Being and Existence in Kierkegaard's Pseudonymous Works

Abstract

These two interesting volumes try work out different (though sometimes overlapping) interpretations of Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works. Both authors eschew biographical-psychological and historical-comparative approach Kierkegaard's works, in favor of what Taylor labels descriptive-thematic approach. Taylor presents basic argument for doing this. Though he admits that biographical-psychological approach has dominated secondary literature about Kierkegaard, Taylor criticizes it for focusing attention author and his personal problems as opposed concentrating works themselves. (Of course problem at issue is whether one can separate author from his works without losing some degree of why he wrote what he did, and what he intended when he wrote his works.) The historical-comparative approach is criticized for distorting Kierkegaard's texts and theories by seeing them through Hegel's or someone else's eyes. The examination of methodological approaches, especially with somebody like Kierkegaard, could lead us too far afield. So, we shall just report that both of works being discussed in this review develop their case through descriptive-thematic approach. Of two, Elrod's book is more startling. He declares at outset that he is going show that there is an ontological system in all of Kierkegaard's pseudonymous writings. This claim is first put in form of a two-fold effort going in Kierkegaard's work (1) to point out his reader different types of possibilities open man, and (2) on other hand he was concerned with carrying out more fundamental philosophical task of ontologically accounting for human existence (p. 4). The reader immediately sees Kierkegaard turning over in his grave at idea that he was an ontologist. After what we have learned from Concluding Unscientific Postscript and Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard had strongly attacked possibility of having a philosophical system that related human situation. The activity of Hegelian and other systematizers was the comedy of higher lunacy. Elrod realizes his claim sounds odd and goes against grain of bulk of Kierkegaard scholarship. He restates it in a little less controversial form as Then, in speaking of a system in Kierkegaard's thought I mean at best only conceptual clarification of these structures which, one hand, makes these existential phenomena possible and other hand, binds them into an explicit unity of relations (pp. 16-17). Elrod does a very careful job of lining up his textual evidence and building up an ontological picture of stages in existence. In many cases one can think of texts that do not fit Elrod's construction. But just same, a Coubter like myself who has been inclined put Kierkegaard in classical sceptical tradition as a philosopher, and in fideistic camp as a theologian,,