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

Re: Spirit and Self

Expand Messages
  • Donald Anderson
    JimR, you said, It[existence] is -subjective-, what you think about ... and my point is that existence is not about what you THINK but rather about how you
    Message 1 of 136 , Jun 15, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      JimR, you said,

      It[existence] is -subjective-, what you think about

      > yourself.

      and my point is that existence is not about what you THINK but rather about how you ARE, according to K.

      Don

      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
      >
      > Don, you didn't understand a word I said, and largely because you're
      > so bound to one meaning of a term that you can't imagine someone else
      > using it differently.
      >
      > "Existence" in K's mouth is -not- philosophical speculation about the
      > nature of being as such. It is -subjective-, what you think about
      > yourself.
      >
      > I did -not- say K was -not concerned with- these other subjects, but
      > was concerned about their -meaning to the individual subject-. He did
      > not write philosophical tracts on traditional philosophical problems.
      >
      > I first said he was not -primarily- concerned with these other subjects:
      >
      > >> K was not primarily
      > >> concerned with either metaphysics, ontology, cosmology, epistemology,
      > >> theology, logic, etc.
      >
      > And then I said his concern about these other subjects was with their
      > -phenomenological profile-
      >
      > >> Psychology as K understood it draws in everything else, but his
      > >> concern was with everything else's psychological profile rather than
      > >> the different things themselves.
      >
      > I could counter that if you can't understand a simple email to a
      > listserve I don't see how you can understand K, but perhaps you were
      > tired or reading too quickly.
      >
      > What baffles me is how anyone can think K's first and overwhelming
      > concern was with anything other than the subjective.
      >
      > Jim R
      >
      > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Donald Andersondon@... wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > JimR, I really don't know how to respond to what you say below. It is so
      > > absurd that there is simply no rational or even non-rational response. One
      > > cannot respond to a notion that says that a person has no position on
      > > existence who talks about it all the time or on theology who talks about it
      > > all the time or who isn't concerned about issues of metaphysics and logic
      > > but who talks about it constantly. I think it is becoming clear that you
      > > have a very superficial knowlege of all of these matters and understand
      > > little of what K is about.
      > >
      > > Don
      > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira jamesrovira@
      > > wrote:
      > >>
      > >> "Metaphysics" has a wide range of meanings these days that extends to
      > >> cosmology, epistemology, etc. It did start out meaning "first
      > >> principles" and the study of "being as such," but it has come to
      > >> encompass much more. Ontology is somewhat of a narrower, more precise
      > >> word. I'm comfortable saying, though, that K was not primarily
      > >> concerned with either metaphysics, ontology, cosmology, epistemology,
      > >> theology, logic, etc.
      > >>
      > >> I guess you could dismissively say that K was "just a psychologist,"
      > >> but his emphasis upon the subjective means that, -for him-, psychology
      > >> was among the most important subjects we should consider -- not as an
      > >> objective body of knowledge, as say in psychoanalytic theory, but in
      > >> terms of a subjective understanding of ourselves.
      > >>
      > >> Psychology as K understood it draws in everything else, but his
      > >> concern was with everything else's psychological profile rather than
      > >> the different things themselves. So he's more interested in what we
      > >> think about God and why than precisely defining the nature of God. If
      > >> we are concerned with precisely defining the nature of God, he would
      > >> want to know why -we are doing so-. In all this, he would take for
      > >> granted the existence of God as a fact.
      > >>
      > >> Jim R
      > >>
      > >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Donald Andersondon@ wrote:
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > Why did you abandon the term metaphysical? I will readily admit that I
      > >> > see K
      > >> > talking about both metaphysical matters as well as ontological matters.
      > >> > I
      > >> > still want to hear your definition of metaphysics.
      > >> >
      > >> > Don
      > >>
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > James Rovira
      > Tiffin University
      >

    • Donald Anderson
      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
      Message 136 of 136 , Jun 26, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        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.

        Don


        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
        >
        > Don,
        >
        > 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
        >

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