This paper is a note on ``The Changelessness of God'' which Kierkegaard wrote in the last year of his life. This work was written in the midst of his attack against the established church.
At first, I note the willfulness as a ground of impermanence. According to Kierkegaard's thought, to make a conquest of impermanence, man should forsake the clinging to the thought of the existence of the self. I verify that this opinion has something in common with Buddhist's view of the world. By the way, is it possible for man to forsake his willfulness under his own power? We must say ``No'' to this question. Only by the changelessness of the God, our willfulness is crushed. Encountering the changelessness of the God, we find two possibilities, that is, the fear and trembling of it and the peace of mind within it. I argue this problem in the original text.
On the whole this work is the fruit of Kierkegaard's authorship. He finally summed his main themes, e.g. anxiety, despair, repetition.
Kierkegaard und die deutschsprachige Literatur beziehen sich aufeinander. Der Denker war ein eifriger Leser der deutschen Dichtungen. Von Lessing bis Heine las er ihre Werke mit grosser Anteilnahme und sauge sie habsüchtig auf. Dafür wurden später viele deutschsprachge Dichter, etwa (abgesehen von H. Ibsen und A. Strindberg) R. M. Rilke, M. Frisch und F. Dürrenmatt, von dem Denker vielerlei belehrt und die starker Einflüsse auf sich ausgeübt.
Die Verläufe und lnhalte dieser Verhältnisse sind im Einzellfall bisher ziemlich bekannt und erörtert. Aber der Versuch, diese Probleme in ihrer Ganzheit zu betrachten, geschieht aus verschiedenen Gründen selten. Wir wagen dies, und kommen auf die einigen interessanten Fragen wie zum Beispiel folgend : Warum von dem Denker Lessing wie Hamann geehrt und geliebt, doch hingegen Schiller, Kleist und Hebbel vernachlässigt? Wir glauben, dass wir eine bestimmte Antwort darauf bieten konnten.
I am analyzing the contemporary condition of feminist interpretations of Søren Kierkegaard. In his works, we can see stereotyped, degrading and patriarchal remarks about woman. We can study from The Feminist Interpretations of Søren Kierkegaard, edited by Sylvia Walsh and Celine Leon. They pointed out that the standpoints of SK's feminist interpretations are typically divided to three patterns. (1) evaluating as drawing up women as the equality of men. (2) to emphasize the differences and make it impossible to be the same existence as man. (3) to evaluate feminine qualities and recommend for man.
From the first stance, they are criticizing SK, but they oppose the perception that SK was a common misogynist.
From second stance, their critics are influenced by post-modernism, they underscore the ambivalence of the his masculine position. The feminine is equated the nature, and characterized the dichotomy, passive-active, external-internal, body-spirit. So women cannot be an existence as men.
From third stance, they understand the feminine valuable for men and women. They want to establish a feminist discourse of empowerment by reappropriation of specifically womanly qualities, for example, connectedness, silence, or devotedness.
Such studies are so interested and showed us the new possibilities of the Kierkegaard's interpretations. We can reconsider the concepts of the masculine and the feminine, subjectivity and existence.
This paper pays attentions to the word ``Medlidenhed'' (compassion), and tries to show that there is the possibility of suffering with the other in his later thought. First, we compare the concept of suffering in his later works with that in Postscript in order to clarify the difference between these two positions. Next, we examine his discussion concerning the word ``Medlidenhed'', and suggest that he thought of a mutual relationship between sufferers.
I will re-interpret Kierkegaard as a prominent critic of mass media of the earliest stage, and examine how his reflection on mass media and mass society affected his authorship in turn.
His earliest activities as a writer began with a lecture titled ``Our journalistic literature'' and other several polemical articles concerning freedom of speech, and one of the largest events in his life was the Corsair affair. In Two Ages, he described his age as ``age of reflection'', and its symptoms were disinterested-dispassionate reflection, levering, anonymity. I think we can safely say that he had been a media critic throughout his life, and had developed a popular model or pattern of media critic, which we can draw on when we ourselves try to understand our Information Technology age.
Then I will try to re-examine these main points of his criticism of mass media, and interpret their importance in course of his authorship, esp. in relation to the reason why he seemed to abandon his conception of the ethical as the manifest in the later works, and suggest some problems of his limited conceptions of private/public spheres from a contemporary point of view on privacy.