El objetivo de este artículo es mostrar cómo Derrida ha concebido el exceso del concepto kierkegaardiano de muerte, especialmente en relación con “la muerte del otro” en oposición a la propia muerte. A pesar de las críticas que Lévinas dirige a lo religioso en Temor y temblor, en cuanto implica una suspensión de la ética, Derrida descubre en Kierkegaard una ética más exigente, una ética que suspende la ética: la ética del superviviente. Kierkegaard llevó a cabo, según Derrida, “un doblete (...) no dogmático del dogma, uno que repite la posibilidad de la religión sin religión”. La tesis que aquí se defiende es que esta ética del deber absoluto que Derrida descubre en Temor y temblor, en oposición a las éticas que dan sentido a la vida a pesar de la muerte, se resuelve en torno al tema central de la muerte del otro. Se mostrará cómo esta ética que defiende Derrida se corresponde con la “ética segunda” que Kierkegaard señala en Temor y temblor y desarrolla en Las obras del amor, especialmente en la articulación del deber absoluto de “amar a los muertos”. (shrink)

The duty to love one's neighbor as oneself is at the core of Kierkegaard's Works of Love . In this book, Kierkegaard unfolds the meaning of neighborly love and claims that it is the only valid form of true love. He contrasts between neighborly love and preferential love (which includes romantic love and friendship) and criticizes the latter for being nothing but a form of selfishness. However, in some contexts, Kierkegaard seems to acknowledge the significance of preferential love relationships, and (...) does not disallow them. Therefore, his understanding of preferential love appears to be confused and inconsistent. My essay discusses the tension in Kierkegaard's position regarding preferential love, and by presenting recent readings of Works of Love , it asks whether this tension is resolvable and offers a suggestion for a possible solution. (shrink)

The ethics expressed in Kierkegaard’s Works of Love has been subject to persistent criticism for its perceived indifference to concrete persons and failure to attend to the other in their individual specificity. Recent defenses of Works of Love have focused in large part on the role of vision in the text, showing the supposed “blind” empty formalism of the emphasis on the category of “the neighbor” to serve a normative model of seeing the other correctly. However, when this problem is (...) viewed in the broader context of Kierkegaard’s phenomenology of moral vision, two further, thus far unanswered, problems emerge: How can we see the other and the moral demand they represent at the same time, and how can we see the other and our own condition at the same time? This paper draws on other Kierkegaardian texts to show how Kierkegaard’s model of moral vision allows for the simultaneity in vision necessary to overcome these challenges. (shrink)

European Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.