Re: Looking for a quotation....
Jim & Don: I physically need to and will aim to be succinct, shorting you both by a single response which is contrary to my general preference.
Among works of man, I judge K's writings' value as second only to the Scriptures. But regarding such an opinion no one should care. I am a beginner, an amateur. My Curriculum Vitae consists of a contract for dance lessons folded in the pages of Climacus' PF Preface.
I think K's qualitative dialectic is as likely a thought-experiment as his inwardness and existence of the single individual. Which of K's pseudonyms wrote the thought experiment named ARMED NEUTRALITY or My Position as a Christian Author in Christendom? An "Aunt Minnie" is a physical presence? I'd expect to find her in the same museum with the Samaritan's jug of anointing oil. I'm in search of what K meant when he wrote `dialectic'. I can partially blame my being educated in a different century and the dog ate my homework.
--- In email@example.com, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
> I like your analogy, Kenneth. My question -- maybe a variation of Don's
> response to you? -- is, "Is Kierkegaard's description of the different
> dialectics in CUP a description of a psychological and spiritual reality, or
> a mere thought-experiment that's supposed to help us along, but is not
> supposed to be taken as a reality?" If it is just a thought-experiment,
> then there is no Aunt Minnie, but just a concept that we try on for awhile,
> something we consider on the way to genuine self-knowledge.
> Jim R
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Kenneth" karmstrong@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Will dialectic ever look like an Aunt Minnie?
> > >
- 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.