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

The beginning

Expand Messages
  • Donald Anderson
    Consider the following quote from CUP: The dialectic of the beginning must be clarified. The almost amusing thing about it, that the beginning is and then in
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 13, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      Consider the following quote from CUP:

      The dialectic of the beginning must be clarified. The almost amusing thing about it, that the beginning is and then in turn is not because it is the beginning - this true dialectical re­mark has long enough been like a game that has been played in Hegelian society.

      The system, so it is said, begins with the immediate; some, failing to be dialectical, are even oratorical enough to speak of the most immediate of all, although the comparative reflection contained here might indeed become dangerous for the beginning. The system begins with the immediate and therefore without presuppositions and therefore absolutely, that is, the beginning of the system is the absolute beginning. This is entirely correct and has indeed also been adequately admired. But why, then, before the system is begun, has that other equally important, definitely equally important, ques­tion not been clarified and its clear implications honored: How does the system begin with the immediate, that is, does it begin with it immediately? (CUP, Hong, p 111)

       

      Can someone help me out? What does Climacus mean by "the beginning" or "the dialectic of the beginning" to be exact.

      What is the game being played by Hegelian society?

      What in the world does Climacus mean by his last sentence, "How does the system begin with the immediate, that is, does it begin with it immediately?"

      Don

    • James Rovira
      Yep, that s a tough passage, Don. I ll give it a stab. I think the key is presuppositionless beginning. What you have prior to the system is a somewhat
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 13, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Yep, that's a tough passage, Don. I'll give it a stab. I think the
        key is "presuppositionless beginning." What you have prior to the
        system is a somewhat naive belief in religion (religion as simplistic
        picture thinking), then when the Hegelian system appears, you have an
        evolution in consciousness (transition to the conceptual, the idea)
        that defines everything that existed up to the moment before it
        appeared in its own terms. The "immediate" in this case would be
        that which was given at the time that the system began.

        Jim R

        On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Consider the following quote from CUP:
        >
        > The dialectic of the beginning must be clarified. The almost amusing thing
        > about it, that the beginning is and then in turn is not because it is the
        > beginning - this true dialectical re­mark has long enough been like a game
        > that has been played in Hegelian society.
      • Donald Anderson
        JimR, it seems to me that this is not a very good response for the simple reason you are telling me some differences that appear as moments within the system
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 13, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          JimR, it seems to me that this is not a very good response for the simple reason you are telling me some differences that appear as moments within the system whereas I asked about the beginning. Perhaps a small hint: Descartes said that all philosophy begins with doubt. Would K agree with that? Would Hegel? Would you?

          Don
          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
          >
          > Yep, that's a tough passage, Don. I'll give it a stab. I think the
          > key is "presuppositionless beginning." What you have prior to the
          > system is a somewhat naive belief in religion (religion as simplistic
          > picture thinking), then when the Hegelian system appears, you have an
          > evolution in consciousness (transition to the conceptual, the idea)
          > that defines everything that existed up to the moment before it
          > appeared in its own terms. The "immediate" in this case would be
          > that which was given at the time that the system began.
          >
          > Jim R
          >
          > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Donald Andersondon@... wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Consider the following quote from CUP:
          > >
          > > The dialectic of the beginning must be clarified. The almost amusing thing
          > > about it, that the beginning is and then in turn is not because it is the
          > > beginning - this true dialectical re­mark has long enough been like a game
          > > that has been played in Hegelian society.
          >
        • James Rovira
          Don, the way I see it, I am talking about the moment of the appearance of the system. I left my initial post below. K might agree with the notion of doubt as
          Message 4 of 18 , Aug 14, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Don, the way I see it, I am talking about the moment of the appearance
            of the system. I left my initial post below.

            K might agree with the notion of doubt as the beginning of philosophy,
            so long as we recognize that he distinguished between faith and
            philosophy. Hegel, I would say, would not agree with it. I really
            don't care. It's a matter of absolute irrelevance.

