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

Re: Jim's book

Expand Messages
  • roncriss
    Jim, I just looked at your book on Amazon.com with their in the book feature. Congratulations! It looks like an interesting synthesis and I hope the first of
    Message 1 of 203 , Jun 9, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim,

      I just looked at your book on Amazon.com with their "in the book" feature. Congratulations! It looks like an interesting synthesis and I hope the first of many such works on our boys. Any way to get signed copies?

      Ron

      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Don Anderson" <don@...> wrote:
      >
      > Jim, I have received your book and am starting to read it.
      >
      >
      >
      > See comments below.
      >
      >
      >
      > Donald "Don" Anderson
      >
      > Email: don@...
      >
      > Home Phone: 808-961-6460
      >
      > Cell Phone: 808-896-2545
      >
      >
      >
      > From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Rovira
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:41 PM
      > To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Issues of spirit, revelation and beginning
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Don, you're very quick to assume that I don't understand, can't get it, or
      > that your quite profound ideas about K are going to be over my head -- but
      > at the same time, you haven't addressed most of my previous response to you
      > nor demonstrated that you fully understand my own posts.
      >
      > I'm sorry if I sounded as if I think you can't get it.
      >
      >
      >
      > You did, in fact, demonstrate some misunderstanding of your own on at least
      > one point. My opinion of the superiority or inferiority of medieval physics
      > to modern physics is irrelevant because the topic of discussion, in my
      > opinion, has been -Kierkegaard's- view of spirit. Furthermore, modern
      > physical science has -nothing- say about immaterial spirit. Therefore, you
      > response does not even rise to the level of intelligent sarcasm -- it's
      > simply irrelevant to anything that I've written.
      >
      > I think physics is relevant whether you do or not. Who besides Descartes
      > speaks of immaterial substance? What major medieval thinker thought this?
      > Actually I am in agreement with you that spirit is immaterial but not that
      > it is substance.
      >
      > I see no reason for a reading of K that places him within Leibniz's thought,
      > especially on this point, and a great many reasons to see Socratic/Medieval
      > thought as having a profound influence on Kierkegaard's own ideas. Again,
      > he did not slavishly repeat his sources, but engaged them and appropriated
      > them to serve the purposes of his own invective against Danish Hegelianism
      > and Danish cultural Christianity.
      >
      > There is far more evidence that K was influenced by his contemporaries in
      > philosophy and theology than by Medieval thought. The most influential
      > medieval thinkers for him were the Mystics. K was quite critical of Medieval
      > thought in general. To say that K did not slavishly repeat his sources is a
      > copout so you can attribute his thought to whomever you choose. If you read
      > the journals and papers you find that K studied Leibnitz extensively and
      > adapted some ideas to his existentialism as he was want to do with a great
      > deal of the authors he read. Leibniz was important to the thought of all the
      > German Idealists. Understanding how K viewed Leibniz is important to
      > understanding portions of CA especially as to how K/VH shows that the leap
      > to sin is not caused by anxiety.
      >
      >
      > Establishing influence or borrowing is a simple thing, Don, if there's any
      > basis for it at all. Making assertions is one thing, supporting those
      > assertions with a coherent reading of K's texts is another. I don't need to
      > "dig" to support points that you are making, Don. That's your job.
      >
      > Then wait and see how it goes. I'll give you some quotes when I get time to
      > do it.
      >
      >
      > Your assertions about will is more of the same. Yes, "will" in Kierkegaard
      > can be viewed as an activity, but it is the activity of spirit in
      > Kierkegaard's thought. Body and soul tend to be seen as passively molded by
      > one's external environment until the intervention of spirit, which is the
      > third part of a synthesis that is comprised of more than just two parts --
      > therefore, something that exists independently of body and soul.
      >
      >
      >
      > My main point about spirit is that as K talks about it in CA spirit is an
      > active way that indicates that it appears to be at the same time the voice
      > of God as well as something to be discovered by the individual so to speak.
      > It actively seeks to be recognized by the self.
      >
      >
      > Jim R
      >
    • James Rovira
      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
      Message 203 of 203 , Jul 17, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.