Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: What is the purpose of F &T
- Responses below --
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
> Your distinction escapes me. In any case "a theory" is something put forward
> by a scientist or such that is then in one way or another presented to a
> scientific community for research and feedback that will prove or disprove
> it. This was not K's plan.
Keeping in mind that the word "science" in K's day extended beyond
the study of the empirical sciences (really, it dos today too), that
was certainly the plan in the case of at least some of K's pseudonyms.
Remember that CA is a psychological study that attempts to be
scientific and self-critical, identifying psychology as a discipline
alongside logic, ethics, and dogmatics. Hegel specifically bashed t
he empirical sciences for lacking rigor, in fact.
I think it's especially significant that CUP is an "unscientific"
postscript -- so that K's pseudonyms distinguished between their
scientific activity and their unscientific activity.
> There is a lot of evidence that K did discuss the nature of the leap. His
> discussion of "coming into existence," change and motion (kinesis), time and
> temporality, the moment (instant), the sudden, the fullness of time,
> possibility, necessity, and actuality seem to me to be part of it among
> other concepts. These are not easy concepts but are important for the
> meaning of "the leap," which you seem to agree is an important concept for
> becoming a Christian according to K/p. Most of these concepts are discussed
> in CA or in PF as well as other places. A good place to start would be CA,
> Hong, p 81-93, and most of PF especially the Interlude.
> I think you are correct to point to dogmatics. Some of these concepts are
> Biblical (dogmatic), others are from Greek philosophy but are given a
> dogmatic twist I would argue.
> Read again the pages from CA then let me know if you don't see more of how
> the eternal and all time meet in the leap.
I think that's fair, Don, and I'll read those pages. I'm perhaps
saying too much to say he couldn't know anything, at least from a
psychological standpoint. I suspect that everything Haufniensis does
say about the leap itself is reasoning by inference from his
observation of states before and after the leap.
- I agree with your point of view on K's belief, Don. That's all I've
been saying all along. But if he assumes it in everything that he
writes, as I have been saying, he is assuming it to be a fact. It's
just not a fact we can only appropriate subjectively.
However, if I recall, K uses the word "fact" in relationship to the
paradoxes of Religiousness B. That's how we're supposed to relate to
doctrines such as the incarnation and resurrection. Faith leads us to
accept them as a fact. These doctrines are beliefs about events that
took place in the material world; as such, they either did or did not
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
> JimR, you asked:
> "Do you think K
> believed that we create God out of nothing by believing in God, or do
> you think he believed that God exists independently of our belief in
> I do not believe that K believed that we create God by believing in him and
> I think that K believed that God is real independently of our belief. I
> agree with K's belief. The key term in all of this is "believe." K does not
> say that he knows this for a fact, however. He is not interested in proving
> that God is real. He presupposes it in everything he writes. K was
> interested not in whether God existed or was real but rather "how one
> becomes a Christian." He did not ask "how does God become real?" but rather
> "How does he become real for me?" He did believe that as long as I do not
> believe, God is not real for me, and my personal reality is what K was
> concerned about – The personal reality of subjective individual human