Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Looking for a quotation....
- Don --
I haven't been stumped :). I haven't replied yet. Still haven't read the quotations. I did say in my initial response to Kenneth that the stages relate themselves to one another dialectically, and they specifically follow the patter of a Hegelian dialectic. But, K sees this whole thing about the stages as part of a reflective, -aesthetic- production, so distrusts, ultimately, conceptualizations of existence.
But thanks for advancing the discussion.
PS I'm wondering if Jim S's sockpuppetometer is going to go off anytime soon?On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:27 PM, nancyanddonray <don@...> wrote:
You know more than you are revealing with your "gulps" and "aw shucks." You have really asked the right question. You stumped the good doctor Rovira with the very issue I raised in my last post which I quote again here:
- 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.