Martijn Boven

This article introduces a novel conceptualization of sublimity: the sublime in the pedestrian. This pedestrian form of sublimity is exemplified by the Biblical figure Abraham, the central character in Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous work “Fear and Trembling: Dialectical Lyric by Johannes de silentio”. It is grounded in the analysis of one of the foundational narratives of the three monotheistic religions: Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son Isaac. The defining characteristic of this new, pedestrian form of sublimity is that it remains concealed behind what I term a total incognito. It resembles the classical ‘elevated mode of sublimity’ as developed by Burke, Kant, and Schiller, in that it simultaneously evokes two contrasting emotions: repulsion and attraction. However, it differs in that Kierkegaard’s pedestrian mode of sublimity remains hidden from view and can only be revealed indirectly. This article explores the new, pedestrian mode of sublimity by examining the relationship between the incognito and the sublime in “Fear and Trembling”. It accomplishes this by engaging with three perspectives: (1) the sublime failure that emerges in the incognitos of an imaginary Abraham; (2) the ‘fear without being afraid’ invoked by God’s incognitos; (3) the total incognito of the pedestrian, which conceals Abraham’s sublimity.

In Kierkegaard and the Staging of Desire: Rhetoric and Performance in a Theology of Eros Carl S. Hughes develops an original approach to Søren Kierkegaard’s religious writings. As is well known, Kierkegaard published these religious writings under his own name. Some interpreters take this to mean that he no longer relies on the poetics of indirect communication that underlies his pseudonymous works. According to them, the religious writings finally formulate Kierkegaard’s true views in a direct and unambiguous way. Others have suggested that these religious writings are just as indirect as all the others. Hughes belongs to the second camp. In his illuminating book, he convincingly shows that the indirect method of writing is not undermining the religious content of Kierkegaard’s works, as is feared by many interpreters from the first camp, but is essential for sustaining it. That is why Hughes believes that Kierkegaard’s indirect mode of writing is of vital importance for contemporary theology as a discipline.

Is the primary function of an educator to elucidate and convey their own knowledge? French philosopher Jacques Rancière demonstrates that an incidental experiment by Joseph Jacotot presents an alternative paradigm: the ignorant schoolmaster. In his work The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation [Le maître ignorant: cinq leçons sur l'émancipation intellectuelle], Rancière posits that the ignorant schoolmaster is equally, if not more, capable of instructing students compared to the knowledgeable educator. Rancière examines two educational methodologies: the conventional approach of the knowledgeable educator who explicates and imparts knowledge, and the experimental approach of the ignorant schoolmaster who refrains from explanation and primarily focuses on verifying attentiveness. By providing a brief analysis of these two methodologies, this article aims to demonstrate how Rancière’s work can be utilized to construct a model for articulating the implicit theoretical principles in educational practices. This model is predicated on the following premise: by taking either a successful or a problematic educational practice as an example, one can articulate the theoretical principles inherent within it. The article hopes to facilitate a shift in focus from practices to principles, thereby offering a novel perspective on educational practices and enabling its theoretical explication......... [In Dutch: Bestaat de kernactiviteit van de meester erin om zijn eigen kennis uit te leggen en over te dragen? De Franse filosoof Jacques Rancière laat zien dat een gelegenheidsexperiment van Joseph Jacotot ons een ander voorbeeld aanreikt: de onwetende meester. In zijn boek De onwetende meester: vijf lessen over intellectuele emancipatie (Le maître ignorant: Cinq leçons sur l'émancipation intellectuelle) stelt hij dat de onwetende meester evengoed of zelfs beter in staat is leerlingen iets te leren dan de wetende meester. Rancière neemt in feite twee onderwijspraktijken als voorbeeld: de traditionele praktijk van de wetende meester die uitleg geeft en kennis overdraagt en de experimentele praktijk van de onwetende meester die geen uitleg geeft maar vooral gericht is op de verificatie van aandacht. In dit artikel wil ik op basis van een korte analyse van deze twee praktijken laten zien hoe we uit Rancière’s boek een model kunnen afleiden voor het articuleren van de theoretische principes die impliciet in onderwijspraktijken werkzaam zijn. Dit model is gestoeld op het volgende uitgangspunt: door een succesvolle of juist problematische onderwijspraktijk als voorbeeld te nemen kunnen we de theoretische principes articuleren die erin werkzaam zijn. Dit schept de mogelijkheid om de focus van de van de praktijken naar de principes te verleggen. Hierdoor wordt de onderwijspraktijk op een nieuwe manier inzichtelijk en kunnen we haar theoretisch expliciteren.]

