KIERKEGAARD, INDIRECT COMMUNICATION, AND AMBIGUITY
Notoriously, Kierkegaard claims his project to be one of indirect communication. This paper considers the idea that Kierkegaard's distinction between direct and indirect communication is to be accounted for in terms of ambiguity. I begin by outlining the different claims Kierkegaard makes about...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2009
|
| In: |
Heythrop journal
Jahr: 2009, Band: 50, Heft: 1, Seiten: 13-22 |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Parallele Ausgabe: | Nicht-Elektronisch
|
| Zusammenfassung: | Notoriously, Kierkegaard claims his project to be one of indirect communication. This paper considers the idea that Kierkegaard's distinction between direct and indirect communication is to be accounted for in terms of ambiguity. I begin by outlining the different claims Kierkegaard makes about his method, before examining the textual evidence for attributing such a distinction to him. I then turn to the work of Edward Mooney, who claims that the distinction between direct and indirect communication is to be drawn in just this way. I argue that Mooney misinterprets the type of ambiguity Kierkegaard holds to be involved in indirect communication, and consequently ends up with an unsatisfactory account of Kierkegaard's method. Finally I seek to cast doubt on the very idea that ambiguity might do justice to the claims Kierkegaard makes about his project, and suggest that what is required to do so is a theological interpretation of his work. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1468-2265 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Heythrop journal
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00439.x |