            Jim R

            On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > JimR, it seems to me that this is not a very good response for the simple
            > reason you are telling me some differences that appear as moments within the
            > system whereas I asked about the beginning. Perhaps a small hint: Descartes
            > said that all philosophy begins with doubt. Would K agree with that? Would
            > Hegel? Would you?
            >
            > Don
            > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...>
            > wrote:
            >>
            >> Yep, that's a tough passage, Don. I'll give it a stab. I think the
            >> key is "presuppositionless beginning." What you have prior to the
            >> system is a somewhat naive belief in religion (religion as simplistic
            >> picture thinking), then when the Hegelian system appears, you have an
            >> evolution in consciousness (transition to the conceptual, the idea)
            >> that defines everything that existed up to the moment before it
            >> appeared in its own terms. The "immediate" in this case would be
            >> that which was given at the time that the system began.
            >>
            >> Jim R
            >>
            >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Donald Andersondon@... wrote:
            >> >
            >> >
            >> > Consider the following quote from CUP:
            >> >
            >> > The dialectic of the beginning must be clarified. The almost amusing
            >> > thing
            >> > about it, that the beginning is and then in turn is not because it is
            >> > the
            >> > beginning - this true dialectical re­mark has long enough been like a
            >> > game
            >> > that has been played in Hegelian society.
            >>
            >



            --
            James Rovira
            Tiffin University
          • Donald Anderson
            JimR, the way I see it Hegel s system was an explanation of everything that left nothing out. The explanation of the religious sphere was for him as much a
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 15, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment

              JimR, the way I see it Hegel's system was an explanation of everything that left nothing out. The explanation of the religious sphere was for him as much a part of the system as the later conceptual explanation. Be that as it may.....

              K did not believe that doubt is the beginning of philosophy. Hegel probably did not as well. Descartes said he did but K argues that he didn't really act as if he believed it. It seems to me it is irrelevant to you because of a big blind spot in your cognition of K which I will attempt to address later.

              Don


              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
              >
              > Don, the way I see it, I am talking about the moment of the appearance
              > of the system. I left my initial post below.
              >
              > K might agree with the notion of doubt as the beginning of philosophy,
              > so long as we recognize that he distinguished between faith and
              > philosophy. Hegel, I would say, would not agree with it. I really
              > don't care. It's a matter of absolute irrelevance.
              >
              > Jim R
              >

            • James Rovira
              If K did not believe that doubt was the beginning of philosophy, then why is it necessary for me to care about doubt as the beginning of philosophy to
              Message 6 of 18 , Aug 15, 2009
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                If K did not believe that doubt was the beginning of philosophy, then
                why is it necessary for me to care about doubt as the beginning of
                philosophy to understand K? Adorno said that K turned Hegel outside
                in, if I recall. I think outside in and upside down as well, as he
                reverses Hegel's claims about philosophy by making it secondary to
                religion. He admires Socrates but believes he is limited, and was
                strongly influenced by Hegel but very critical of him.

                At any rate, I don't see how your first paragraph is conceptually
                different from anything I've said so far. Yes, Hegel's system is an
                explanation of everything that leaves nothing out, including the
                religious. But it suddenly appeared with Hegel and, upon appearing,
                redefined everything in its own terms. Presuppositionless beginning.

                Jim R

                On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > JimR, the way I see it Hegel's system was an explanation of everything that
                > left nothing out. The explanation of the religious sphere was for him as
                > much a part of the system as the later conceptual explanation. Be that as it
                > may.....
                >
                > K did not believe that doubt is the beginning of philosophy. Hegel probably
                > did not as well. Descartes said he did but K argues that he didn't really
                > act as if he believed it. It seems to me it is irrelevant to you because of
                > a big blind spot in your cognition of K which I will attempt to address
                > later.
                >
                > Don
                >
                > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...>
                > wrote:
                >>
                >> Don, the way I see it, I am talking about the moment of the appearance
                >> of the system. I left my initial post below.
                >>
                >> K might agree with the notion of doubt as the beginning of philosophy,
                >> so long as we recognize that he distinguished between faith and
                >> philosophy. Hegel, I would say, would not agree with it. I really
                >> don't care. It's a matter of absolute irrelevance.
                >>
                >> Jim R
                >>
                >



                --
                James Rovira
                Tiffin University
              • Donald Anderson
                JimR, but my question is not about doubt but rather thinking. So I will ask the question a different way; What are the circumstances that prevail when a human
                Message 7 of 18 , Aug 15, 2009
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment

                  JimR, but my question is not about doubt but rather thinking. So I will ask the question a different way; What are the circumstances that prevail when a human being begins to think? To put it a bit differently, "What is the nature of the occasion when one begins to think?" Or does thought just happen.

