Re: [Kierkegaardians] Issues of spirit, revelation and beginning
- A few more responses below.
1. The way K sees that existence and thought are separated in time by time and that this separation remains. He often referred to this issue as the “dialectic of beginning.” It was a major bone of contention he had with Hegel who saw this separation but thought it could be closed by thought.Can you support this idea from K's writings? I'm also not fully clear about what you mean by existence and thought being separated in time by time, if you are talking about the existence of the individual human being and the thought of the individual human being.
2. The way that K sees that revelation, the revelation of God, is through existence first and not through thought first. It takes place in the moment, the fullness of time. God’s word comes to us, enigmatically, directly through irony, anxiety, melancholy, despair, love hope faith and more, not directly through intellect.I agree with this point, but it needs caveats. The first caveat is that indirect communication is not an existential absolute. It is made necessary in Kierkegaard's Denmark because of the prevalence of cultural Christianity, but even then, it is not necessary for all. It is particularly and especially necessary for those who engage in reflective thought, especially a higher level of reflective thought.
3. That therefore God’s revelation in existence is separated from thought by time.Your "therefore" doesn't seem to make sense, largely because you are talking generically about something that K talks specifically about. The primary existence issue in Kierkegaard is the fact of the incarnation of Christ, which he relates to as a bare fact. That is what is offensive to thought and what separates our existence from our thought and introduces time as a wedge between existence and thought. This wedge only exists for those who accept the incarnation of Christ and are Religiousness B Christians. The only paradox is of the incarnation. We face a number of contradictions before then.I addressed your point four in my previous email.Jim R
- Don --When you get back, come up with some specific quotations that actually support your claims, or respond to the quotations I've already provided.Jim R