tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post5448203656910590338..comments2024-03-12T03:53:57.725-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Jacob Taubes, Karl Barth, and St PaulBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-36032149242294648102010-05-05T14:33:08.672-04:002010-05-05T14:33:08.672-04:00Ben,
I'd think that's exactly backwards:...Ben, <br /><br />I'd think that's exactly backwards: my hunch is that McCormack has seriously undervalued the influence of SK on Barth in order to emphasize the influence of neo-Kantianism and close some of the gap between Barth and liberalism by downplaying the "neo-Orthodox" reading and the significance of SK for Barth. <br /><br />I can't argue this (certainly not here), but a friend of mine is, writing a dissertation to that effect at Edinburgh. A preliminary version of his thesis was presented in his Masters work, which you can view here: <br />http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=masters <br /><br />I can't remember who my friend is working with (maybe Nimmo, I'm not sure), but I'll let you know if/when I hear more about the state of his work. I think he should finish it this year or the next, and I assume he'll publish it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-18492914945967967652010-05-05T04:03:33.342-04:002010-05-05T04:03:33.342-04:00Thanks for the very interesting comments. The disc...Thanks for the very interesting comments. The discussion of Kierkegaard is food for thought, especially since Taubes was obsessed with SK. And for what it's worth, I don't think Taubes was guilty of a retrospective Barthian reading of SK — if anything, it's more the case of a Kierkegaardian reading of Barth. (And of course there are problems lurking here: Bruce McCormack has demonstrated that Barth greatly exaggerated his own indebtedness to SK.)Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-68619492133816242222010-05-05T00:10:18.523-04:002010-05-05T00:10:18.523-04:00Nice piece so far Ben – keen to see the whole thin...Nice piece so far Ben – keen to see the whole thing. And great to see SK in the thick of this conversation. My sense is that you are on track with this Nate, but I hope you and SJ Loncar don’t go too private on your friendly scholarly disagreements here – I have found the interchange between you most interesting thus far; and your discussion is only just warming up!Paul Tysonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00469200454286176877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-16269588182514617702010-05-04T16:42:15.688-04:002010-05-04T16:42:15.688-04:00Mr. Loncar!
Good to see you on here!Mr. Loncar!<br /><br />Good to see you on here!Chris Grataskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-833066057341099142010-05-04T15:17:53.592-04:002010-05-04T15:17:53.592-04:00Sjloncar:
I agree that the details of the discuss...Sjloncar:<br /><br />I agree that the details of the discussion of texts, etc. needed here exceed the bounds of a blog conversation. I will say this, though: I think we should have no problem with attributing <i>Fear and Trembling</i> directly to SK himself. <i>Point of View for My Work as an Author</i> commits me to doing so. I also think that not to understand the annihilating critique that the notion of "world" as "property" is undergoing in <i>Fear and Trembling</i> is the real mistake of not reading the text rightly within the authership -- that is, I think Kierkegaard is to be read backwards to forwards. And so I take the argument of <i>Fear and Trembling</i> to be "repeating forward" the explicitly Christian dialectic of the later works. The way SK describes the Double Movement in <i>Fear and Trembling</i> is not without its "annihilating" elements, at least as regards to the world as property. Even Abraham says, in sacrificing Isaac, "now all is lost," and only in that saying -- in one and the same mo(ve)ment -- does the "re-turn" happen. There's also some stuff on the etymology of "repetition" and "return" here that indicates "new creation" interpreted as a kind of eschatological future breaking in on and overturning the past is the fundamental axis on which the double movement turns. I agree that the actualistic determination of this dialectic is a Barthian twist, but it is not without its Kierkegaardian roots.<br /><br />But I'll grant that all of this is an idiosyncratic reading of SK. And that, for me, SK is being put to use in helping me eventually to say something that is not entirely "Barthian" either.<br /><br />Who did you study with? I'd like to know more and converse further. Feel free to email me at: nathan.r.kerr@gmail.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584371933193379683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-88253233811957121482010-05-04T14:07:37.183-04:002010-05-04T14:07:37.183-04:00"Ecclesiological nihilism." I think you ..."Ecclesiological nihilism." I think you just gave Milbank a heart attack. Good job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-54864140113371994112010-05-04T14:06:32.625-04:002010-05-04T14:06:32.625-04:00Nate,
That's helpful, thank you.
