How to be a Terrible Teacher: Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments on what Education is not

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-264
Author(s):  
Stuart Dalton

I argue for an approach to Philosophical Fragments that allows it to be philosophical (as opposed to theological) and fragmentary (as opposed to systematic), and that pays particular attention to the fragments, or crumbs, that seem least important. One such overlooked crumb is the theory of merely human education in the book—education that does not enlist God as the teacher, where humans simply try to teach and learn from each other. I argue that Philosophical Fragments defends this theory of education with several reductio ad absurdum proofs that are especially useful because they clarify why merely human education so often fails. Finally I apply the theory of merely human education in Philosophical Fragments to Kierkegaard’s authorship as a whole and argue that it gives us a paradigm for understanding all of Kierkegaard’s texts that is more fundamental than the distinction between direct and indirect communication.

1987 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 960-961
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Wile

Author(s):  
Matthew Rendall

It is sometimes argued in support of discounting future costs and benefits that if we gave the same weight to the future as to the present, we would invest nearly all our income, but never spend it. Rather than enjoying the fruits of our investments, we would always do better to reinvest them. Undiscounted utilitarianism (UU), so the argument goes, is collectively self-defeating. This attempted reductio ad absurdum fails. Regardless of whether each generation successfully followed UU, or merely attempted to follow it, we could never get trapped in endless saving. The real problem is different: without the ability to foresee the end of the world, UU cannot tell us how much to save. Discounting is a defensible response, but only when coupled with a rule against risking catastrophe.


Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Lacoste ◽  
Oliver O’Donovan

Considering the distinction between discursive, acquired knowledge and intuitive knowledge raises the question of how theology as a learned discipline relates to the spiritual life. The two kinds of knowledge cannot exist apart in history, but may be in unhappy tension. Eschatology can have no place for discursive knowledge, while history may be conceived as veiling of intuitive knowledge behind discursive knowledge. The goal of theology, then, is to introduce the believer into intuitive knowledge of God. “Indirect” communication allows it to speak of God without reductively “objectifying” him. The experience of worship combines the two kinds of knowledge. It involves words, and the words aim at truth. But its function is to allow the truth not merely to be understood but to be felt in its splendour.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document