I came across a popular blog recently that I think described the behavior of going between Aesthetic and Ethical pretty well. It shows why people might revert back to the Aesthetic after a period of being an Ethical type person.
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/06/this-is-why-ill-never-be-adult.html
Listening about the Religious type not through Kierkegaard's insane babble still left my face contorted. I certainly follow him and agree about Aesthetic and Ethical type people, but this whole third Religious category just seems Non Sequitor to me. Then again I don't understand it very much so I'm not in a position to be taken seriously when I'm critical of Kierkegard.
At the same time his reasons for explaining why Abraham is definitively of Religious (the silence) doesn't sit well with me. What difference does it make?
Let's say someone blows up an abortion clinic (with out mumbling a word) due to thinking this was God's way, what difference does it make if he was silent or yelling? Well, it's simple really, that terrorist who blew up the abortion clinic, he wasn't really a Religious type, he was really just an Aesthetic or Ethical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
A simpler explanation , defined by Tvtropes.org: "No True Scotsman is a intentional logical fallacy which involves the act of setting up standards for a particular scenario, then redefining those same standards in order to exclude a particular outcome." Which I think hits the nail on the head of how Kierkegaard writes away these other religious fanatics.
No comments:
Post a Comment