Abstract
Philosophy and literary art have seldom shown much correlation. There have been philosophers like Hume, whose style displays grace and humour, or like Russell, whose limpid prose has an elegant clarity, or again — more rarely — a Gilbert Ryle, whose writing has a directness that is almost as redolent of saddle-leather as Sassoon. In general, however, a philosopher is more likely to show the urgent concern with clarity and a complete thoroughness of exposition that leads Kant into an ugliness of style so far removed from the beauty of his logical architectonic. I begin thus because we know how different a case is that of Søren Kierkegaard. Interpreters may vary widely in their views of his philosophical position and attitude, some making him more of a poet than a thinker and others suggesting that he was a philosopher malgré lui. Yet all are agreed that he must be described as a writer. I do not mean just that he wrote books but rather that he projected an oeuvre — he intended to show a literary creation; and he succeeded. We recall his composition of his Journals and the interest they display in literature, and his Students’ Union lecture ‘Our Journalistic Literature’ (November 1835). The literary interest and studies of the late 1830s are well known, as is the postponement of his theological examination, which almost amounted to a desertion of his theological studies.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
In H. Johnson and Niels Thulstrup (eds), A Kierkegaard Critique (New York: Harper and Row, 1962) p. 14.
For instance Harald Høffding, Den Store Humor (Copenhagen, 1916);
Vilhelm Andersen, Tider og Typer af Dansk Aands Historie, 1st ser., II. 2 (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1916);
and, of course, J. Himmelstrup, Søren Kierkegaards Opfattelse of Sokrates (Copenhagen: Arnold Busck, 1924). See also
E. Geismar, Søren Kierkegaard, Livsudvikling og Forfattervirksomhed (Copenhagen: Gad, 1926–8).
Niels Thulstrup, Kierkegaard’s Relation to Hegel (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980).
Stephen N. Dunning, Kierkegaard’s Dialectic of Inwardness (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985) p. 6.
G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics. Lectures on Fine Art (London: Oxford University Press, 1975) I, 476ff.
Roger Poole, ‘The Indirect Communication of Søren Kierkegaard’ (PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1965) pp. 62ff., 187ff.
Henning Fenger, Kierkegaard, the Myths and their Origins (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1980).
T. H. Croxall, A Kierkegaard Commentary (London: Nisbet, 1956) p. 228.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1992 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thomas, J.H. (1992). Indirect Communication: Hegelian Aesthetic and Kierkegaard’s Literary Art. In: Pattison, G. (eds) Kierkegaard on Art and Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22472-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22472-2_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-22474-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-22472-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)