Søren Kierkegaard is an important thinker, especially important for those who wish to understand Christian faith. His elusive style, however, and certain distancing techniques make him particularly difficult to understand. The recent history of writings on Kierkegaard reveals a strong tendency to fall into one of two erroneous modes of interpretation. This essay is an attempt to rescue Kierkegaard both from muggings by ‘rigorous’ philosophers and from the morganatic embraces of Post-Modernists. It reviews the classical sources of each of these (...) sorts of reading of Kierkegaard, exposes their mistakes, and suggests several appropriate principles of interpretation. (shrink)

It is a tacit assumption among most contemporary American and British philosophers that the question of style in philosophy is, at most, an issue of peripheral importance. Although it is generally agreed that a well developed sense of style may make a philosopher’s work more accessible and thus be a factor in its acceptance by a wider audience, and although it seems self-evident to many that the apparent inaccessibility of much of continental philosophy is due in part to stylistic vagaries (...) to which it is particularly prone, few would accord to style an importance beyond this. Certainly style is not an integral part of a philosophical position. It is always possible in principle, so the dominant view today suggests, to separate the position being expressed from the style the author employs in expressing it. The position itself is equated with the body of propositions that the philosopher is asserting; the style in which these are expressed either has no bearing on the truth value of the propositions and is consequently irrelevant or else it can be incorporated into either the propositions themselves or the structure of the argument, in which case it is no longer primarily a stylistic consideration. In either case, a philosopher’s style is ultimately not integral to the position which he advances. (shrink)

Peter Kivy investigates the unity of form and content in the arts, particularly in poetry. While Kivy says much with which I happily agree, I sadly disagree with him about the impossibility of form–content identities. Kivy's arguments fail to compel: there are other ways of understanding form–content identities and the need for them that has been felt by artists and critics. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?