Re: Looking for a quotation....
Kenneth, you said:
> 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.
From this I would say that you "understand" K quite well. To wonder at the mystery of it all is our greatest task and joy. Intellectual understanding is secondary and always limited, always contingent. There is that beyond which we cannot go.
I relate to what you say about your reading of K. I have read a large part of K's writing's that have been translated to English and a large portion of these I have read more than once and I still have trouble "understanding" most of it. Perhaps this is because he is so often writing about nothing (no-thing), that which is beyond intellectual grasping. Intuition may be a better tool.
You also said:
> 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
This is a good question. I have struggled with these terms over many years of reading K and other philosophy. Even though I still struggle I do feel that occasionally I get a glimpse. I see that JimR has given you a rather good if quick course in dialectic as much of philosophy has understood it: the dialectic of logic and language, dialectic in the ideal. Here Hegel is right and opposites can be easily synthesized or reconciled. K was more interested in the dialectic of existence, of actual existence where reconciliation was not always possible and usually more difficult to accomplish, the actual finite and the actual infinite. The human being's actual finite animal nature and his higher spiritual nature being a major set of opposites that must be brought together in the mature self. K said this is a task that takes a lifetime.
I don't think there is any one place where dialectics is exhaustively discussed and revealed. It takes work. One needs to become acquainted with the Greeks: the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as the thought of Hegel and Heidegger and others. This of course is no simple task. For me it has gone on and on for many years and I am yet a newbe.
- 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.