                  Don

                  --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > If K did not believe that doubt was the beginning of philosophy, then
                  > why is it necessary for me to care about doubt as the beginning of
                  > philosophy to understand K? Adorno said that K turned Hegel outside
                  > in, if I recall. I think outside in and upside down as well, as he
                  > reverses Hegel's claims about philosophy by making it secondary to
                  > religion. He admires Socrates but believes he is limited, and was
                  > strongly influenced by Hegel but very critical of him.
                  >
                  > At any rate, I don't see how your first paragraph is conceptually
                  > different from anything I've said so far. Yes, Hegel's system is an
                  > explanation of everything that leaves nothing out, including the
                  > religious. But it suddenly appeared with Hegel and, upon appearing,
                  > redefined everything in its own terms. Presuppositionless beginning.
                  >
                  > Jim R
                  >
                  > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Donald Andersondon@... wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > JimR, the way I see it Hegel's system was an explanation of everything that
                  > > left nothing out. The explanation of the religious sphere was for him as
                  > > much a part of the system as the later conceptual explanation. Be that as it
                  > > may.....
                  > >
                  > > K did not believe that doubt is the beginning of philosophy. Hegel probably
                  > > did not as well. Descartes said he did but K argues that he didn't really
                  > > act as if he believed it. It seems to me it is irrelevant to you because of
                  > > a big blind spot in your cognition of K which I will attempt to address
                  > > later.
                  > >
                  > > Don
                  > >
                  > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira jamesrovira@
                  > > wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> Don, the way I see it, I am talking about the moment of the appearance
                  > >> of the system. I left my initial post below.
                  > >>
                  > >> K might agree with the notion of doubt as the beginning of philosophy,
                  > >> so long as we recognize that he distinguished between faith and
                  > >> philosophy. Hegel, I would say, would not agree with it. I really
                  > >> don't care. It's a matter of absolute irrelevance.
                  > >>
                  > >> Jim R
                  > >>
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  > James Rovira
                  > Tiffin University
                  >

                • James Rovira
                  So, what you re telling me, Don, is that when you asked this question:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Aug 16, 2009
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    So, what you're telling me, Don, is that when you asked this question:

                    <<Perhaps a small hint: Descartes said that all philosophy begins with
                    doubt. Would K agree with that? Would Hegel? Would you?

                    Don>>

                    and when you said this,

                    <<K did not believe that doubt is the beginning of philosophy. Hegel
                    probably did not as well. Descartes said he did but K argues that he
                    didn't really act as if he believed it. It seems to me it [doubt] is
                    irrelevant to you because of a big blind spot in your cognition of K
                    which I will attempt to address later.>>

                    You really weren't talking about doubt at all, even though you were
                    using the word "doubt"?

                    Jim R

                    On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > JimR, but my question is not about doubt but rather thinking. So I will ask
                    > the question a different way; What are the circumstances that prevail when a
                    > human being begins to think? To put it a bit differently, "What is the
                    > nature of the occasion when one begins to think?" Or does thought just
                    > happen.
                    >
                    > Don
                  • Donald Anderson
                    JimR, I m telling you that you don t get what K is about. You don t have a clue. Don ... will ask ... prevail when a ... the ... just
                    Message 9 of 18 , Aug 16, 2009
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment

                      JimR, I'm telling you that you don't get what K is about. You don't have a clue.

                      Don


                      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > So, what you're telling me, Don, is that when you asked this question:
                      >
                      > <<Perhaps a small hint: Descartes said that all philosophy begins with
                      > doubt. Would K agree with that? Would Hegel? Would you?
                      >
                      > Don>>
                      >
                      > and when you said this,
                      >
                      > <<K did not believe that doubt is the beginning of philosophy. Hegel
                      > probably did not as well. Descartes said he did but K argues that he
                      > didn't really act as if he believed it. It seems to me it [doubt] is
                      > irrelevant to you because of a big blind spot in your cognition of K
                      > which I will attempt to address later.>>
                      >
                      > You really weren't talking about doubt at all, even though you were
                      > using the word "doubt"?
                      >
                      > Jim R
                      >
                      > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Donald Andersondon@... wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > JimR, but my question is not about doubt but rather thinking. So I will ask
                      > > the question a different way; What are the circumstances that prevail when a
                      > > human being begins to think? To put it a bit differently, "What is the
                      > > nature of the occasion when one begins to think?" Or does thought just
                      > > happen.
                      > >
                      > > Don
                      >

                    • James Rovira
                      Yes, Don, you always revert to this claim when you have nothing else to say. The more productive thing to do would be to explain what -you- are about, since
                      Message 10 of 18 , Aug 16, 2009
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, Don, you always revert to this claim when you have nothing else
                        to say. The more productive thing to do would be to explain what
                        -you- are about, since you haven't been making a great deal of sense
                        in this thread.

