在两种伦理之间:为什么评估师威廉不是法官

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
Viktoras Bachmetjevas
{"title":"在两种伦理之间:为什么评估师威廉不是法官","authors":"Viktoras Bachmetjevas","doi":"10.1515/kierke-2020-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although there is a broad agreement among Kierkegaard’s scholars that Assessor Wilhelm is an ethical thinker, the agreement on what kind of ethics his standpoint represents has been much harder to come by. The suggestions range from Schiller to Aristotle and from Kant to Hegel. The article contends that the apparent lack of a coherent ethical theory on Assessor Wilhelm’s part is in fact part of a deliberate ethical strategy. Based on Vigilius Haufniensis’ distinction between first and second ethics, it is argued that Assessor Wilhelm occupies a space in between, in which he attempts to create a dynamic for A in the direction of the so-called second ethics, and this by mainly using ironic means.","PeriodicalId":53174,"journal":{"name":"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between the Two Ethics: Why Assessor Wilhelm is not a Judge\",\"authors\":\"Viktoras Bachmetjevas\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/kierke-2020-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Although there is a broad agreement among Kierkegaard’s scholars that Assessor Wilhelm is an ethical thinker, the agreement on what kind of ethics his standpoint represents has been much harder to come by. The suggestions range from Schiller to Aristotle and from Kant to Hegel. The article contends that the apparent lack of a coherent ethical theory on Assessor Wilhelm’s part is in fact part of a deliberate ethical strategy. Based on Vigilius Haufniensis’ distinction between first and second ethics, it is argued that Assessor Wilhelm occupies a space in between, in which he attempts to create a dynamic for A in the direction of the so-called second ethics, and this by mainly using ironic means.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-18\",\"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-2020-0002\",\"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":"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/kierke-2020-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然克尔凯郭尔的学者们普遍认为威廉是一位伦理学思想家,但对于他的立场所代表的伦理学类型却很难达成一致。这些建议从席勒到亚里士多德,从康德到黑格尔。本文认为,威廉评估员明显缺乏连贯的伦理理论,实际上是一种深思熟虑的伦理策略的一部分。基于乌夫尼乌斯对第一伦理和第二伦理的区分,本文认为威廉占据了一个介于第一伦理和第二伦理之间的空间,他试图为a创造一种向所谓第二伦理方向发展的动力,而这主要是通过讽刺的手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Between the Two Ethics: Why Assessor Wilhelm is not a Judge
Abstract Although there is a broad agreement among Kierkegaard’s scholars that Assessor Wilhelm is an ethical thinker, the agreement on what kind of ethics his standpoint represents has been much harder to come by. The suggestions range from Schiller to Aristotle and from Kant to Hegel. The article contends that the apparent lack of a coherent ethical theory on Assessor Wilhelm’s part is in fact part of a deliberate ethical strategy. Based on Vigilius Haufniensis’ distinction between first and second ethics, it is argued that Assessor Wilhelm occupies a space in between, in which he attempts to create a dynamic for A in the direction of the so-called second ethics, and this by mainly using ironic means.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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