Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting

[RJT]

My thoughts thus far – haven’t even deciphered the whole of the Prelude (I think I spoke in haste when I told chez, SK was easy).

In his preface SK (as J De Silentio) pokes fun of almost (or at least finds them not particularly relevant) philosophers of his day (or immediately prior to his own time) who seek to go beyond doubt and live only with what is empirical. “In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.” Or that they expect their empiricism to be able to take them further.

He says others can look to go beyond doubt. That for me (him) Faith is fine. I (RJT) might have said it this way “Hey, maybe it’s just me”. He uses self deprecation to disarm the reader. SK as De Silentio says the writer is not a philosopher – yeah right.

I like his wit:

“What those ancient Greeks (who also had some understanding of philosophy)…”

and

“… so that there were fifty words for a period and thirty-five for a semicolon.”

Trop – I take it Trop is a contemporary of Soren who wrote criticisms of works in their day?

Regarding the Prelude – without getting into the text yet, I think of some filmmakers who use this technique. I can’t recall anything specific, but I think Tarentino does this. I remember Costa-Gavras in his film “Missing” uses a similar technique to SK. CG repeats the same scene in flashbacks – he further tells what (might have) happened to the missing son until near the end of the film we see how the son was probably abducted and killed. The scene is repeated as does SK repeats the Abraham story each time with a new (different?) understanding. Reading the different versions of the Abraham story I imagine rewinding a video and then playing it again but, each time we are watching a new movie. Or perhaps like a recurring dream (perhaps, nightmare is a better word) that differ dramatically each night.

SK’s technique here seems very novel for his time. Without a keen sense of 19th century literature, I might be overstating.

[Scotch78]

King James Version

New American Bible

New International Version

Hebrew

Scott

Pick a Version... Any version....

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read last night that SK died 11/11/1855. We decided to read him on 11/11/2005 (when Scotch confirmed in his post of 11/11 that we would go with him.) 150 years later - I think if we had any doubts on whom to read first, this anniversary is reason enough.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]I like it when a plan comes together. I am having trouble getting past the inaccurate description of the story of abraham tho.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I had that same idea that the man retells the story at different stages of his life. I wasn’t sure if that was implied by SK or even the case for sure.

I also agree that SK will probably get into more of what he is offering here as we proceed with F & T. I am going to give the Prelude another go later on this evening. I suggest that we discuss this a bit longer - (Scotch, you set the timetable) - but not get bogged down in it quite yet, as it seems this might be what the whole book deals with in various ways.

I don’t mean to suggest that if someone has a good idea so far that they should refrain from posting it. I certainly will post if I have something to add after my re-read. “Not bloody well likely.” (That last sentence is a quote from Seinfeld. I’ll probably allude to him often as we get into existentialism. Thought I should disclose this from the onset. The Bible, Godfather I and II, To Kill a Mockingbird, Seinfeld and a dictionary - my essential reference material in my life thus far. Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

[/ QUOTE ]

Unintentional if at all. I usually have no idea what I mean. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[RJT]

I was browsing the internet to cut and paste some pictures of Abraham and Isaac as depicted in Art. I was hoping also to find a few examples that I thought might match up with the 4 versions.

It seems that this has already been done - made my work easier.

www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/ashp/brunelleschi_ghiberti.html

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I had that same idea that the man retells the story at different stages of his life. I wasn’t sure if that was implied by SK or even the case for sure.

I also agree that SK will probably get into more of what he is offering here as we proceed with F & T. I am going to give the Prelude another go later on this evening. I suggest that we discuss this a bit longer - (Scotch, you set the timetable) - but not get bogged down in it quite yet, as it seems this might be what the whole book deals with in various ways.

I don’t mean to suggest that if someone has a good idea so far that they should refrain from posting it. I certainly will post if I have something to add after my re-read. “Not bloody well likely.” (That last sentence is a quote from Seinfeld. I’ll probably allude to him often as we get into existentialism. Thought I should disclose this from the onset. The Bible, Godfather I and II, To Kill a Mockingbird, Seinfeld and a dictionary - my essential reference material in my life thus far. Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

[/ QUOTE ]
Version are vital. When I refer to the godfather it will mean the book.

[ QUOTE ]
In these and similar ways this man of whom we speak thought about these events. Every time he came home from a journey to the mountain in Moriah he collapsed in weariness, clasped his hands, and said: "Yet no one was as great as Abraham; who is able to understand him?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I've re-read the prelude again and can't make any other sense of it. This quote clearly? refers to this man who immersed himself so deeply in the story of Abraham that each time he visited the story it was like being on the journey himself, and that it was very difficult to understand what was transpiring.

chez

[SonofJen]

A few comments from reading both the passage and this thread:

1) Great idea to start this book club Scotch - good pick too (especially with the anniversary and all) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

2) RJT - Good find on the four different works of art depicting the four different interpretations.

3) The Milgram experiment was interesting - hadn't heard of it before yet it totally reminded me of Ghostbusters

4) I also found the following commentary interesting Storm's Commentary. The number of levels that this text is operating on is quite extraordinary. I especially liked the analogy between the reader and the baby and the mother and SK. Very interesting indeed. In that case, let the weening continue!

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

In logical terminology, what is the parallel of "faith"?

Scott

edit: And as a further hint, why do people think that I, an agnostic and a skeptic, agree with Kierkegaard?