{"title":"产生不可能:克里马库《哲学片段》中的神学与解构","authors":"T. Middleton","doi":"10.1080/21692327.2021.1923557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT According to Roger Poole, theological interpreters of Søren Kierkegaard’s indirect communication privilege content over form, whereas deconstructive interpreters privilege form over content. Here, I offer a reading of Johannes Climacus’s Philosophical Fragments to illustrate how, in this case, the theology/deconstruction and form/content binaries both break down. The form of Fragments is as theological as it is deconstructive: Climacus’s kaleidoscopic quotation of scripture, and his parabolic tropes both attest to this. Similarly, the content of Fragments is as deconstructive as it is theological: the deferral of names, the madness of the moment of decision, and Climacus’s use of contradiction all unsettle any naïve theology. Ultimately, I suggest, the reason that Fragments resists the form/content and theology/deconstruction binaries is because it is a text about the incarnation – a paradigmatic combination of form and content, and a paradoxical reality that bursts apart any division between theology and deconstruction.","PeriodicalId":42052,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Philosophy and Theology","volume":"82 1","pages":"116 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21692327.2021.1923557","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Giving birth to the impossible: theology and deconstruction in Johannes Climacus’s Philosophical Fragments\",\"authors\":\"T. Middleton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21692327.2021.1923557\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT According to Roger Poole, theological interpreters of Søren Kierkegaard’s indirect communication privilege content over form, whereas deconstructive interpreters privilege form over content. Here, I offer a reading of Johannes Climacus’s Philosophical Fragments to illustrate how, in this case, the theology/deconstruction and form/content binaries both break down. The form of Fragments is as theological as it is deconstructive: Climacus’s kaleidoscopic quotation of scripture, and his parabolic tropes both attest to this. Similarly, the content of Fragments is as deconstructive as it is theological: the deferral of names, the madness of the moment of decision, and Climacus’s use of contradiction all unsettle any naïve theology. Ultimately, I suggest, the reason that Fragments resists the form/content and theology/deconstruction binaries is because it is a text about the incarnation – a paradigmatic combination of form and content, and a paradoxical reality that bursts apart any division between theology and deconstruction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Philosophy and Theology\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"116 - 135\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21692327.2021.1923557\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Philosophy and Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21692327.2021.1923557\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Philosophy and Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21692327.2021.1923557","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Giving birth to the impossible: theology and deconstruction in Johannes Climacus’s Philosophical Fragments
ABSTRACT According to Roger Poole, theological interpreters of Søren Kierkegaard’s indirect communication privilege content over form, whereas deconstructive interpreters privilege form over content. Here, I offer a reading of Johannes Climacus’s Philosophical Fragments to illustrate how, in this case, the theology/deconstruction and form/content binaries both break down. The form of Fragments is as theological as it is deconstructive: Climacus’s kaleidoscopic quotation of scripture, and his parabolic tropes both attest to this. Similarly, the content of Fragments is as deconstructive as it is theological: the deferral of names, the madness of the moment of decision, and Climacus’s use of contradiction all unsettle any naïve theology. Ultimately, I suggest, the reason that Fragments resists the form/content and theology/deconstruction binaries is because it is a text about the incarnation – a paradigmatic combination of form and content, and a paradoxical reality that bursts apart any division between theology and deconstruction.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Philosophy and Theology publishes scholarly articles and reviews that concern the intersection between philosophy and theology. It aims to stimulate the creative discussion between various traditions, for example the analytical and the continental traditions. Articles should exhibit high-level scholarship but should be readable for those coming from other philosophical traditions. Fields of interest are: philosophy, especially philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophical ethics, and systematic theology, for example fundamental theology, dogmatic and moral theology. Contributions focusing on the history of these disciplines are also welcome, especially when they are relevant to contemporary discussions.