Dissertation, Indiana University (2008)
|Abstract||This dissertation concerns Kierkegaard’s theory of indirect communication. A central aspect of this theory is what I call the “indispensability thesis”: there are some projects only indirect communication can accomplish. The purpose of the dissertation is to disclose and assess the rationale behind the indispensability thesis. A pair of questions guides the project. First, to what does ‘indirect communication’ refer? Two acceptable responses exist: (1) Kierkegaard’s version of Socrates’ midwifery method and (2) Kierkegaard’s use of artful literary devices. Second, for what end does Kierkegaard use indirect communication? There are two acceptable responses here as well: (1) helping others become religious and (2) making others aware of the nature of existence. These responses are interrelated. First, Kierkegaard’s notion of religion places restrictions on the means he can use to get readers to become religious. These restrictions ultimately entail that the only viable form of religious pedagogy is the midwifery method. Second, Kierkegaard engages in the midwifery method in part by making readers aware of the nature of existence (especially religious existence). But given the problems plaguing his readers, he thinks a straightforward approach to this project will likely fail. An approach that used artful literary devices such as deception and humor would be more successful. Third, Kierkegaard believes that there is one aspect of religious existence (viz. subjectivity) that people can come to know only first-hand. As such, he cannot directly impart knowledge of subjectivity to his readers. He argues that this means he must use the midwifery method. And he thinks the most productive way to do so is to provide readers with the kind of fictional narratives found in his early pseudonymous writings. Thus artful rhetorical devices play a role here as well. All of Kierkegaard’s arguments for the indispensability thesis turn on debatable assumptions. But the arguments concerning artful rhetorical devices have the additional defect of being merely probabilistic in nature. They lack the strength to support the indispensability thesis even if we grant the relevant background assumptions. Therefore, to the degree that the indispensability thesis has merit, it lies with the arguments concerning the midwifery method.|
|Keywords||Kierkegaard Indirect Communication Style|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Antony Aumann (2011). The ‘Death of the Author’ in Hegel and Kierkegaard: On Berthold’s 'The Ethics of Authorship'. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 32 (2):435-447.
Søren Kierkegaard (2009). Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Crumbs. Cambridge University Press.
J. Kellenberger (1984). Kierkegaard, Indirect Communication, and Religious Truth. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (2):153 - 160.
Brayton Polka (2005). Who is the Single Individual?: On the Religious and the Secular in Kierkegaard. Philosophy and Theology 17 (1/2):157-175.
David A. Borman (2006). Betrayal in Teaching: Persuasion in Kierkegaard, Theory and Performance. Continental Philosophy Review 39 (3):245-272.
Jolita Pons (2004). Stealing a Gift: Kierkegaard's Pseudonyms and the Bible. Fordham University Press.
C. Stephen Evans (2009). Kierkegaard: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Vanessa Rumble (1995). To Be as No-One: Kierkegaard and Climacus on the Art of Indirect Communication. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 3 (2):307 – 321.
Antony Aumann (2010). Kierkegaard on Indirect Communication, the Crowd, and a Monstrous Illusion. In Robert L. Perkins (ed.), International Kierkegaard Commentary: Point of View. Mercer University Press.
Added to index2009-12-07
Total downloads39 ( #29,771 of 549,010 )
Recent downloads (6 months)22 ( #2,377 of 549,010 )
How can I increase my downloads?