Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (21506)	3/17/2002 8:05:14 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

. K's concept of God as the limit of the finite, the point at which one encounters death and unreasonable tragedy, is not an easy one for any culture, let alone contemporary American culture which works with a much more limited and benign conception of God. I was trying to get to a pragmatic rather than a conventional philosophical point. I didn't do it very well. Certain parts of American culture are not unaware of the limit of the finite and in one case I know of have formalized it as an operating principle: Alcoholics Anonymous. It's very useful for many folk and most don't get to it easily - it's difficult to admit powerlessness. It's difficult, generally, to admit to limits but often has great rewards if we do. The alcoholic admits powerlessness over his addiction and gives hinself over to a higher power. The activity is empirically based arising out of a clear description of personal limit. Kierkegard's insight is huge but isn't confined only to the 'big questions' which is why I was so taken with the quote from his Personal Journal. The more I pursue the matter, the more I see that the confusion is not only in Denmark, not only in Protestantism, and not only in Christendom, but the confusion is in the nature of man. JP, 3: 2333 (1854) If the "confusion is in the nature of man" then we can describe our nature. The questions we have to ask is where are we going to start our description. Are we going to start where (eg.) Miller does? Or Becker? Or Kierkegard? What sort of 'cross section' are we going to make of our nature? And will it be applicable to the serious problem confronting us? Bellanger, who is a Kierkegard scholar is examining violence. He looks at the holocaust of the twentieth century. We are looking at people who are advocating a new holocaust and, furthermore, are aiming it at us. In the process of their advocacy they have managed to pervert reason, ethics and religion - this is no small accomplishment: Most of us only manage this one thing at a time and not all the time. Since these great perversions of humanity have happened in various place and times, we can be sure they rise out of our nature and we can look in ourselves for explanation, if our description is adequate - if we take the right 'cross sections' It's too late to continue this. Almost random notes: Encountering death and unreasonable tragedy does not lead necessarily to existential authenticity, nevermind the limit of the finite. Losing the Caliphate is unreasonable tragedy? Hegel as romantic project? Kierkegard? Ignorance is limitation of finite. Open metaphor.