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

Re: Looking for a quotation....

Expand Messages
  • Don A
    Kenneth, Presumably dialectic will never look like Aunt Minnie! Dialectic is an abstract concept and Aunt Minnie has a physical presence somewhere.
    Message 1 of 85 , Dec 2, 2009

      Kenneth, Presumably "dialectic" will never look like "Aunt Minnie!"  "Dialectic" is an abstract concept  and "Aunt Minnie" has a physical presence somewhere. We all have a guess about the question you ask so what is yours. I gave you mine. I expect to learn from you.

      Don

      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth" <karmstrong@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Will dialectic ever look like an Aunt Minnie?
      >
      > An experienced gentleman once told me this story: Suppose he were to
      > write a whole book describing his Aunt Minnie's face, her body
      > shape, and her gait. If he then tested of my knowledge by sending me
      > to the airport to pick her up based on the exhaustive descriptions, he
      > knew I would struggle and fearfully wait for external confirmation of my
      > guess. But if he went to the airport his recognition would be
      > instantaneous and certain. That's her. That's Aunt Minnie. I
      > find numerous references to dialectic by authors writing about K. But
      > how do I know if they know Aunt Minnie or whether they just read the
      > description like me? K writes as one who knows her. I read as one who
      > waits to be introduced. Since K is not replying to my emails, I am
      > searching for someone else to make the introduction or confirm my guess.
      > I prefer that you each under-estimate my knowledge lest you discover I
      > was only pretending to know Aunt Minnie. Aunt Minnie became our name
      > for any item of knowledge of that sort.
      >
      > Kenneth
      >
      >
      > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, James Rovira jamesrovira@
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Ha...I'm sure you're right, Don. I do agree with you that Kenneth is
      > indeed
      > > a great deal more knowledgeable than he first let on.
      > >
      > > Jim R
      > >
      > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, nancyanddonray don@ wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > JimR, you said:
      > > >
      > > > > PS I'm wondering if Jim S's sockpuppetometer is going to go off
      > anytime
      > > > > soon?
      > > >
      > > > No, there is no need for the sockpuppetometer!!
      > > >
      > > > Don
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • 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
        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.