      > where he says something like, "it doesn't matter what you call it?"
                      >
                      > On the most fundamental level, yes, God is God no matter what we
                      > think. But to Kierkegaard, God is not Fate (see Concept of Anxiety),
                      > and it does make a difference to -us- (a very big difference) whether
                      > we conceive of God as the Christian God or as fate. So far as I can
                      > tell, neither Kierkegaard nor his pseudonyms comment on what God
                      > thinks if we call God, God, or if we call God, fate. They're
                      > primarily concerned with the conception end of it, in your words.
                      > They don't seem to have quite the same confidence you do that it
                      > doesn't matter to God or that they could even know.
                      >
                      > I would think that if something makes so big a difference to us that
                      > it would make a difference to God as well, since I don't think God is
                      > indifferent to us.
                      >
                      > Jim R
                      >
                      > On Dec 6, 2007 1:36 AM, Don don@... wrote:
                      > > James, you are thinking in terms of conception. That is different from what
                      > > I am talking about. I am talking about the existential fact, what happens.
                      > > It is the same existential reality no matter what you call it. The concept
                      > > you use to reflect on the reality is likely to have an effect on how you
                      > > respond to it but it doesn't change the way the fact or reality presents
                      > > itself. Things happen to us in life, things we have little if anything to
                      > > say about and have little if any control over. We can call these things fate
                      > > or we can call them an act of God but that does not change what has happened
                      > > and what will happen in the future. The concepts you use to reflect on what
                      > > has happened may effect how you respond, yet if you have a wrong concept and
                      > > somehow respond rightly, will God quibble about your concept and condemn
                      > > your right action? If your an enlightenment rationalist God you probably
                      > > will but if your K's God you will not. How you respond is the bottom line.
                      > > What you call it is secondary and matters only if it leads you to the wrong
                      > > 'how.' However grace overcomes even a wrong how. The task is to venture even
                      > > with a wrong concept and a wrong how rather than sit back and keep analyzing
                      > > the situation ad infinitum. As you keep on this way you have a chance to
                      > > finally get it right as you grapple with the reality as it is. If you sit
                      > > back and keep working on the conception you will never get it right.
                      > > DDD
                      > >
                      >
                    • James Rovira
                      Yes, Don, but the quotation assumes that there is a true God to which one may pray falsely to -- the words true God is associated with Christianity
                      Message 10 of 16 , Dec 6, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, Don, but the quotation assumes that there is a "true God" to
                        which one may pray falsely to -- the words "true God" is associated
                        with "Christianity" repeatedly in the opening lines, implying that the
                        idol is a "false god." Climacus's argument develops, and as he gets
                        to the end, he claims that we can only get the "how" right with the
                        right "what."

                        I think what's missed is Climacus's assumption of the universality of
                        Christianity -- the Christian God is the true God for all people in
                        K's thinking, so that if we pray "truly" we always pray -to the
                        Christian God- even if we mistake this for some idol or false god.

                        This is really no different from, say, C.S. Lewis's _The Last Battle_.

                        Jim R

                        On Dec 6, 2007 2:49 PM, Don <don@...> wrote:
                        > Here is a quote:
                        >
                        >
                        > "If someone who lives in the midst of Christianity enters, with the
                        > knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God, the house of the true
                        > God, and prays, but prays in untruth, and if someone who lives in an
                        > idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his
                        > eyes are resting upon an idol – where, then, is there more truth? The one
                        > prays in truth to God although he is worshipping an idol; the other prays in
                        > untruth to the true God and is therefore in truth worshipping an idol."
                        > (CUP, Hong, p. 201; Lowrie, p. 179-80) Don
                      • Don Anderson
                        I will drop this as your argument is circiling back. ... From: James Rovira To: Sent: Thursday,
                        Message 11 of 16 , Dec 6, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I will drop this as your argument is circiling back.
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "James Rovira" <jamesrovira@...>
                          To: <kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:01 AM
                          Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: The Good


                          Yes, Don, but the quotation assumes that there is a "true God" to
                          which one may pray falsely to -- the words "true God" is associated
                          with "Christianity" repeatedly in the opening lines, implying that the
                          idol is a "false god." Climacus's argument develops, and as he gets
                          to the end, he claims that we can only get the "how" right with the
                          right "what."

                          I think what's missed is Climacus's assumption of the universality of
                          Christianity -- the Christian God is the true God for all people in
                          K's thinking, so that if we pray "truly" we always pray -to the
                          Christian God- even if we mistake this for some idol or false god.

                          This is really no different from, say, C.S. Lewis's _The Last Battle_.

                          Jim R

                          On Dec 6, 2007 2:49 PM, Don <don@...> wrote:
                          > Here is a quote:
                          >
                          >
                          > "If someone who lives in the midst of Christianity enters, with the
                          > knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God, the house of the true
                          > God, and prays, but prays in untruth, and if someone who lives in an
                          > idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his
                          > eyes are resting upon an idol – where, then, is there more truth? The one
                          > prays in truth to God although he is worshipping an idol; the other prays
                          > in
                          > untruth to the true God and is therefore in truth worshipping an idol."
                          > (CUP, Hong, p. 201; Lowrie, p. 179-80) Don


                          To change subscription settings or unsubscribe, please visit
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kierkegaardians/.
                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.