This paper reexamines Kierkegaard's work with respect to the question whether truth is one or many. I argue that his famous distinction between objective and subjective truth is grounded in a unitary conception of truth as such: truth as self-coincidence. By explaining his use in this context of the term ‘redoubling’ [Fordoblelse], I show how Kierkegaard can intelligibly maintain that truth is neither one nor many, neither a simple unity nor a complex multiplicity. I further show how these points shed (...) much-needed light on the relationship between objective and subjective truth, conceived not as different kinds or species of truth but as different ways in which truth manifests itself as a standard of success across different contexts of inquiry. (shrink)

In the 17th century, ‘reflexivity’ was coined as a new term for introspection and self-awareness. It thus was poised to serve the instrumental function of combating skepticism by asserting a knowing self. In this Cartesian paradigm, introspection ends in an entity of self-identity. An alternate interpretation recognized how an infinite regress of reflexivity would render ‘the self’ elusive, if not unknowable. Reflexivity in this latter mode was rediscovered by post-Kantian philosophers, most notably Hegel, who defined the self in its self-reflective (...) encounter with an other, and whose full articulation would occur at the final culmination of Reason's evolution. In the rising tide of 19th-century individualism, Emerson and Kierkegaard formulated constructions both in debt to, and in opposition against, Hegelian metaphysics. For each, although employing distinct strategies of self-consciousness, ‘the self’ reached its apogee through divine encounter. Characterized by personal responsibility and individual choice, their philosophies would later be subsumed by secular existentialists committed to defining moral individualism and asserting the possibilities for human freedom and selfauthentication. (shrink)

This article engages the considerations of imagination in Kierkegaard and Ricoeur to argue for a moral dimension of the imagination and its objects. Imaginary objects are taken to be mental representations in images and narratives of people or courses of action that are not real in the sense that they are not actual, or have not yet happened. Three claims are made in the article. First, by drawing on the category of possibility, a conceptual distinction is established between imagination and (...) fantasy, (1) I claim that imagination has a moral dimension because it is engaged in considering real-life possibilities. Second, (2) drawing on Kierkegaard and Ricoeur, it is argued that mental representations of selfhood in imagination have a moral dimension because they essentially allow people to understand the development of agency in human selfhood by means of representations of would-be selves and narrative figurations of the self. Third, (3) mental representations of human selves have a moral dimension because they form important points of reference for moral orientations in the field of human praxis (moral pointers). (shrink)

The paper considers two problems related to the interpretation of S. Kierkegaard’s conception of Angest. Firstly, a tendency to interpret Kierkegaard’s Angest as a “fear without an object” and to posit its similarity to Heidegger’s Angst is put in question. Questioning this interpretation, an analysis of The Concept of Anxiety is undertaken, in order to reveal ambivalence as the primary feature of Kierkegaard’s conception of Angest. Secondly, the question of translating Angest into Lithuanian is addressed, criticizing the established tradition of (...) translating Angest as “baimė” and supporting translator’s I. Tomaševičiūtė’s choice of “nerimas”. The aforementioned ambivalence of Angest serves as the basis for the critique, revealing Angest as a paradoxical attraction to that, which frightens. The first part of the paper expounds on the moment of ambivalence in the descriptions of Angest, found in The Concept of Anxiety. The second part compares and underlines the differences between the philosophical approaches of Kierkegaard and Heidegger. It is shown that Kierkegaard’s attention to the ambivalence of Angest is related to the practical bent of Kierkegaard’s philosophy and the problematics of personal individuation. (shrink)

This paper re-examines Kierkegaard's work with respect to the question whether truth is one or many. I argue that his famous distinction between objective and subjective truth is grounded in a unitary conception of truth as such: truth as self-coincidence. By explaining his use in this context of the term ‘redoubling’ [ Fordoblelse ], I show how Kierkegaard can intelligibly maintain that truth is neither one nor many, neither a simple unity nor a complex multiplicity. I further show how these (...) points shed much-needed light on the relationship between objective and subjective truth, conceived not as different kinds or species of truth but as different ways in which truth manifests itself as a standard of success across different contexts of inquiry. (shrink)

En La enfermedad mortal Anti-Climacus describe enfáticamente la desesperación como la consecuencia de la negación de la posibilidad producida por el deseo humano cuando este insiste en ser sí mismo u otro sin Dios. Esta negación genera una relación no efectiva del individuo consigo mismo y con los otros, dando lugar a la condición del pecado, entendido en su connotación religiosa. Lo anterior conduce al problema de cómo llegar a ser un verdadero cristiano en el marco de una crítica, realizada (...) frecuentemente por el pensador danés, del egoísmo moderno. En el siguiente artículo realizaré un análisis hermenéutico de la desesperación considerando el contexto de la objetividad moderna, en contraposición al concepto del amor planteado por Kierkegaard como un proyecto ético-existencial en Las obras del amor. (shrink)