主体性是否存在悬置?

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
Mikael Brorson
{"title":"主体性是否存在悬置?","authors":"Mikael Brorson","doi":"10.1515/kierke-2023-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the Kierkegaard reception of the Danish theologians K. Olesen Larsen and Johannes Sløk, who both understood Kierkegaard as attempting to radically subvert the freedom of the human being. Initially, I show how current Kierkegaard research on the question of subjectivity, freedom and indirect communication differs from the readings of Olesen Larsen and Sløk. Subsequently, and in contrast to this, Olesen Larsen’s somewhat ambivalent attempt to read Kierkegaard as undermining human freedom is presented. Third, I show how Sløk arrives at a somewhat similar result, though in a more coherent way. In conclusion, the article offers a brief discussion on the plausibility of this interpretation.","PeriodicalId":53174,"journal":{"name":"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook","volume":"90 1","pages":"99 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is There a Suspension of Subjectivity?\",\"authors\":\"Mikael Brorson\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/kierke-2023-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article examines the Kierkegaard reception of the Danish theologians K. Olesen Larsen and Johannes Sløk, who both understood Kierkegaard as attempting to radically subvert the freedom of the human being. Initially, I show how current Kierkegaard research on the question of subjectivity, freedom and indirect communication differs from the readings of Olesen Larsen and Sløk. Subsequently, and in contrast to this, Olesen Larsen’s somewhat ambivalent attempt to read Kierkegaard as undermining human freedom is presented. Third, I show how Sløk arrives at a somewhat similar result, though in a more coherent way. In conclusion, the article offers a brief discussion on the plausibility of this interpretation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"99 - 113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-11\",\"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-2023-0006\",\"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-2023-0006","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

本文考察了丹麦神学家K. Olesen Larsen和Johannes Sløk对克尔凯郭尔的看法,他们都认为克尔凯郭尔试图从根本上颠覆人类的自由。首先,我展示了克尔凯郭尔目前对主体性、自由和间接交流问题的研究如何不同于对奥尔森·拉森(Olesen Larsen)和Sløk的解读。随后,与此形成对比的是,奥尔森·拉森(Olesen Larsen)有些矛盾地试图将克尔凯郭尔解读为破坏人类自由。第三,我将展示Sløk如何以一种更连贯的方式得出某种程度上类似的结果。最后,本文对这种解释的合理性进行了简要讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is There a Suspension of Subjectivity?
Abstract This article examines the Kierkegaard reception of the Danish theologians K. Olesen Larsen and Johannes Sløk, who both understood Kierkegaard as attempting to radically subvert the freedom of the human being. Initially, I show how current Kierkegaard research on the question of subjectivity, freedom and indirect communication differs from the readings of Olesen Larsen and Sløk. Subsequently, and in contrast to this, Olesen Larsen’s somewhat ambivalent attempt to read Kierkegaard as undermining human freedom is presented. Third, I show how Sløk arrives at a somewhat similar result, though in a more coherent way. In conclusion, the article offers a brief discussion on the plausibility of this interpretation.
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