Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Reflection and Consciousness plus
- Ha...make a deal with you, Don. You pull your head out, I'll pull the
Will be getting to your post soon, though.
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Donald Anderson <don@...> wrote:
> R, I hope that big bug crawles out real soon.
JimS, Thanks for this post. Good to hear from you. Don't be such a stranger. There is no need to go over the old ground. I am quite well aware of it. But I do disagree with both you and JimR as I did with Willy. More later.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
> You write:
> "In short Silentio sees ethics as outer while Climacus sees ethics as inner; Silentio is using ethics as defined by the Hegelians which basically means that personal ethics are simply an appropriation of the laws of the state and society (Sittlichkeit) while Climacus defines ethics as essentially subjectivity or inwardness. Sittlichkeit, the ethical, according to Hegel, is "the ethical life of a people" which belongs to "objective spirit." Climacus speaks of the ethical which belongs to "subjective spirit." The latter is what K calls "works of love" and is often referred to as "the ethics of love." Silentio is critical of the ethics he is calling ethics as he calls for a higher ethics while Climacus is describing the characteristics of this higher ethics in much detail." (8384)
> "First ethics corresponds to the ethics Silentio is refuting in F&T (the ethics that Hegel advocated) and second ethics corresponds to the ethics that Climacus is discussing. Incidentally Silentio, I believe, is also advocating the second ethics even though he never refers to it as ethics. It is most often referred to as religion or as the absolute." (8388)
> I could not disagree more. You are completely wrong in your interpretation of "Fear and Trembling".
> Jim R's objections are valid. In his last post, what he writes is absolutely correct:
> "But that's very different from the situation in FT. In FT, the -only-
> reason given for the suspension of an ethical law is God's command,
> and that is certainly the case in the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham.
> There was no moral need for Isaac to be sacrificed; no higher ethic to
> serve. Abraham just had to sacrifice Isaac because God told him to do
> so, and God gave that command without explaining His reasons. This is
> frankly a horror and K wants us to understand it that way.
> The point of the dilemma is to show us where the real absolute
> relation is: in what we know to be ethical requirements, or in the
> person of God himself. K's answer is that the person of God himself
> has to be our absolute relation, even at the expense of second ethics.
> So second ethics should be a relative relationship to us while our
> absolute relation should be to God." (8491)
> If I have some time, I will put together some detailed criticism of your interpretation of F&T. (I have done this before on at least two occasions)
> Jim S