Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, Revised and Expanded Edition Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $8.36 You Save: $9.64 (54%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.04 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, Revised and Expanded Edition
Book Review: This Book Has No Index
Summary: 4 Stars
I had to read portions of this book for a college course that was expected to cover the topic: literature and modern thought. This made it easy for me to pick Walter Kaufmann as a professor and editor who would be widely recognized as being a leader in this field. In turn, it may have been his feeling, at some point, that I was less philosophical than he was. If that was a game, like chess, I might easily concede, and stop playing a game which depended on such mastery of obscure possibilities. When I was in high school, I had to read Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky, who is also represented in this volume. More than I am interested in philosophy, I would like to understand Dostoevsky's comment on page 76 of this book: "Gentlemen, I am joking, and I know myself that my jokes are not brilliant, but you know one can't take everything as a joke. I am, perhaps, jesting against the grain." I had expected philosophy to be an attempted rationalization of existence, as my previous training in religious thought had emphasized acceptance of whatever is expected to be accepted above all else.I would expect this book to appeal mainly to those who have an interest in philosophy. The class that I was in didn't attempt to read or discuss those selections which the professor considered too difficult (we were not a group that was expected to argue, just understand), but this book seemed to be pointing us in a reasonable direction when we left it and took a better look at the philosophy of Camus, contained in a book which concluded with the chapter which also concludes this volume, "The Myth of Sisyphus." The final sentence there, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy," (p. 315) suggested that perhaps Sisyphus had discovered the best joke for describing what this field is all about. My vote would be for the idea on page 312, "To begin with, he is accused of a certain levity in regard to the gods. He stole their secrets."
Book Review: Watch your Step
Summary: 2 Stars
This book is most useful if one wishes to study Walter Kaufmann. This book is a waste of time if you wish to study the writers Kaufmann presents to us. Kaufmann warps the texts to suit his own agenda. If you share his agenda you will likely not even notice that he has an agenda.
"If you make people think they are thinking they will love you, but if you really make them think they will kill you. " - Albert Einstein
Book Review: a failure
Summary: 1 Stars
This book does contain some great selections, but is flawed by Kaufmann's subjectivity. The questions WK raises about Kierkegaard's Truth is Subjectivity selection raise some interesting questions. WK asks; "does he (K) stick with the claims made in the first two sentences? Is the second sentence of the third paragraph for example consistent with these claims? Or does Kierkegaard assume the objective truth of certain beliefs?" (WK: D to S 84-85) The thesis is; "Our treatment of the problem does not raise the question of the truth of Christianity. It merely deals with the individuals relationship to Christianity." (K: D to S 110) In the second sentence of the third paragraph K claims that "it is surely quite impossible for anyone who has lost a sensibility for his eternal happiness to enjoy eternal happiness," (K: D to S 111) which is compatible with the thesis. However, WK's question; "Or does Kierkegaard assume the objective truth of certain beliefs?" is not compatible with K's thesis. Another of WK's questions that gets him in some trouble is where he asks; "in the second part (of the truth is subjectivity section) he makes much of the fact that scholarship cannot firmly establish faith. Why does he ignore the no less obvious fact that it can, and often does undermine faith? Does the section on authority help us to understand him at this point?" (WK: D to S 85) One reason K ignores the fact that scholarship can undermine faith is because Wk cut that part out. In his intro to the K section of his book wk says the only K selection he edited himself was the "on his mission' selection. WK claims the three dots in the Truth is Subjectivity section are puntuation marks by the author, but they are actually cuts by WK. In one of the ommissions K says that the contradictions in scripture that scholarly types like wk like to fuss over do not undermine faith, because inspiration is an object of faith, and does not come from scholarly deliberation:
I assume now the opposite, that the opponents have succeded in proving what they desire about the scriptures, with a certanty trancending the most ardent wish of most passionate hostility - what then? Have the opponents thereby abolished Christianity? By no means. Has the beliver been harmed? By no means, not in the least. Has the opponent made good a right to be relived of responibility for not being a beleiver? By no means. Because these books were not written by these authors, are not authentic, are not in an intergal condition, are not inspired (though this cannot be disproved, since it is an object of faith), it does not follow that these authors have not existed; and above all, it does not follow that Christ has not existed. In so far, the believer is equally free to assume it; equally free, let us note this well, for if he had assumed it by virtue of any proof, he would have been on the verge of giving up his faith. If matters ever come to this pass, the believer will have some share of guilt, in so far as he himself has invited this procedure, and begun to play into the hands of unbelief by proposing to demonstrate. (K, CUP, Swensen-Lowrie, p.31)
The selection Kaufmann includes from Authority and Revelation can be read like this, but WK seems to include it to back up his "authoritaritan K" theory. But when this section is read in entirety it becomes clear that K is not asking us to submit blindly to the religious authorities, he is promoting a leap of faith toward spiritual authority. The section on authority WK sees as being authoritarian is in fact encouraging the opposite of what WK thinks. K wants people to make up their own minds about Christianity, not let the scholars do it for them. Back to the question "in the second part he makes much of the fact that scholarship cannot firmly establish faith. Why does he ignore the no less obvious fact that it can, and often does undermine faith? Does the section on authority help us to understand him at this point? It appears that WK did not read A&R very thoughly:
"A learned twaddler who at the bottom knows nothing can seldom be got to deal with anything concrete; he does not talk of a particular dialogue of Plato, that is too little for him-also it might become apparent that {he had not read it.} No, he talks about Plato as a whole, or even Greek philosophy as a whole, but especially about the wisdom of the Indians and the Chinese. This Greek philosophy as a whole, the profundity of Oriental philosophy as a whole is the prodigiously great, the boundless, which advantageously hides his ignorance. So it is much easier to talk about an alteration in the forum of government than discuss a very little concrete problem like sewing a pair of shoes, and the injustice towards a few capable men lies in the fact that by reason of the prodigious greatness of the problem they are apparently an par with every peer, who "also speaks out" So it is much easier for a dunce to criticize our Lord than to judge the handiwork of the apprentice in a shop, yea, than to judge a sulfur match. For if only the problem is concrete, he will, it is soon to be hoped, soon betray how stupid he is. But our Lord and his Governance of the world is something so prodigiously great that in a certain giddy abstract sense the most foolish man takes part in gossiping about it as well as the wisest man, because no one understands it." (A&R 31-32)
One way for scholarship to undermine faith is to criticize the object of faith, so it appears that K did not ignore this problem entirely.
"Suprised it was assigned without alternative readings, yes. Today in most places Kierkegaard is actually read the WK-view would be considered eccentric, misshapen even." -Alistair Hannay, April 1999
Book Review: enjoyable excursion
Summary: 5 Stars
I really liked this superb collection of some of the finest existential writings, especially because Kaufmann focuses on those excerpts which highlight traditionally misunderstood concepts. Well worth having.Book Review: hell's yes
Summary: 5 Stars
what is up with that daft cunny from Saskatoon? (see below) Spilt hairs much? This is so great, check it out. It will califry your impersions of things and stuff.