Philosophy Lost and Found: Irony and Renewal in Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments

IF 0.2 N/A PHILOSOPHY
Daniel W. Conway
{"title":"Philosophy Lost and Found: Irony and Renewal in Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments","authors":"Daniel W. Conway","doi":"10.1515/kierke-2021-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Readers of Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments witness the development of Johannes Climacus from an initial posture of aesthetic detachment to a mutually elevating partnership with his unnamed interlocutor. Despite his (exaggerated) suspicions of philosophy, Johannes cautiously assents in Chapters IV and V of the Fragments to the philosophical innovations suggested by his unnamed critic. As he does so, he not only exposes the limitations of the Socratic account of recollection, which is what he set out to do, but also, and inadvertently, reveals the limitations of his own “thought-project.” As it turns out, the most notable (and persistent) of these limitations is his own fear of (ethical) commitment, which he associates with a union so toxic that one who is ill wed may crave the hangman’s noose. Despite the success he enjoys in developing his “thought-project,” and the camaraderie he experiences with his former adversary, Johannes concludes Fragments by retreating to the safety of the aesthetic nook from which he ever-so-briefly emerged. Fascinated by philosophy but frightened by (what he takes to be) its serious implications, he contents himself with the “fragments” and “crumbs” of which his philosophical diet consists.","PeriodicalId":53174,"journal":{"name":"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/kierke-2021-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Readers of Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments witness the development of Johannes Climacus from an initial posture of aesthetic detachment to a mutually elevating partnership with his unnamed interlocutor. Despite his (exaggerated) suspicions of philosophy, Johannes cautiously assents in Chapters IV and V of the Fragments to the philosophical innovations suggested by his unnamed critic. As he does so, he not only exposes the limitations of the Socratic account of recollection, which is what he set out to do, but also, and inadvertently, reveals the limitations of his own “thought-project.” As it turns out, the most notable (and persistent) of these limitations is his own fear of (ethical) commitment, which he associates with a union so toxic that one who is ill wed may crave the hangman’s noose. Despite the success he enjoys in developing his “thought-project,” and the camaraderie he experiences with his former adversary, Johannes concludes Fragments by retreating to the safety of the aesthetic nook from which he ever-so-briefly emerged. Fascinated by philosophy but frightened by (what he takes to be) its serious implications, he contents himself with the “fragments” and “crumbs” of which his philosophical diet consists.
哲学的失而复得:克尔凯郭尔《哲学片段》中的反讽与更新
克尔凯郭尔的《哲学片段》的读者见证了约翰内斯·克里马库斯的发展,从最初的审美超然的姿态到与他的无名对话者相互提升的伙伴关系。尽管约翰内斯(夸张地)怀疑哲学,但他在《碎片》的第四章和第五章中谨慎地同意了这位未具名评论家提出的哲学创新。当他这样做的时候,他不仅暴露了苏格拉底式的回忆理论的局限性,这也是他所要做的,而且无意中也暴露了他自己的“思想计划”的局限性。事实证明,这些限制中最显著(也是最持久)的是他自己对(道德)承诺的恐惧,他把这种恐惧与一种毒性如此之大的结合联系在一起,以至于一个生病的人可能会渴望上绞索。尽管约翰内斯在发展他的“思想项目”方面取得了成功,并且与他的前对手建立了同志情谊,但他在《碎片》的结尾退回到他曾经短暂出现的美学角落的安全地带。他对哲学着迷,但又被哲学的严肃含义(他认为是什么)吓坏了,他满足于他的哲学饮食所包含的“碎片”和“碎屑”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信