Re: Looking for a quotation....
>>> did you mean by your analogyâ¦
Hmmmâ¦ Yes, my âanalogyâ did fall totally flat. I was trying to distinguish between what I âknowâ by reading K unaided and what K might wish me to understand eventually, to become fully conscious of dialectic as he would mean it to be understood. Let me try another and totally different illustration that conjures no chubby aunts in pillbox hats.
ââ¦ true consciousness of â¦ good fortune (without which, as has been said, the good fortune is not good fortune) is contained in, framed in, the consciousness that God is love. Knowledge about God being love is not yet the consciousness of it. For to have consciousness, a personal consciousness, it is requisite that in my knowing I have at the same time knowledge of myself and of my relationship to my knowing. This is to believe that God is love, it is to love Him.â
CHRISTIAN DISCOURSES AND THE LILIES OF THE FIELD AND THE BIRDS OF THE AIR AND THREE DISCOURSES AT THE COMMUNION ON FRIDAYS; 1940 Oxford University Press, CHRISTIAN DISCOURSES: Part III â" Thoughts Which Wound From Behind; Discourse III â" All Things Must Work Together For Our Goodâ"If We Love God, p. 203
>>>distrust of reflective thoughtâ¦
Itâs your turn to provide the quote.
This âconversationâ gets turned in so many different ways, generates so many new questionsâ¦
For every line I send I have deleted 10â¦ I enjoy it and yet I leave my duties unfinished. And Iâm pooped.
>>> reading the quotations you provided from CUP and will respond
I didnât request a line-item explanation. But may I request you find dialectic to have something to do with simplifying, clarifying?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, James Rovira <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
> Ha...well, yes, Kenneth, Aunt Minnie is always a physical presence. Just to
> make sure I understood your analogy, did you mean by your analogy that you
> want to get to a real understanding of K's concept of the qualitative
> dialectic rather than just have a secondhand, abstract knowledge? You
> already know from your own reading of K that no one can give that to you.
> You can, however, perhaps discover it for yourself by discussing it with us,
> and you're bringing up a distinction within K's writings that I hadn't paid
> close attention to, so you're helping me understand K too.
> My question was, does the concept of the qualitative dialectic refer to a
> real facet of human psychology or is it a thought experiment? The signed
> works -- those contained in the Hongs' edition of Point of View -- as well
> as Climacus's argument in CUP and K's appendix to it -- indicate a distrust
> of reflective thought, viewing it as a means by which the single individual
> is brought to birth, but not capable of directly presenting the truth to
> us. Remember that Climacus said that his book came with a revocation, and
> that anyone who cites him as an authority misunderstands him.
> That being said, K doesn't consistently maintain distance between himself
> and his pseudonyms's concepts, as you point out below, so perhaps the
> difference here is between his ideal relationship to his ideas and his real
> relationship to them?
> Do you think the single individual needs the concept of the single
> I've been reading the quotations you provided from CUP and will respond with
> my reading of them later today, maybe tonight, I hope.
> Thanks for the conversation.
> Jim R
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Kenneth karmstrong@... wrote:
> > 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
> > centuryï¿½ and the dog ate my homework.
> > Kenneth
- 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.