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

Re: Looking for a quotation....

Expand Messages
  • jimstuart46
    Don, In your post 8654, you wrote to Kenneth: Of course the quantitative dialectic is the dialectic of logic and language, dialectic in the ideal. The
    Message 1 of 85 , Dec 4, 2009

      In your post 8654, you wrote to Kenneth:

      "Of course the quantitative dialectic is "the dialectic of logic and language, dialectic in the ideal." The qualitative dialectic is "the dialectic of existence," of actuality. For K these are very distinctively different dialectics but you knew that, did you not."

      This is not my understanding – but I may be wrong.

      Can we not distinguish between the aesthetic ideal, the ethical ideal and the religious ideal? Then an existing individual can be striving to achieve any one of these three ideals. So the aesthete strives to attain the aesthetic ideal, the ethicist strives to attain the ethical ideal, and the religious individual strives to attain the religious ideal.

      Given this three-fold distinction, would it not be better to say that the aesthete makes only quantitative decisions because his ideal remains in the realm of the quantitative, whereas the two other individuals make qualitative decisions because their ideals belong to the realm of the qualitative?

      Isn't part of K's message that our actual existence is determined by the ideals we hold to? (the ideals we strive towards)

      Having suggested this, I think the following sentence from Kenneth's quoted passages does chime with you own words above:

      "The qualitative dialectic enjoins that one is not to fool in abstracto with that which is the highest, and hence want to dabble at it, but must comprehend in concreto one's essential task and essentially express it." (CUP, 1941, Princeton University Press, pp. 498-99)

      Perhaps the aesthete cannot help but fool in abstracto, by definition almost. Those individuals who manage to comprehend in concreto their essential tasks have already moved beyond the aesthetic.

      Jim S
    • 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.



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.