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

Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Looking for a quotation....

Expand Messages
  • James Rovira
    Man, who d want to fire you, Kenneth, for providing all those quotations... thanks. I d forgotten that Climacus made those distinctions in CUP. I ll have to
    Message 1 of 85 , Dec 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Man, who'd want to fire you, Kenneth, for providing all those quotations... thanks.  I'd forgotten that Climacus made those distinctions in CUP.  I'll have to read those quotations carefully then respond again.

      Jim R

      On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Kenneth <karmstrong@...> wrote:
       

      Jim,  ...gulp... I hope this isn't where I get fired from the Kierkegaardians...I grasp that the distinction is critical... but if I want to be certain that I not use the word "dialectic" nonsensically.

    • James Rovira
      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
      Message 85 of 85 , Dec 9, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        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 R

        On 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.

         

        Don



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.