<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: and isaac cried out, "if i have no father on earth, then you
Review: be my father!" those hongs really know how to edit a book, wow. still i think most of the credit has to be given to johannes de silentio for writing it. i haven't read repetition yet. it'll probably a really brain teaser.
Rating:
Summary: Was Kierkegaard a "Knight of faith"?
Review: In addition to the parallels between this story and SK's relation with his father mentioned by previous reviewers, another important parallel is his failed engagement with Regine Olsen. She is his Isaac, who he must sacrifice. Perhaps he thinks his own calling, means that he too can "teleologically suspend" the ethical (duties to Regine). Its remarkable, that we now should be so concerned about the private live of a pseudonymous author. Is Johannes de Silentio a poetic side of Kierkegaard? Poetic yes, but paradoxically he also says he is purely dialectic. The different takes of the Abraham story, remind me of Rabbinical midrash. The four different accounts did not happen, but they might have. It is a way of stretching the story, and a way to introduce his "faith by virtue of the absurd". The tragic hero remains in the ethical, but Abraham is different that this, and is related to the Absolute. Very thought provoking!
Rating:
Summary: Was Kierkegaard a "Knight of faith"?
Review: In addition to the parallels between this story and SK's relation with his father mentioned by previous reviewers, another important parallel is his failed engagement with Regine Olsen. She is his Isaac, who he must sacrifice. Perhaps he thinks his own calling, means that he too can "teleologically suspend" the ethical (duties to Regine). Its remarkable, that we now should be so concerned about the private live of a pseudonymous author. Is Johannes de Silentio a poetic side of Kierkegaard? Poetic yes, but paradoxically he also says he is purely dialectic. The different takes of the Abraham story, remind me of Rabbinical midrash. The four different accounts did not happen, but they might have. It is a way of stretching the story, and a way to introduce his "faith by virtue of the absurd". The tragic hero remains in the ethical, but Abraham is different that this, and is related to the Absolute. Very thought provoking!
Rating:
Summary: A brilliancy prize
Review: SK once claimed had he written no other book, Fear and Trembling would have sufficed to make his reputation as one of the greats of literature. A fair assessment, but he did indeed write other books and Fear and Trembling needs to fit within that context. This is especially the case in relation to its twin: Repetition. This is even more urgent when you recognize Fear and Trembling's subject matter, which is: Repetition. SK introduces the concept with typical irony: neither Constantine Constantinus nor the Young Man, nor Johannes de Silento actually achieve repetition. Repetition is negatively defined: we are told not what it is, but what it is not. We are told that repetiton occurs "by virtue of the absurd." Sartre took this construction directly into his philosophy and made himself a laughing stock. This goes to show that either you keep you sense of humor fully operational in reading SK's books or he will make you look like a jerk. People who do not laugh long and loud at these books will not be able to interpret them without claiming for themselves absolute idiocy. And people who do not understand Repetition may as well stop wasting their time on Kierkegaard. Perhaps the can do Nietzsche and perspectivism instead?
Rating:
Summary: The meaning of Repetition
Review: These two books are twins: published on the same day, with the same purpose: the failed explications of an essential Kierkegaardian concept: Repetiton. Why, when an author clearly knows the meaning of a concept in his own terminology, would he fail to be able to explain it? Why would an author make failure part of the purpose of a book? There is a reasons. The authors of both books are pseudonyms. Kierkegaard does not use nom de plumes. He creates characters and then writes the book from that perspective. Johannes de Silento (the author of "Fear and Trembling")is a poet. Constantine Constantinus (the author of "Repetition") is an experimental psychologist. These characters attempt to define repetition, but their methods will not allow them. Repetition is not reducible to poetry (romanticism) or science (reason). Now why is that? It is necessary to Kierkegaard's project (the book "Repetition" shows that it is necessary) because his project is essentially Christian and Revelation cannot be derived philosophically (Hence Constantine Constantinus' failure). But how do you get to discuss Christian ideas, then? By an elaborate method of importation and laundering. For instance, Constantine Constantinus introduces Repetition by comparing it to Platonic recollection. But the real source for importation is the Old Testament. Fear and Trembling is an elaborate interpretation of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. Repetition ends with the Young Man (the guinea pig for Constantine Constantius' psychological experiments) writting on the Book of Job. In each case, something is sacrificed and yet the one who sacrifices finds the sacrifice restored to him. Much ink has been spilt showing how this copncept relates to Kierkegaard's abortive engagement or his relations to his father (and I am sure SK appreciates this muddying of the waters; he never liked an audit trail), but the primary image is that of God the Father sacrificing his Son, and, through the Ressurrection (as Johannes de Silento would say, by virtue of the absurd) receiving him back again.
<< 1 >>
| 
