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

Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Concept of Anxiety

Expand Messages
  • Roger Clough
    Jim R, How would I find a quote except by chance ? Or spending hours looking through a text ? I don t have the time or energy. - Roger ... From: James Rovira
    Message 1 of 25 , Mar 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim R,
       
      How would I find a quote except by chance ?
      Or spending hours looking through a text ?
      I don't have the time or energy.
       
      - Roger 
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:09 AM
      Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Concept of Anxiety

      Roger:

      If you want to make points about Kierkegaard, can you quote
      Kierkegaard directly, explain your reading of him, etc?

      Jim R


      Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 24/06/2007 8:33 AM
    • James Rovira
      Roger, if you re writing about Kierkegaard I assume you re reading Kierkegaard, and if you re reading Kierkegaard I assume you have an idea where to begin
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Roger, if you're writing about Kierkegaard I assume you're reading
        Kierkegaard, and if you're reading Kierkegaard I assume you have an
        idea where to begin looking to support your ideas about Kierkegaard.

        Jim R

        On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Roger Clough <rclough@...> wrote:

        >
        > Jim R,
        >
        > How would I find a quote except by chance ?
        > Or spending hours looking through a text ?
        > I don't have the time or energy.
        >
        > - Roger
      • Roger Clough
        Jim R, Sorry, that was a little harsh of me. I suppose I can find quotes at online philosophy sites. - Roger ... From: James Rovira To:
        Message 3 of 25 , Apr 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Jim R,
           
          Sorry, that was a little harsh of me.
          I suppose I can find quotes at online
          philosophy sites.
           
          - Roger
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:29 AM
          Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Concept of Anxiety

          Roger, if you're writing about Kierkegaard I assume you're reading
          Kierkegaard, and if you're reading Kierkegaard I assume you have an
          idea where to begin looking to support your ideas about Kierkegaard.

          Jim R

          On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Roger Clough <rclough@verizon. net> wrote:

          >
          > Jim R,
          >
          > How would I find a quote except by chance ?
          > Or spending hours looking through a text ?
          > I don't have the time or energy.
          >
          > - Roger


          Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 24/06/2007 8:33 AM
        • Donald Anderson
          JR, I keep thinking about several posts you have made recently including the one below. I have also been rereading the Introduction to CA. I tend to agree that
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 12, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

            JR, I keep thinking about several posts you have made recently including the one below. I have also been rereading the Introduction to CA. I tend to agree that some of what you say below is the case there but it oversimpifies what is said. Be that as it may for now at least I want to concentrate on this one phrase:

            Ethics is simply the study of right and wrong.

            I am wondering if this statement is adequate seeing that K as H talks about a first ethics and a second ethics. Why does he make this distinction if its all about the simple study of right and wrong? Isn't there more to it than simply the study of right and wrong?

            Don

             


            > Dear David:
            >
            > If you're reading Haufniensis's discussion of the various fields of
            > logic, psychology, ethics, religion, in Concept of Anxiety, I believe
            > he is using these words in very common senses. He's specifically
            > criticizing Hegel on a few points. Ethics is simply the study of
            > right and wrong; psychology the study of human emotion and thought and
            > development; logic just that -- the Aristotelian discipline; and
            > religion or "dogmatics" the systematic presentation of revealed
            > truths. These are distinct fields of study that Haufniensis believes
            > Hegel and Danish Hegelianism confuses.
            >
            > Jim R
            >

          • Roger Clough
            To all, Faith is an undeserved gift from God. It s grace. - Roger ... From: Donald Anderson To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 12, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              To all,
               
              Faith is an undeserved gift from God. It's grace.
               
              - Roger
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:03 AM
              Subject: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Concept of Anxiety

              JR, I keep thinking about several posts you have made recently including the one below. I have also been rereading the Introduction to CA. I tend to agree that some of what you say below is the case there but it oversimpifies what is said. Be that as it may for now at least I want to concentrate on this one phrase:

              Ethics is simply the study of right and wrong.

              I am wondering if this statement is adequate seeing that K as H talks about a first ethics and a second ethics. Why does he make this distinction if its all about the simple study of right and wrong? Isn't there more to it than simply the study of right and wrong?

              Don

               


              > Dear David:
              >
              > If you're reading Haufniensis' s discussion of the various fields of
              > logic, psychology, ethics, religion, in Concept of Anxiety, I believe
              > he is using these words in very common senses. He's specifically
              > criticizing Hegel on a few points. Ethics is simply the study of
              > right and wrong; psychology the study of human emotion and thought and
              > development; logic just that -- the Aristotelian discipline; and
              > religion or "dogmatics" the systematic presentation of revealed
              > truths. These are distinct fields of study that Haufniensis believes
              > Hegel and Danish Hegelianism confuses.
              >
              > Jim R
              >


              Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 24/06/2007 8:33 AM
            • James Rovira
              Don: Thanks for the reply. Yes, the post you re responding to is a great simplification, perhaps even an oversimplification, but I don t think what I wrote
              Message 6 of 25 , Apr 12, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Don:

                Thanks for the reply. Yes, the post you're responding to is a great
                simplification, perhaps even an oversimplification, but I don't think
                what I wrote was inaccurate. No simplifications tell the whole story.
                They all need to be filled out with detail. You point to detail that
                needs to be added to my oversimplification of ethics as "the study of
                right and wrong."

                First ethics in CA seems to me to refer to "the ethical sphere"
                itself: ethical requirements always entail legitimate demands and it
                is assumed that if there is an ethical requirement we are able to do
                it.

                The problem with first ethics is the fact of human fallenness -- we
                are not in fact able to carry out all legitimate ethical requirements
                so first ethics gets shipwrecked on human weakness.

                Second ethics takes into account human weakness and offers help: the
                forgiveness of sins, the atonement, etc. Second ethics are Christian
                ethics.

                However, I don't think specific ethical demands are different in first
                or second ethics. How the individual relates to these ethical
                requirements differs...

                Jim R
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.