Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-sbc4w Total loading time: 0.308 Render date: 2021-02-27T23:05:09.519Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Kierkegaard and the Limits of Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Daniel Watts
Affiliation:
University of Essex, UK dpwatts@essex.ac.uk
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

This essay offers an account of Kierkegaard’s view of the limits of thought and of what makes this view distinctive. With primary reference to Philosophical Fragments, and its putative representation of Christianity as unthinkable, I situate Kierkegaard’s engagement with the problem of the limits of thought, especially with respect to the views of Kant and Hegel. I argue that Kierkegaard builds in this regard on Hegel’s critique of Kant but that, against Hegel, he develops a radical distinction between two types of thinking and inquiry: the ‘aesthetic-intellectual’ and the ‘ethico-religious’. I clarify this distinction and show how it guides Kierkegaard’s conception of a form of philosophical practice that involves drawing limits to the proper sphere of disinterested contemplation. With reference to two rival interpretations of Kierkegaard’s approach to the limits of thought—which I call ‘bullet-biting’ and ‘relativizing’—I further show how my ‘disambiguating’ account can better explain how, and why, his work courts a form of self-referential incoherence, in which it appears that certain limits of thought are at once affirmed and violated.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Allison, H. E. (1967), ‘Christianity and Nonsense’, Review of Metaphysics 20: 432460.Google Scholar
Burgess, A. (2009), ‘Henrich Steffens: Combining Danish Romanticism with Christian Orthodoxy’, in J. Stewart (ed.), Kierkegaard and his Danish Contemporaries, Tome I Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Conant, J. (1989), ‘Must We Show What We Cannot Say?’, in R. Fleming and M. Payne (eds.), The Senses of Stanley Cavell. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, J. (1993), ‘Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and Nonsense’, in T. Cohen, P. Guyer and H. Putnam (eds.), Pursuits of Reason. Texas: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, C. S. (1992), Passionate Reason: Making Sense of Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, C. S. (2008), ‘Kierkegaard and the Limits of Reason: Can There Be a Responsible Fideism?Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 64: 10211035.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M. J. (1994), ‘The Point Outside the World: Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein on Nonsense, Paradox and Religion’, Religious Studies 30: 2944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. ((1977) [1918]), ‘Thoughts’, in his Logical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hannay, A. (2003), ‘Climacus among the Philosophers’, in Kierkegaard and Philosophy: Selected Essays. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopkins, R. (1998), Picture, Image and Experience: A Philosophical Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2004), Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, trans. G. Hatfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippitt, J. and Hutto, D. (1998), ‘Making Sense of Nonsense: Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98: 263286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. (1998), ‘Two Sorts of Naturalism’, in his Mind, Value, and Reality. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moran, R. (2001), Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self-Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mulhall, S. (1999), ‘God’s Plagiarist: The Philosophical Fragments of Johannes Climacus’, Philosophical Investigations 22: 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulhall, S. (2001), Inheritance and Originality: Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Kierkegaard. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2001), Beyond the Limits of Thought. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Ross, S. (1974), ‘Caricature’, The Monist 58: 285293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, M.-J. (2002), ‘Ecstatic Subjectivity: Kierkegaard’s Critiques and Appropriations of the Socratic’, Modern Theology 17: 442473.Google Scholar
Rudd, A. (2000), ‘On Straight and Crooked Readings: Why the Postscript Does Not Self-Destruct’, in P. Houe, G. D. Marino and S. H. Rossel (eds.), Anthropology and Authority: Essays on Søren Kierkegaard. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.Google Scholar
Schönbaumsfeld, G. (2007), A Confusion of the Spheres: Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein on Philosophy and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidal, D. (2005), ‘The Pathos of Limit: Reading Kierkegaard Through the Dialectic of Limit’, in N. J. Cappelørn and H. Deuser (eds.), Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook: 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Watts, D. (2007), ‘The Paradox of Beginning: Hegel, Kierkegaard and Philosophical Inquiry’, Inquiry 50: 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, D. (2010), ‘Subjective Thinking: Kierkegaard on Hegel’s Socrates’, Hegel Bulletin 61: 2344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, D. (2013), ‘Kierkegaard and the Search for Self-Knowledge’, European Journal of Philosophy 21: 525549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, M. (1999), ‘Evading the Issue: The Strategy of Kierkegaard’s Postscript ’, Philosophical Investigations 22: 3564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 24
Total number of PDF views: 198 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 09th September 2016 - 27th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Kierkegaard and the Limits of Thought
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Kierkegaard and the Limits of Thought
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Kierkegaard and the Limits of Thought
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *