Class Notes (839,376)
Canada (511,314)
Philosophy (1,521)
PHL217H1 (47)


6 Pages

Course Code
Sol Goldberg

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Soren Kierkegaard – Public as Untruth • last time covered his positive teaching about truth – why prefer necessarily subjective truth about subjectivity of truth over objectivist notions of truth like hegel’s • now moving towards ‘negative teaching’  showing special obstacles existing in our time that weren’t there before to individuals acquiring and possessing subjective truth (the only truth that matters for Kierkegaard) o leads us to different sort of untruth  not in ordinary sense an error, compatible with everyday truths  not untruth in Kantian sense of lying and deliberate falsification, different form • 1 – Review: truth is subjectivity and subjectivity is truth o basic claim: TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVITY  this is NOT Truth being subjective (each person has particular perspective, can never be sure if personal view coincides with other people’s views – this isn’t what Kierkegaard is saying) • assertion that objective truth is impossible is different from Kierkegaard who thinks that at some level this is possible in basic, ordinary way • he would agree if you meant correspondence of statements with straightforward reality – this isn’t a problem for him • also that claim doesn’t attain subjectivity Kierkegaard is pushing us towards • problem of modern age is accessing one’s subjectivity o double reflection  • religious, existential context • 1st reflection on statement or proposition (2+2=4) – here there is proposition and you think this proposition is thought • 2nd reflection is on yourself as thinking that statement or proposition – focus on you as thinking rather than content of proposition  notice yourself thinking that thought o changes content of what your thinking and quality of your thinking (the how of the thinking) • not about external reality and your thought agreeing or if you believe they agree – but how this thought does or dosent matter to you • how you must think to appropriate this thought as your own – can it be thought be indifferently and adequately or does it require the utmost passion for you to be thinking it? • This is FORMER definition  but not proper context  real question on this definition is religious or existential truth – whats at stake is something like salvation of your soul • Question about soul and salvation proper context is because something you cannot think about and be indifferent • Shift away from truths of ordinary statements – we have general view of truth as emphasis on surety of our knowledge • Kierkegaard – certainty disappears, so becomes question of value • Williams article -condition of us living together is agreeance and accuracy of reality o Living shared human life, getting along in the world • Kierkegaard – different sort of value, value in the highest sense for him  nothing less than salvation of your soul • Kant – everyone must be ideal member of whole and speak as if to ideal whole  reach some perfect agreement for beliefs among individual members of rational community o Rational accounting sees humans thinking in concert – we must give each other reasons for our beliefs and reach some sort of agreement of what justifiable reason for belief is • Hegel – should this happen, individual disappears • **think about what value does thinking these thoughts have for me individually – what difference does it make if im passionate or indifferent about them or don’t think about thm at all** o decisive – our encounter with selves in effort to think? We want to maybe discover our identity? Truth as subjectivity – not vulgar subjectivity of everyone just having own perspective so not accounting to each other • Kierkegaard - if not accounting to each other its because there is more demanding and serious we give of ourselves to ourselves in how we think • Synonymous with final reckoning with soul salvation, existentially reflected • No way to assimilate notion, or mediate it, with public notion of reason – the kind of subjectivity he is demanding • Truth that is essentially private – if made public it’s a distortion of whats being communicated itself • Defending the Kierkegaard view in a methodical manner – giving up subjectivity – Kierkegaard worrying about communicating in certain way and giving up own subjectivity o How to not give up subjectivity and not falsify this truth o Leaves us wondering is his indirect manner of communication (only way he can communicate this to us) – does he ever succeed, is it possible to communicate this truth to us, does it matter in something that’s always a private matter? • 2 – dedication to “that single individual” o PROBLEM in communication, his dedication to single individual o Kierkegaard contrasts his communicative abilities as author to public – doing something different, contrasting his ability with gods necessa
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.