                        Jim R

                        On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > JimR, I'm telling you that you don't get what K is about. You don't have a
                        > clue.
                        >
                        > Don
                        >
                        > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...>
                        > wrote:
                        >>
                        >> So, what you're telling me, Don, is that when you asked this question:
                        >>
                        >> <<Perhaps a small hint: Descartes said that all philosophy begins with
                        >> doubt. Would K agree with that? Would Hegel? Would you?
                        >>
                        >> Don>>
                        >>
                        >> and when you said this,
                        >>
                        >> <<K did not believe that doubt is the beginning of philosophy. Hegel
                        >> probably did not as well. Descartes said he did but K argues that he
                        >> didn't really act as if he believed it. It seems to me it [doubt] is
                        >> irrelevant to you because of a big blind spot in your cognition of K
                        >> which I will attempt to address later.>>
                        >>
                        >> You really weren't talking about doubt at all, even though you were
                        >> using the word "doubt"?
                        >>
                        >> Jim R
                      • Donald Anderson
                        JimR, in due time! in due time! But I m not holding my breath until you get the meaning of existence. Don ... have a ... with ... Hegel ... he ... is ... K
                        Message 11 of 18 , Aug 16, 2009
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment

                          JimR, in due time! in due time! But I'm not holding my breath until you get the meaning of existence.

                          Don

                          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Yes, Don, you always revert to this claim when you have nothing else
                          > to say. The more productive thing to do would be to explain what
                          > -you- are about, since you haven't been making a great deal of sense
                          > in this thread.
                          >
                          > Jim R
                          >
                          > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Donald Andersondon@... wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > JimR, I'm telling you that you don't get what K is about. You don't have a
                          > > clue.
                          > >
                          > > Don
                          > >
                          > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira jamesrovira@
                          > > wrote:
                          > >>
                          > >> So, what you're telling me, Don, is that when you asked this question:
                          > >>
                          > >> <<Perhaps a small hint: Descartes said that all philosophy begins with
                          > >> doubt. Would K agree with that? Would Hegel? Would you?
                          > >>
                          > >> Don>>
                          > >>
                          > >> and when you said this,
                          > >>
                          > >> <<K did not believe that doubt is the beginning of philosophy. Hegel
                          > >> probably did not as well. Descartes said he did but K argues that he
                          > >> didn't really act as if he believed it. It seems to me it [doubt] is
                          > >> irrelevant to you because of a big blind spot in your cognition of K
                          > >> which I will attempt to address later.>>
                          > >>
                          > >> You really weren't talking about doubt at all, even though you were
                          > >> using the word "doubt"?
                          > >>
                          > >> Jim R
                          >

                        • James Rovira
                          Good, I m not holding my breath waiting for you or Kierkegaard or anyone else to give it to me :) I do look forward to your future posts about Kierkegaard,
                          Message 12 of 18 , Aug 16, 2009
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Good, I'm not holding my breath waiting for you or Kierkegaard or
                            anyone else to give it to me :) I do look forward to your future
                            posts about Kierkegaard, though.

                            Jim R

                            On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > JimR, in due time! in due time! But I'm not holding my breath until you get
                            > the meaning of existence.
                            >
                            > Don
                          • Donald Anderson
                            JimR, I can see that my last post was not worded well. I did not mean that you didn know the meaning of existence as such, but that you didn knowe how K was
                            Message 13 of 18 , Aug 16, 2009
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment

                              JimR, I can see that my last post was not worded well. I did not mean that you didn' know the meaning of existence as such, but that you didn' knowe how K was using that term as well as the terms of knowledge.

