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

[Kierkegaardian] Re: What Is Essential

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Hi Don, rather than my going around the circle again, let me segue to the end of it, then invite you to make the next round, if you are so inclined, where I
    Message 1 of 23 , Aug 14, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Don, rather than my going around the circle again, let me segue to
      the end of it, then invite you to make the next round, if you are so
      inclined, where I can interpret your interpretation.

      >This statement by you baffles me. It seems that you are saying that I
      interpret K in a religious way and you a secular way. I am trying to
      sort out what K is saying. If nothing else he was advocating the
      religious and no matter what our own stance is we must, it seems to
      me, understand what he is saying first. If you disagree with him fine,
      but I object to putting meanings onto him that he does not put there.
      There is no getting around the fact that he sees ethics (the universal
      in this case) as finite.<

      For our back and forth on the meaning of the 'religious' see #'s 752
      and 756.

      We are both trying to sort out what K is saying and in order to do
      that we must sort out what K was saying.

      I can clearly see that he was doing what he said he was doing, namely,
      "And what does all of this mean when the reader now gathers together
      the elements developed in the various sections? It means: this is an
      authorship of which the total thought is the task of becoming a
      Christian. But it is an authorship that from the beginning has
      understood, with dialectical consistency has pursued, what the
      implications of this are that the situation is Christendom, which is
      the category of reflection, and therefore has cast all the Christian
      relationships into reflection. In Christendom—to become a
      Christian is
      either to become what one is (the inwardness of reflection or the
      reflection of inward deepening), or it is first of all to be wrested
      out of a delusion, which again is a category of reflection." (Point of
      View, Hong, pp. 55-56)

      Nowhere will you find me disagreeing with what K has said. I would say
      that your objection to my interpretation of K is that my
      interpretation does not match your interpretation. I think that where
      we differ here, then, is that I am addressing our respective
      interpretations of K as our respective truth, while you are addressing
      your interpretation of K as /the/ truth. That you do object to my view
      in no uncertain terms tells me that you think your interpretation is
      the truth. There is no getting around this case in point:

      >There is no getting around the fact that he sees ethics (the
      universal in this case) as finite.<

      If I were to counter that, I might resort to the following quote;
      which I chose for obvious purposes; the world-historical being
      Christian doctrine.

      "The ethical is inwardness, and the smaller the range in which one
      sees it, if one does see it in its infinity, the better one sees it;
      whereas the person who thinks he must have world-historical
      embellishments in order thereby to see it better shows in doing so
      that he is ethically immature." (CUP, Hong, p. 143; Lowrie, p. 128)

      If you were to argue that the ethical of CUP is not the ethical of
      F&T, I would probable ask you to say why it is you think that rather
      than my trying to show that it is. I would say that it is your turn to
      show me where he says what you think he says: this circle is on you if
      you care to take it.

      Willy_da_hermit



      > Willy,
      >
      > You said:
      > >>What do you mean when you say that the movement is from the
      universal to
      > the particular then back to the
      > universal? If it's the same movement, wouldn't that make the
      universal
      > the finite? <<
      >
      > Yes, if we are talking about interpreting K., the universal is
      finite. Its
      > always finite, according to K. Its always finite if by finite one
      means
      > something can change and is subject to changing. Ethics change,
      they are
      > subject to change. That which is infinite is not subject to change.
      It is
      > beyond change. This is K's understanding of it. Another way of
      saying this
      > is that which is eternal is not subject to the judgment of something
      higher.
      > Ethics is subject to the judgment of God, according to K. so it is
      not
      > eternal. Ethics as a universal is not eternal, it is subject to
      something
      > higher - that which is eternal called God. At this time my only
      argument is
      > that this is the way K sees it not whether he is right or wrong.
      >
      > You said:
      > >>We have gone around this same circle several times now.<<
      > Yes that's true but without your seeming to understand what K is
      saying
      > without your particular interpretation of it. I hope the above helps
      in that
      > regard.
      >
      > You said:
      > >>which is to say
      > that I was laying secular hands on the religious—this was part
      of
      > our disagreement, the meaning of religious.<<
      >
      > This statement by you baffles me. It seems that you are saying that
      I
      > interpret K in a religious way and you a secular way. I am trying to
      sort
      > out what K is saying. If nothing else he was advocating the
      religious and no
      > matter what our own stance is we must, it seems to me, understand
      what he is
      > saying first. If you disagree with him fine, but I object to putting
      > meanings onto him that he does not put there. There is no getting
      around the
      > fact that he sees ethics (the universal in this case) as finite.
      >
      > As Ever,
      > Don, the beach bum
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.