- I am a newbie here. I am not sure how to properly use the messaging. I appreciate your kind invitation. RE: My views of K... I find a shared wonder withMessage 1 of 85 , Nov 30, 2009View Source
I am a newbie here. I am not sure how to properly use the messaging. I appreciate your kind invitation.
RE: My views of K... I find a shared "wonder" with him but of intellectually much smaller caliber. I resonate with the portion I seem to grasp. My background is not philosophy. I came across his name repeatedly. Tried a little taste. A year later I've read several of his works, and some several times.
If I were to start a discussion it would be this:
Although I've attempted to digest 20-30 works of SK, I'm embarrassed for my deficient grasp of "dialectic", "dialectical", "dialectician". My education never included these words in any way similar to SK's usage... which seems to rest on a very explicit concept and is bound to have been published somewhere. I spent some time searching on-line but without satisfaction. Where might one discover the school for the dialectically challenged?
--- In email@example.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, Kenneth. No one's come up with the answer yet, so the
> question is still open. It does help, as if the quotation was in CUP,
> Lowrie wouldn't be wondering out loud where the quotation was in his end
> notes to that text.
> Would you like to get discussion going by presenting your views of K, or the
> reasons for your interest in him?
> Jim R
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:36 PM, two_k_dad karmstrong@... wrote:
> > 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 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." '
> > Kenneth A.
- 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 employingMessage 85 of 85 , Dec 9, 2009View SourceI 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.