Abstract
It is now some sixty years since the American “Dane,” David Swenson, discovered the “Danish Socrates,” Snren Kierkegaard. During the last twenty-five years Americans have had the opportunity of becoming well acquainted with Kierkegaardian reflection, both philosophical and theological. There has poured forth from the American presses not only the major works of this strange thinker, but also numerous attempts to present his life and the general tenor of his thought. Such attempts were both necessary and fruitful.1 This first stage of scholarship, however, although much needed and frequently well done, was but a preliminary to the work which is now beginning to appear. Professor Lowrie confessed to his limitations at interpretation, and many other have intended no more than an introductory presentation of “Kierkegaard in English.” Further work of this kind may still be needed to clarify scholarly issues of a biographical nature, and to present to a new age, in their terms, the general structure of Kierkegaardian thought. It is the thesis of this essay, however, that we have entered the preliminary stages in a more significant task, and that American students have started to move to a second stage in Kierkegaardian scholarship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Footnotes
For study of Kierkegaard’s introduction to the American public see an unpublished dissertation by M. M. Link, Kierkegaard’s Way To America (The American University Library, 1951),
in addition to numerous scattered comments by Mr. Walter Lowrie, especially “Translators And Interpreters Of S. K.,” Theology Today, 12 (1955) 312–322.
For a recent European interpretation of Kierkegaard’s theology see L. Dupre, Kierkegaard’s Theologie (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1958).
I shall be especially concerned with the following books and articles: Books: J. Collins, The Mind Of Kierkegaard (Chicago: Regnery, 1953);
C. O. Schrag, Existence And Freedom (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1961);
M. Wyschogrod, Kierkegaard And Heideger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954).
Articles: J. Collins, “Faith And Reflection In Kierkegaard,” Journal Of Religion, 37 (1957) 10–19, hereafter referred to as “FRK”;
M. J. Heinecken, “Kierkegaard As Christian,” Journal Of Religion, 37 (1957) 20–30;
R. Herbert, “Two Of Kierkegaard’s Uses Of ‘Paradox’,” The Philosophical Review, 70 (1961) 44–55;
P. L. Holmer, “Kierkegaard And Religious Propositions,” Journal Of Religion, 35 (1955) 135–146, hereafter referred to as “KRP”;
P. Holmer, “Kierkegaard And Kinds Of Discourse,” Meddelser fra S. K. Selskapet, January, 1954, hereafter referred to as “KKD;”
P. L. Holmer, “James Collins And Kierkegaard,” Meddeleser fra S. K. Selskapet, August, 1954, hereafter referred to as “JCK”;
P. L. Holmer, “Kierkegaard And Ethical Theory,” Ethics, 63 (1953) 157–170, hereafter referred to as “KET”;
P. L. Holmer, “Kierkegaard And Theology,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 12 (1957) 23–31;
R. E. Larsen, “Kierkegaard’s Absolute Paradox,” Journal Of Religion, 42 (1962) 34–43;
L. Mackey, “Kierkegaard And The Problem Of Existential Philosophy,” The Review Of Metaphysics, 9 (1956) 404–419, 569–588, hereafter referred to as “KPEP”;
W. E. Nagley, “Kierkegaard On Liberation,” Ethics, 70 (1959) 47–58;
W. W. Paul, “Faith And Reason In Kierkegaard And Modern Existentialism,” Review Of Religion, 20 (1956) 149–163, hereafter referred to as “FRKME”;
P. Ramsey, “Existenz And The Existence of God: A Study Of Kierkegaard And Hegel,” Journal Of Religion, 28 (1948) 157–176;
J. H. Thomas, “Kierkegaard And The Existence Of God,” Review Of Religion, 18 (1953) 18–30, hereafter referred to as “KEG”;
J. Wild, “Kierkegaard And Classical Philosophy,” The Philosophical Review, 49 (1940) 536–551, hereafter referred to as “KCP”.
For a consideration of will as a central metaphor in Kierkegaard’s philosophy see W. E. Nagley, “Kierkegaard On Liberation,” Ethics, 70 (1959) 47–58.
Collins, “FRK,” pp. 15–17; Wild, “KCP,” pp. 537, 551.
C. O. Schrag, Existence And Freedom, p. 4.
Ibid., p. 5.
Ibid., p. 52.
W. Barrett, H. D. Aiken, Philosophy In The Twentieth Century (New York: Random House, 1962) I, pp. 3–43;
W. Barrett, H. D. Aiken, Philosophy In The Twentieth Century (New York: Random House, 1962) II, pp. 125–169.
Schrag, op. cit., p. 192.
Holmer, “JCK,” pp. 3–5; Holmer, “KRP,” p. 138;
M. Wyschogrod, Kierkegaard And Heideger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954), p. 26.
Holmer, “JCK,” pp. 6–7; Holmer, “KRP,” p. 141;
Wyschogrod, op. cit., p. 44.
For an analysis of the place of emotions in Kierkegaard’s thought see Wyschogrod, ibid., p. 79.
Thomas, “KEG,” pp. 24–27; Holmer, “JCK,” p. 8. At various points Holmer and Thomas both indicate the relevance of Kierkegaardian literature to current linguistic analysis. Holmer also notes frequently that even with the Kierkegaardian emphasis upon passion the philosopher will still have “plenty to do,” but the precise role of the philosopher qua philospher is never clarified.
