KIERKEGAARD'S RELATION TO HEGEL – BOOK REVIEW
Although much has been written about the famous Unlike Hegel and Kierkegaard speculative philosophy , Niels hulstrup I was the first to address in a systematic and comprehensive relations this important issue Kietkegaard Hegel is a translation of the Danish Agency thesis aut hor dice Kierkegaard ferhold Hegel og til the speculative Idealism iN – 16 , which appeared in 1967 , and a German version was published in 1972 under the title Kierltegatirds Verhaltnts Hegel mid zum spekidativen Idealismus 1835-1846 . In ( his work Thulstrup trying to determine exactly how and when Kierkegaard knowledge of Hegel thought , and as his own understanding Hegel ol system was decisively influenced by direct contact or through the interpretation and application of this thai he met while in his early years of study ” ( p. 10 ) . introduction presents this historical issue in the context of the great questions of philosophy of religion , and the first chapter describes the development of Danish Hegelianism up lo 1835. during the last seven chapters , the author examines all relevant published and unpublished writings of Kierkegaard passages in chronological order , ” from the summer of 1835 when the young student Kierkegaard took stock of himself intellectually and spiritually and a specific goal for himself, he continues on a long, roundabout way until the winter of 1840, when Lie Concluding Unscientific published together separation turned speculative idealist philosophy and theology , which had promised so much and delivered so little of what Kierkegaard had ever expected of it “( p. II ) . For each text , Thulstrup carefully Kierkegaard notes compared with the corresponding treatment of the same issues in the writings of Hegel and his supporters or opponents. Analysis Thulstrup is detailed and exhaustive , hut its findings are easy to summarize. He says that ” even in his youth problem Kierkegaard’s philosophy of religion was totally different from the Hegelian school” ( p. 164) and that “the first encounter with Kierkegaard Hegelianism as a student immediately caused a serious critical reaction in him ” (p . 200 ) . Yet . Kierkegaard had initially not more than a “second – hand knowledge ” (pp. 110-112 ) of Hegelianism ol derivative , and colored limited to the works of some Hegelian law and critical knowledge . Actually for the composition of his master’s thesis on the concept of irony (introduced in June 1841 ) , Kierkegaard pos – sessed “only a poor knowledge of Hegel himself ” ( p. 212 ) . In addition, clarification of his own philosophical concerns and their relationship to ‘ speculative idealism ” already ( p. 13 ) in 1843 from this point ” substantially at the time of the publication of Either / or completed , ” Kierkegaard seems reading Hegel only criticism the most effective (see, e.g. , page 351 , 380-381 ) . Thus Thulstrup rejects the famous portrait of Kierkegaard as a young student of Hegel who later turned against his master . In support of its own position , the author claims generally , for example , that the first references to Hegel , Kierkegaard would have been bolder ij he had actually studied the works of the latter ( see pages 54-56 , 168 -170 ) , or ‘dialectic’ of the two authors some questions approaches are incompatible ( see pages 62-75 ) , or as Kierkegaard constantly presupposes a notion of individual freedom Nol found in Hegel’s system, which ” has stages of the immediacy of the absolute knowledge development which is an absolute necessity ” is ( p. 12, see also pages 73-75 , 173 , 326-334 ) . The discussion of Thulstrup On the concept of irony in the fifth chapter is obviously crucial to his case , since this work is sometimes regarded as the best evidence of the ” Hegelian period ” in the youth of Kierkegaard . The author tries to show that Kierkegaard instead choose simply that the thesis itself is ironic “to play the role of a historian of the philosophy of Hegel ” , and at this stage the knowledge of Hegel, Kierkegaard was ” incomplete”, although ” not malicious ” ( see page 215 , 254-261 ) . Here and elsewhere in the book can not be satisfied with all the arguments ¬ ments Thulstrup completely. but the cumulative weight of the evidence that increases probably convince most readers , like me, the main conclusions of the author are true.
Relation to Hegel, Kierkegaard is essential reading for anyone interested in the evolution and importance of the attitude of Hegelianism Kierkegaard and speculative idealism . Many of the major secondary literature in the book was almost inaccessible to English – speaking researchers today for the first time discusses Thulstrup works of Kierkegaard , which are not yet available in English ( for example, newspapers OJ One Still Living, Pref Aces ) and provides useful summaries of the views of a number of key figures in the intellectual world of Kierkegaard ( eg Clausen , Heiberg Marheineke , Martensen , M0LLER , Sibbern ) which are often unknown to readers this side of the Atlantic. On the other hand , this book assumes some knowledge of the life and writings of Kierkegaard and Thulstrup applications , but does not explain the distinction between A , B , and C inputs of Papirer and sometimes names without really giving their dropping and data significance . Maybe a short biographical ol decade affected by this book would have helped the reader . As I said in the preface hulstrup Relations Kierkegaard and Hegel is the central part of a three-part study . The first part of the trilogy published in German in 1970 under the title Kierkegaard Verhältnis zu Hegel . Forschung Geschichte , this work deals with the search extended to 1959 “on the relationship between these two thinkers ( p. xi , 9 ) I low volume Linal , Yel not completed , will present Thulstrup . ” Integral design ‘oi Kierkegaard and discuss the most important works published since 1967 , when the book reviewed here was published ( see p. xii ) . In the note I , the ranslator George L. Stengren thai declares that he has ” tried to the content of the lendei thought ol faithful the original” , and therefore not called Lelt to radically rewrite or modify the original exception slyle Danish syntax would simply not in English ” ( p. ix ) . This may partly explain the occasional stylistic blunders ( eg complex statement in the middle of p . 309 on the nature of the question , the more worrying that a mistake i typographical or apparent omission . ) for the most part , however , Stengren provides a practical translation of a difficult Ixiok . was especially commended for the many additional notes , which page references to English translations are available works cited in the text , and additional important information about the people and events rhulstrup casually mentions often . contain
Relation to Hegel, Kierkegaard ends rather abruptly after a brief discussion of the PostScript . I found that the book would have benefited f rom a final chapter summarizes the conclusions of the author , and I was surprised that Stengren , Sout notes, the final chapter of the onginal Danish version has left .