                              Don


                              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Good, I'm not holding my breath waiting for you or Kierkegaard or
                              > anyone else to give it to me :) I do look forward to your future
                              > posts about Kierkegaard, though.
                              >
                              > Jim R
                              >
                              > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Donald Andersondon@... wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > JimR, in due time! in due time! But I'm not holding my breath until you get
                              > > the meaning of existence.
                              > >
                              > > Don
                              >

                            • James Rovira
                              I understand Don, and as usual, you make that claim with no evidence, no quotations, and no argument -- it s a fall-back position when you have nothing else
                              Message 14 of 18 , Aug 16, 2009
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I understand Don, and as usual, you make that claim with no evidence,
                                no quotations, and no argument -- it's a fall-back position when you
                                have nothing else of substance to say. You weren't making sense to me
                                in your responses to me. It'd be more productive for you to clarify
                                yourself than to make general comments about me that you cannot
                                substantiate and aren't even bothering to try.

                                Jim R

                                On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > JimR, I can see that my last post was not worded well. I did not mean that
                                > you didn' know the meaning of existence as such, but that you didn' knowe
                                > how K was using that term as well as the terms of knowledge.
                                >
                                > Don
                              • Donald Anderson
                                JimR, your project as I understand it is as follows. It is to recollect a time when everyone believed and no one was secular, and then to recover that time in
                                Message 15 of 18 , Aug 18, 2009
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  JimR, your project as I understand it is as follows. It is to recollect a time when everyone believed and no one was secular, and then to recover that time in the present. K/p, if I recall correctly, called this a sneaking out the back door of existence in order to escape the hard work of becoming (a Christian).

                                   

                                  In what follows I paint with a very broad brush. Much, much detail is not included but I believe that it is enough to make the point.

                                   

                                  Orthodoxy always has serious problems as it tries to overlay a different time over the present time and substitute thinking for existence and propositions for actual action. It always becomes sterile and easily ignored by those who are serious about becoming responsible beings.

                                   

                                  In the history of Christianity there has always been an ebb and flow – a period of activity followed by a period of orthodoxy. The period of activity is rich and varied but can be characterized by doing as opposed to simply thinking. In these periods there is little time for working out doctrinal propositions such as creeds and systematic theology. There is work to be done among the people – preaching and guiding and such.

                                   

                                  The Period of the very early church, the first two or three centuries of its existence, was such a period and came to an end when things got easier and its nemesis, the Roman Empire was no longer able to fight it. The church became a part of the establishment which was its downfall. It turned to orthodoxy, writing creeds and working out its doctrine to the finest detail. It was a period of inactivity and stagnation.

                                   

                                  Hundreds of years later, in the 13th and 14th centuries new interest developed but it was more intellectual than active. It was a time when Aristotle was discovered, ironically from Muslims, as a means of understanding faith and there was a relatively small but important stirring. Yet this resulted in little action and doing and much larger theological tomes. Things soon settled down into orthodox business as usual with an increased corruption of the gospel at both the highest levels of the church and at the grass roots.

                                   

                                  Then came Martin Luther and a new period of action and excitement about the gospel. There was little time for creeds and writing theology. It was a time for proclamation and action and Luther was on fire and many caught that fire.

                                   

                                  This fire lasted a generation or so yet even before the death of Luther, everyone, Protestant and Catholic alike were back to writing creeds and Theological documents once again while the world went its way. Orthodoxy was back with a vengeance.

                                   

                                  Perhaps orthodoxy had prevailed one too many times, or perhaps it was something else, but for whatever reason people began more and more to turn away from religion for enlightenment.

                                   

                                  K came along and saw where the enlightenment was heading – a mass society in which the individual before God would be swallowed up. He began to work out what would be needed to overcome this direction. He said the problem with becoming a Christian is that we have concentrated on creeds and theology, doctrinal propositions, rather than "how" we become who we are meant to be. He looked at how we exist and "how" God reveals himself to individuals, and the whole psychology of existing. Where and how is truth, what is really real. He said that the really real is movement, becoming and the key is the beginning of it all – coming into existence. Yet it is a beginning that we cannot explain, we can sense that it is there but we can only access it by faith and not by thought.

                                   

                                  But many who looked at his work simply saw it as an ethical discussion while others saw it as an advocating for a return to the orthodox creeds and theology that were a part of that history that is never recoverable because it is always an approximation and only a trace of what was once alive. So the church continued with its concern for the purity of its doctrine and neglects life and existence, it continued to write creeds and great theological tomes while the world grew more alienated and despairing. Orthodoxy cannot save because it is not alive. If God is to exist it will be in our lives now in the same way he existed in the lives of generations past. This means that the question K asked, "How does one become a Christian" cannot be answered with doctrinal proposition. It is answered in the trenches where people live now. God must be made real now. The past shall not return.

                                  Don

                                • James Rovira
                                  Don -- Thanks for the reply, my replies are below. ... That s a very bad and careless characterization of my position, Don. Yes, I do believe that Kierkegaard
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Aug 18, 2009
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Don --

                                    Thanks for the reply, my replies are below.

                                    On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > JimR, your project as I understand it is as follows. It is to recollect a
                                    > time when everyone believed and no one was secular, and then to recover that
                                    > time in the present. K/p, if I recall correctly, called this a sneaking out
                                    > the back door of existence in order to escape the hard work of becoming (a
                                    > Christian).

                                    That's a very bad and careless characterization of my position, Don.
                                    Yes, I do believe that Kierkegaard appropriated the classical model of
                                    personality, but I don't think he did so uncritically or uncreatively,
                                    and I do believe that he did so in a consciously motivated way. He
                                    was -using- it to confront Danish Hegelianism and the cultural
                                    Christianity of his day. I don't think he believed this model was
                                    "true" in a simplistic sense, as a Medieval would have believed it,
                                    but that it was useful to get his readers to move toward subjectivity.

                                    Of course I think K hoped everyone would really be a Christian. You
                                    think so too,

                                    <<If God is to exist it will be in our lives now in the same way he
                                    existed in the lives of generations past.>>

                                    Which again makes me wonder if you're really thinking through the
                                    things you're saying, as you first say that I am wrong for wanting to
                                    recollect a time in which everyone believed and no one was secular,
                                    and then follow the sentence I just quoted with the words, "God must
                                    be made real now. The past shall not return."

                                    Most of what you've written sound like Protestant cliches, honestly.

                                    I think K took doctrine for granted, but believed its content had to
                                    be subjectively appropriated by the individual.

                                    Jim R
                                  • Donald Anderson
                                    I calls em like I sees em. Don ... recollect a ... recover that ... sneaking out ... becoming (a
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Aug 19, 2009
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      I calls em like I sees em.

                                      Don

                                      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Don --
                                      >
                                      > Thanks for the reply, my replies are below.
                                      >
                                      > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Donald Andersondon@... wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > JimR, your project as I understand it is as follows. It is to recollect a
                                      > > time when everyone believed and no one was secular, and then to recover that
                                      > > time in the present. K/p, if I recall correctly, called this a sneaking out
                                      > > the back door of existence in order to escape the hard work of becoming (a
                                      > > Christian).
                                      >
                                      > That's a very bad and careless characterization of my position, Don.
                                      > Yes, I do believe that Kierkegaard appropriated the classical model of
                                      > personality, but I don't think he did so uncritically or uncreatively,
                                      > and I do believe that he did so in a consciously motivated way. He
                                      > was -using- it to confront Danish Hegelianism and the cultural
                                      > Christianity of his day. I don't think he believed this model was
                                      > "true" in a simplistic sense, as a Medieval would have believed it,
                                      > but that it was useful to get his readers to move toward subjectivity.
                                      >
                                      > Of course I think K hoped everyone would really be a Christian. You
                                      > think so too,
                                      >
                                      > <<If God is to exist it will be in our lives now in the same way he
                                      > existed in the lives of generations past.>>
                                      >
                                      > Which again makes me wonder if you're really thinking through the
                                      > things you're saying, as you first say that I am wrong for wanting to
                                      > recollect a time in which everyone believed and no one was secular,
                                      > and then follow the sentence I just quoted with the words, "God must
                                      > be made real now. The past shall not return."
                                      >
                                      > Most of what you've written sound like Protestant cliches, honestly.
                                      >
                                      > I think K took doctrine for granted, but believed its content had to
                                      > be subjectively appropriated by the individual.
                                      >
                                      > Jim R
                                      >

                                    • James Rovira
                                      And can t give a coherent, argued reason for -why- you see it the way you do, nor make sense out of your contradictions... Jim R
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Aug 19, 2009
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        And can't give a coherent, argued reason for -why- you see it the way
                                        you do, nor make sense out of your contradictions...

                                        Jim R

                                        On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Donald Anderson<don@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I calls em like I sees em.
                                        >
                                        > Don
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.