Re-radicalizing Kierkegaard: An Alternative to Religiousness C in light of an Investigation into the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical
In this paper I defend the view that not only does Fear and Trembling espouse the teleological suspension of the ethical as a radical suspension and even possible violation of otherwise ethical duties, but also that Kierkegaard himself espouses it and carries the belief through his entire authorship. A brief analysis of Religiousness A suggests that Climacus made a dialectical error inConcluding Unscientific Postscript. This error is corrected by Anti-Climacus and Kierkegaard's own journals, and the correction makes possible a full-blooded affirmation of the teleological suspension where Climacus failed. This reaffirmation can explain the shift from Climacus to Anti-Climacus on the topic of hidden inwardness as well as the shift from Climacus to Kierkegaard on the topic of religious suffering. It can also provide a legitimate Kierkegaardian alterative to positing a stage Merold Westphal (and not Kierkegaard) has termed Religiousness C. What we are left with is an uncompromisingly radical religious dialectic that gives every appearance of being exactly what Kierkegaard intended.
Repository citation: Mulder, Jack E., "Re-radicalizing Kierkegaard: An Alternative to Religiousness C in light of an Investigation into the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical" (2002). Faculty Publications. Paper 1317.
Published in: Continental Philosophy Review, Volume 35, Issue 3, July 1, 2002, pages 303-324. Copyright © 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
This document is currently not available here.