Kierkegaardovo misaono nadahnuće motivirano je dvama nezadovoljstvima: prvo se tiče spekulativne filozofije i njezine nemogućnosti da zahvati zbiljnost pojedinca u njegovoj egzistencijalnoj danosti, a drugo se tiče građansko-kršćanskog svijeta njegova doba koji je u rasulu i gdje je »individua« posve dokinuta prevlašću »gomile«. Kako postati samim sobom, »jedan jedini«, odnosno »individua« , pitanje je koje Kierkegaard postavlja u središte svog filozofskog interesa. Put od običnog opstanka do zbiljskog egzistiranja, odnosno od »gomile« do »individue« ostvaruje se kroz tri stadija. To su (...) estetski, etički i religiozni stadij egzistiranja. U ovom se radu analiziraju njihovi ključni konstituensi i suodnos iščitavanjem primarno tri Kierkegaardova djela: Ili-ili, Bolest na smrt, Strah i drhtanje. I dok je odnos između estetskog i etičkog stadija dijalektički, religiozno stoji naspram estetskog i etičkog u naddijalektičkom odnosu. Taj se nad-dijalektički odnos pokazuje ključnim za interpretaciju Kierkegaardova mišljenja. -/- Kierkegaard’s philosophical inspiration was motivated by two displeasures: The first one concerns speculative philosophy and its incapability to grasp the reality of an individual in their existential givenness, and the second one has to do with the contemporary bourgeois-Christian world that had been falling apart and in which the “individual” was quite abrogated by the domination of the “crowd”. How to become one’s self, “unique”, or an “individual”, is the question Kierkegaard places into the center of his philosophical interest. The path from a common survival to a real existence, i. e., from the “crowd” to the “ndividual” is realized in three stages, through the esthetic, ethical, and the religious stages of exiastence. This paper analyzes their key constituents and their interrelation with an analysis of thre of Kierkegaard’s works: Either/Or, The Sickness unto Death, and Fear and Trembling. While the relation between the esthetic and ethical stages is a dialectical one, the religious is in a supradialectical relation to the esthetic and the ethical. This supradialectical relation is the key to the interpretation of Kierkegaard’s thought. (shrink)

Kierkegaard's theory of pre-ethical, aesthetic, ethical, and religious spheres of moral reasoning was applied to the case of an individual rejected for promotion to full professor. The evaluators seemed to represent the public morality of the profession, assumed that they represented the highest level of moral reasoning, and judged that the candidate represented a private morality based on a lower level of moral reasoning. The article questioned the view that moral reasoning could be discerned from one's actions. It was paradoxical (...) that different spheres seemed to produce similar kinds of actions, though for differing reasons, making identification difficult. It was easy for the evaluators to confuse spheres representing private moralities and to conclude, based on the candidate's research record, that she/he was unsuitable for promotion. It was equally difficult for the candidate to discern whether the evaluators' moral reasoning represented the public morality of the profession, or a pre-ethical need by the evaluators to appear in solidarity with the public morality. This made it difficult for the candidate to know whether the evaluators' recommendations represented absolute standards that would be applied to any future re-application, or not. The article's contribution was the identification of different spheres of moral reasoning, the interactions between spheres, and the paradoxical indeterminacy of gauging moral reasoning from moral action. It supported Kierkegaard's view that the highest truth attainable by an individual was "an objective uncertainty" and that this truth was lost in self-deception when one claimed to have been able to solve the paradox. (shrink)

Is it possible for there to be a fruitful dialogue between Søren Kierkegaard and Buddhists regarding the understanding of the self? In this paper, I explore the possibilities for such a dialogue by first discussing the rejection of substantialism shared by Kierkegaard and Buddhists. Next, although many Buddhists accept a reductionist account of the kind found in the Abhidharma tradition, Madhyamaka thinkers such as Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti are well-known for offering an account of the self, based on the notion of (...) emptiness, which resembles in some ways the account of the self that is proposed by Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Anti-Climacus in The Sickness Unto Death. Third, I discuss Jonardon Ganeri’s performativist theory of the self and his suggestion that this view, originally developed by Candrakīrti, informs the view of the self which is developed by Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Johannes Climacus in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript. I conclude by exploring how Ganeri’s perfomativist theory of the self can illuminate recent attempts by both Buddhist and Kierkegaard scholars to articulate their accounts of the self by an appeal to narrative. (shrink)

To date, there have been few attempts to compare the thought of Confucius and Kierkegaard, and these few attempts have focused on the contrast between Kierkegaard’s stress on the individual and Confucius’s emphasis on the social aspect of human existence. In this article, I point instead to substantial agreement between the analyses of ethical existence offered by Confucius and two of Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous figures, Judge William of Either/Or and Johannes Climacus of The Concluding Unscientific Postscript . I seek to use (...) this parallelism to better discern the specific character of Confucius’s religious consciousness. (shrink)

. Books received. Inquiry: Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 133-136.