I disagre...Nate, <br /><br />That's helpful, thank you. <br /><br />I disagree about Fear and Trembling and with what I think you mean by the "annihilation and recreation" bit. The theologia crucis theme I am well familiar with, having studied SK with the guy who did (I think) the best work on Luther and Kierkegaard in English.<br /><br />The "cross and resurrection" bit, though, I think is profoundly wrong. Also dubious is your attribution of texts like Fear and Trembling directly to SK. The "Lutheran dialectic" in SK (whatever it means in general) is not between cross and resurrection but between, in the theologia crucis, veiling and unveiling, hiddenness and manifestation (this, it seems, Barth also got from SK/Luther). <br /><br />The issue about infinite resignation and regaining all things in Johannes de Silentio, which he treats inadequately because of his location in the authorship, has nothing to do with "annihilation and recreation." That phrase, at any rate, is highly misleading for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its importing an actualistic (sounding, at least)schema into SK and Johannes de Silentio which is not present. Moreover, the issue of property is not in any way a central feature of the issue with Johannes is dealing, even if it's arguably an (very) indirect implication. <br /><br />It sounds, frankly, like SK is being read backwards from Barth and others (e.g contemporary theologians), which is a common problem in theological readings of SK, although it's much better than some alternatives (e.g. not realizing he's a theologian).<br /><br />Perhaps we can chat about all this another time in a different context. A blog is not the place for such detailed and complex disputes.<br /><br />Thanks again for the clarification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-32345503443623030522010-05-04T13:28:52.963-04:002010-05-04T13:28:52.963-04:00Sjloncar:
Actually, I think that the paradox of a...Sjloncar:<br /><br />Actually, I think that the paradox of annihilation and recreation (the apocalyptic paradox) is a dynamic that is not so foreign to Kierkegaard as one may think. One of the places that this happens is in <i>Fear and Trembling</i>. The way Kierkegaard thinks the dialectical relation of eternity to time there in such a way that the double movement of faith is an annihiliation of the world as property <i>just as</i> as it is the giving of the world and time as an event of gift -- every moment itself being a "new creation on the strength of the absurd." If one reads this through the Lutheran dynamic of the <i>theologia crucis</i> that is at work in later writings such as <i>Practice in Christianity</i>, where everything about being a discipleship in seen in light of the dialectic of cross and resurrection, you see how Barth's intensification of the motif in <i>Romans</i> is one that follows upon his understanding of the Kierkegaardian idea of the infinite qualitative difference between God and the world, and the way in which that difference <i>happens</i> for faith in the <i>moment</i> of apocalyptic annihilation and recreation. Ecclesiologically, this logic plays itself out in <i>The Moment</i> in addition to <i>Practice in Christianity</i>. Of course, all of this hinges on the Lutheran dialectic of cross and resurrection being read in this apocalyptic way and as being as important to Kierkegaard's work as I'm suggesting it is (which I think can be sustained by a reading of a number of Kierkegaard's writings, but most notably his <i>Journals and Papers</i>.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584371933193379683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-63681302749039253812010-05-04T13:02:23.905-04:002010-05-04T13:02:23.905-04:00What do you mean, Nate, by the "paradox of an...What do you mean, Nate, by the "paradox of annihilation and recreation" with respect to SK? <br /><br />I certainly wouldn't want to attribute such a paradox to SK, regardless of whether it applies to Barth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-32972053104389836322010-05-04T11:54:44.253-04:002010-05-04T11:54:44.253-04:00Funny. I was going to say (predictably!) that the...Funny. I was going to say (predictably!) that theologically it needs more Kierkegaard. With Kierkegaard you get the paradox of annihilation and recreation that is at the heart of <i>Der Romerbrief</i>, but also a way, via repetition, of thinking "tradition" that does not obviate that dialectic but intensifies it with regards to the so called "ecclesiological nihilism" (I like that phrase, by the way) Taubes is calling for.<br /><br />(And Kierkegaard's notions of repetion and God as wholly Other -- Barth is still using the term "wholly Other" in CD IV -- are operative all throughout the CD.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584371933193379683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-48727675256091701672010-05-04T08:54:08.046-04:002010-05-04T08:54:08.046-04:00I think the label "arch-conservative" ob...I think the label "arch-conservative" obscures rather than illumines Schmitt's political views. Call him a Fascist or a Nazi, and then let the reader decide whether his significance to certain thinkers on the "far left" is paradox or a natural fit.Adam Mortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-54986822486883707132010-05-04T08:24:10.572-04:002010-05-04T08:24:10.572-04:00Needs more John Rawls.Needs more John Rawls.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14594090275917087869noreply@blogger.com