Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: The eternal and the immaterial
- Jim S, you're still missing my point.
The subjectivity of the ethical individual is dependent upon God
whether the ethical individual is aware of it or not.
The subjectivity of ethical individual is possible because of God
whether the ethical individual believes in God or not.
The existence of God is a "fact" in Kierkegaard that needs to be
subjectively appropriated, but is still a fact whether we believe in
it or not, and still makes subjectivity possible.
So you, as an atheist and as an ethical individual, can be an ethical
individual in your atheism, because the existence of God is a fact of
existence, regardless of your acknowledgment of that fact.
At no time in Kierkegaard do we create reality with subjective belief.
Subjectively known "truth" and "reality" are two different things in
There are facts about the world, and facts about ourselves, and facts
about God, that are objectively true. As objective truths, they are
true whether we know them to be true or not.
Similarly, there are facts about ourselves, and facts about God, that
are still objectively true even if they can only be subjectively
known. These facts are still objectively true whether we know them or
not, but that we know them, and how we know them, determines the
nature of our subjectivity.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:31 AM, jimstuart46<jjimstuart@...> wrote:
> Jim R,
> So I take it you are now retracting what you wrote in 8582. I refer to this
> "I never claimed that the "subjectivity of the ETHICAL individual" requires
> the existence of God, ..."
> In fact you are both admitting that you did indeed claim that "subjectivity
> of the ETHICAL individual" requires the existence of God, ..." and that it
> is perfectly true that "subjectivity of the ETHICAL individual" requires the
> existence of God, ..."
> Jim S
- 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