In Philosophical Fragments the pseudonymous author Johannes Climacus explored the Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments. This chapter offers a reading of Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophical work Concluding Unscientific Postscript to ‘Philosophical Fragments’ to illuminate his ideas. Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, Volume 1 has ratings and 14 reviews. John said: In many ways, this book is necessary w.
|Published (Last):||11 April 2008|
|PDF File Size:||6.31 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.31 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Their books remain indispensable tools for the scholar. Print Save Cite Email Share. Is your very existence lived in inwardness with God?
Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments – Wikipedia
Subjective truth is essential or ethico-religious truth. Sign in to use this feature. It then examines Kierkegaard’s arguments about God’s transcendence and revelation, faith and subjectivity.
Instead, the point is that the passionate pagan does indeed fulfill the task of praying to God despite fragkents fact that he gets the objective dimension of his prayer wrong he mistakes an idol for God. PaperbackKierkegaard’s Writings Not for the faint of heart. Request removal from index.
Richard Arnot Home Bett Cambridge: He touches on, as he usually does, The Age: Paul Callister rated it it was amazing Sep 13, It is an inevitable consequence of the objectivist conception of truth: Emil Brunner mentioned Kierkegaard 51 times in his book Man in Revolt and wrote a semi-serious parody of Kierkegaard’s idea of truth as subjectivity by making truth objectivity in Eduard Geismar was an early lecturer on the works of Soren Kierkegaard.
An objectivist understanding of truth expresses itself, therefore, not merely in terms of practical materialism, but also in a general quantification of all life, as it may be seen in the craving for records in sport, in pride in the growth of cities of millions of inhabitants, in respect for the multi-millionaire, in admiration for great political power. Hannay’s confluding are deservedly popular: It is humorous, after all Climacus confesses that he is a humorist, yet, I believe it is an important text in which Climacus not only opposes modern speculative thought but gives critcal insight into different subjectivities while approaching the “religious” subject but never rea I searched the conclhding for commentary on this text as I read it and it seems as though many people believe this text to be merely a humorous mockery of modern philosophical inquiry and not much else.
George Cotkin, Existential America Baltimore: Henry Allison in fact argued for just such a Wittgensteinian reading of the Postscript. Kierkegaard’s a beautiful writer. Concluding Unscientific Postscript unscieentific Philosophical Fragments.
The first began during the Great Depression, and was something of a religious stage.
So I will focus on the Postscript ‘s best-known poztscript most incendiary sentence. The Christian revelation is not a set of propositions, but a creative act of the individual who has been prepared to receive it in part by the very discipline of human idealism, and who through this creative act becomes a new creature.
Wilde and William Kimmel, eds. Publications Pages Publications Pages.
Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments – Oxford Scholarship
The upshot is that the identity of the prayer’s target is not irrelevant to its authenticity; it is simply far less relevant than is the quality of the prayer’s “how”. This reading was revived in the s by James Conant; it remains hotly disputed.
Excellent sequel to “Philosophical Fragments”.
Against Hegel’s system, Kierkegaard is often interpreted as taking the side of metaphysical libertarianism or freewillconc,uding it has been argued that an incompatibilist conception of free will is not essential to Kierkegaard’s formulation of existentialism.
Here is Hannay’s version in full: Retrieved from ” https: His early work was written under various pseudonyms who present their own distinctive viewpoints in a complex dialogue.
No, I had another interpretation of it. In keeping the principle “understanding is revocation”, the appendix specifies that it itself as the book’s “Understanding” is “indeed precisely the book’s Revocation” Kierkegaard covers so many relevant problems and provides so postscripy glory for the mind that it is almost appalling that he has not gotten the recognition he rightfully deserves.