Holmer, “KKD,” p. 7; Holmer, “KET,” p. 164; Holmer, “KRP,” pp. 135, 142;
J. Wild, The Challenge Of Existentialism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1955) p. 53.
Holmer, “KKD,” p. 5; Holmer, “KET,” p. 158; Wyschogrod, op. cit., p. 136.
Wyschogrod, op. cit., p. 44, see especially chapters 2, 4, 6. Note especially the Kierkegaardian critique of the Platonic-Spinozistic thesis regarding the “chain of Being.”
C. O. Schrag, Existence And Freedom.
Holmer, “JCK,” pp. 5–7; Holmer, “KRP,” pp. 139, 141; A Holmer, “Kierkegaard And Theology,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review., 12 (1957) pp. 22, 27, 28.
Wyschogrod, op. cit., p. 30.
Ibid., p. 129.
See Wyschogrod, Ibid., p. 130, for an analysis of the difficulties of Kierkegaard in attempting to do metaphysics and to introduce the category of Pure Being on a truly existential basis. Wyschogrod takes this to be the central problem of a Kierkegaardian existential philosophy.
Holmer, “KET,” p. 169.
Mackey, “KPEP,” pp. 404–407; 413–414; 416–417; 575.
For an analysis of the intimate relationship between subjectivity and existence on the one hand and objectvty and Being on the other, see Wyschogrod, op. cit., p. 30.
Schrag does not present any strong tension between Kierkegaardian subjectivity and the phenomenological program.
Wyschogrod notes the difficulties here and also the metaphysical problems it would raise for Kierkegaard if science were given an ontology which is not subject to the dominance of existential categories. Op. cit., pp. 142–143.
Schrag would obviously object to any such analysis. Schrag, op. cit., pp. 154–155.
For a discussion of the relationship of realism to similar issues in contemporary existentialism see Chapter X. For an analysis of the antirealistic aspects of Kierkegaard see Wyschogrod, op. cit., pp. 37–39;
Schrag, op. cit., pp. 176–177.
It is at just this point that Holmer is most critical of Collin’s interpretation of Kierkegaard. See Collins, The Mind Of Kierkegaard (Chicago: Regnery, 1953) and Holmer, “JCK”.
Holmer, “KKD,” p. 3; Holmer, “KET,” p. 165; Mackey, “KPEP,” pp. 404–407; 413–417; 575.
Holmer writes, “The source of obligation is in the subject.” “KRP,” p. 143. See also Holmer, “KET,” p. 166. For an analysis of a Kierkegaardian norm see Wyschogrod, op. cit., pp. 31–32; 45–46.
For an analysis of choice and Being, or subjectvism and realism, in Kierkegaard’s ethics, see Wyschogrod, Ibid. p. 33, Note 1.
For a discussion of freedom and Being or freedom and realism in Kierkegaard, see Wyschogrod, Ibid., pp. 38–39. Kierkegaard’s emphasis upon appropriation rather than cognition in ethics leads Collins to propose that we now need much more emphasis upon the “what” of faith rather than the “how.” See Collins, “FRK,” p. 19.
See also Schrag, op. cit., p. 179.
Paul, “FRKME,” p. 154. Collins alo tends to identify ethical faith at the ethical stage in Kierkegaard’s thought with a kind of insight. “FRK,” p. 13.
M. J. Heinecken, “Kierkegaard As Christian,” Journal Of Religion, 37 (1957) 20–30.
Ibid., p. 28.
Larsen maintains that the ultimate paradox for Kierkegaard is not a self-contradiction but a limit for thought, and Herbert argues that there is no “logical impossibility” in either religionness A or B. R. E. Larsen, “Kierkegaard’s Absolute Paradox,” Journal Of Religion, 42 (1962) 34–43;
R. Herbert, “Two Of Kierkegaard’s Uses Of ‘Paradox’,” Philosophical Review, 70 (1961) 41–55.
Paul, “FRKME,” pp. 152–153, 161; Thomas, “KEG,” p. 20; Ramsey, “Existenz And The Existence Of God: A Study Of kierkegaard And Hegel,” Journal Of Religion, 28 (1948) 162–170.
Wyschogrod, op. cit., pp. 94–95. Incidently, a strange historical disagreement has appeared regarding the extent to which Kierkegaard was acquainted with Aristotle. Wild suggested that if Kierkegaard had studies Aristotle more thoroughly he would have dropped his proposals about the “leap.” “KCP,” p. 46. Later, However, he speaks of Kierkegaard as “thoroughly acquainted with the… Aristotelian writings.” Thomas, on the other hand, argues that a study of Kierkegaard’s library indicates that he had made a profound study of Aristotle and that the origin of the idea of the “leap” was partly found in Aristotle. “KEG,” p. 25.
Collins proposes that for Kierkegaard both faith and reason play an appropriate role at each level of existence. At the religious stage, however, what is the precise role which reason plays? Collins suggests that one meets God in “belief,” which would appear to be a strange combination of freedom and knowledge; this would seem to minimize the radical role of conviction and decision for Kierkegaard. “FRK,” pp. 11–14, 18. Collins also presents a helpful elucidation of the meaning of the term “faith” in the idealism of Kierkegaard’s day.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Durfee, H.A. (1987). The Second Stage of Kierkegaardian Scholarship in America. In: Foundational Reflections. American University Publications in Philosophy, vol 29. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3593-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3593-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8107-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3593-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive