Re: Looking for a quotation....
I'm a newbie here. Forgive my intrusion. It appears to be the off-season and perhaps no one will mind.
I realize the question is quite old now and perhaps of no interest any more. Furthermore my citation further muddies the water rather than cites the true origin.
[CUP, Copyright 1941, by Princeton University Press, p. 558] Walter Lowrie seemed to remember and also to have trouble locating the passage. In his End Notes to the late David Swenson's translation he wrote:
'Somewhere in the Journal (I have lost the reference) S. K. says: âIf he had written his whole Logic and declared in the Preface that it was only a thought-experiment (in which, however, at many points he had shirked some things), he would have been the greatest thinker that ever lived. Now he is comic."'
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
> Thanks much, Don. It certainly sounded authentic to me, just depending upon
> the translator. If I find it before you can get to it, I'll post to the
> Jim R
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, nancyanddonray don@... wrote:
> > The quote is authentic. I am away from my resources and I do not remember
> > where it is. I will be able to find it in about a month.
> > Don
- I agree, Don. What I would say now, to clarify my previous post, is that the author of E/O I is himself essentially a German Romantic but is employing Hegelian models of thought to explicate his views of an aesthetic personality.But once I've said it this way, the aesthete's reflective thought verges on self-reflective thought.I think that both the authors of E/O I and II follow Hegelian models to frame their thought, the good Judge arguing that the ethical is a synthesis proceeding from the contradictions inherent in the aesthetic -- so he argues for the aesthetic validity of marriage, something the aesthete hasn't considered and probably won't, regardless of what the Judge says.Jim ROn Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Don Anderson <don@...> wrote:
JimR, you said:
I'm not sure Don is wrong about seeing Hegel, but I do certainly agree with him that E/O II presents a limited outlook, one that K would not agree with himself. E/O I is strongly Hegelian. E/O II may be more Kantian. It is not yet Kierkegaardian, though, in my opinion.
Thank you for this. I would just comment that I think E/O I is not so much Hegelian (or German idealist) as it is the representation romanticism. As Lillian Swenson remarks in her “forward by the Reviser”, volume 1 is written by a “young romanticist” and volume 2 is written by a “mature ethical idealist.” Both have elements of Hegelianism as well as Kant, Fichte, The Greeks, and others. They rather stand alone as a representative of their position toward existence.