volume 40, issue 1, P67-86 2013
DOI: 10.1163/15406253-04001006
View full text
Christopher Latiolais

Abstract: The central purposes of this article are twofold: (1) to give a brief sketch of contemporary scholarship on Kierkegaard’s relation to Schelling and Hegel, clarifying, by discussing the famous Kantian and Kierkegaardian paradoxes, how the spheres of existence—aesthetic, ethical, and immanent religious—represent failed ways of appropriating or “knowing” oneself, and (2) to clarify Johann Climacus’s distinction between “approximate” and “appropriate” knowledge by challenging Nathan Carson’s interpretation as pres…

expand abstract