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

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

Expand Messages
  • James Rovira
    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
    Message 1 of 85 , Dec 2 12:32 PM
      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.

      Jim R

      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:
       

      Kenneth,

      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:

    • 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 4:32 PM
        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.