This dissertation focuses on the problem of novelty as seen from the perspective of two French philosophers: Paul Ricoeur and Gilles Deleuze. As such, a new interpretation of the works of these two philosophers is developed. I argue that two models can be derived from their works: a model that strives to make tensions productive (based on Ricoeur) and a model that aims to organize encounters between bodies (taken from Deleuze). These models are developed on their own terms without superimposing one over the other. Hence, the first part of the dissertation focuses on Ricoeur, the second on Deleuze. Through an extensive reading of Ricoeur’s La métaphore vive, it is shown that the living metaphor creates a productive tension in which two previously distinct domains are drawn together. This results in a semantic innovation that first appears as an image and only later can be conceptualized. This argument is further developed by analyzing Augustine’s notion ‘time is a distention of the mind (distentio animi)’ as an example of how a living metaphor introduces a new language that re-describes reality. This example prepares the way for broadening the model of productive tensions by showing how, from Ricoeur’s perspective, the innovative potential of actions can be understood in terms of a productive tension between two orders of imagination. In contrast to Ricoeur, Deleuze’s conception of novelty is not analyzed in terms of a productive tension between two heterogeneous domains, but in terms of an encounter between bodies in which a creative coupling or an affective relation emerges that links these bodies together in a common trajectory. On the basis of a reading of Deleuze’s essays on literature, it is shown how such an encounter can give rise to a single process of metamorphosis. This process can be divided in two closely connected moments: a mutual metamorphosis that sets the whole process in motion and a continuous metamorphosis of proliferating series that keeps it alive. This first, intuitive understanding of the model is deepened by linking it to a metamorphic ontology of expression that is derived from Deleuze’s works on Spinoza. This provides the model with a more rigorous vocabulary and also shows in how these encounters can be organized in such a way that they create the conditions for novelty in three forms of thinking: science, art, and philosophy.

In this article, I argue that Søren Kierkegaard’s oeuvre can be seen as a theater of ideas. This argument unfolds in three steps. First, I will briefly introduce a theoretical framework for addressing the theatrical dimension of Kierkegaard’s writings. This framework hinges on a distinction between “performative writing strategies” and “categories of performativity.” As a second step, I will examine “Repetition: A Venture in Experimenting Psychology” by Constantin Constantius, which exemplifies Kierkegaard’s innovative philosophical approach. This peculiar and elusive book introduces the challenging and counter-intuitive concept of repetition. Repetition serves as a category of performativity designed to engage the subjectivity of the reader. This performative effect is achieved by confronting the reader with an “unresolved” existential problem that is not yet drawn into clarity but is staged in all its confusions and contradictions. Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Constantius relies here on a performative writing strategy that is animated by a dialectic of advance and withdrawal. As a final step, I will analyze Constantius’s own reflections on the performative nature of his text. Constantius has left several clues, each indicating that he intentionally crafted a performative writing strategy.

In Simultaneity and Delay: A Dialectical Theory of Staggered Time, the Canadian philosopher Jay Lampert challenges theories that define time in terms of absolute simultaneity and continuous succession. To counter these theories he introduces an alternative: the dialectic of simultaneity and delay. According to Lampert, this dialectic constitutes a temporal succession that is no longer structured as a continuous line, but that is built out of staggered time-flows and delayed reactions. The bulk of the book consists of an attempt to give a conceptual order to the ‘unsystematic analyses of simultaneity and delay sprinkled through the history of philosophy’ (2). This conceptual analysis leads us through ancient (Plato and Plotinus), medieval (Origen) and late modern issues (Kant, Hegel and Lessing), as well as scientific discussions (Einstein, McTaggart), and culminates in the central chapter of the book, which attempts to show ‘how the problems of the great simultaneity philosophers - Husserl and Bergson - might be solved by the great delay philosophers - Derrida and Deleuze’ (147). In this review, I will focus on three points. 1. The problem of synchronization. 2. The problem of synthesis. 3. Theproblem of localization.

In this rich and impressive new book, Henry Somers- Hall gives a nuanced analysis of the philosophical relationship between G. W. F. Hegel and Gilles Deleuze. He convincingly shows that a serious study of Hegel provides an improved insight into Deleuze’s conception of pure difference as the transcendental condition of identity. Somers- Hall develops his argument in three steps. First, both Hegel and Deleuze formulate a critique of representation. Second, Hegel’s proposed alternative is as logically consistent as Deleuze’s. Third, Deleuze can account for evolution, whereas Hegel cannot.

In Chronopathologies, the Australian philosopher Jack Reynolds gives an exciting analysis of the intimate connection between time and politics in three trajectories of contemporary philosophy: analytic philosophy, poststructuralism and phenomenology. These trajectories are incompatible in the sense that internalizing the norms of any one of them 'makes taking the other(s) seriously very difficult' (p. 225). Given this incompatibility, Reynolds convincingly argues that the only way forward is to draw out the differences between these trajectories, in order to address the problems and limitations of each from the perspective of the others. Reynolds's fruitful approach uncovers that each trajectory is threatened by a disease of time or 'chronopathology' (a key term that is never fully defined). Such a chronopathology can be characterized as a pathological condition that is the result of two factors: the reduction of the plurality of time to only one of its dimensions; a biased and one-sided view on ethics and politics. Reynolds convincingly identifies the root of the threat. He develops his diagnosis in three steps. 1. Analytic philosophy over-emphasizes the synchronic dimension of time, without making any room for its diachronic dimension. 2. Poststructuralism acknowledges the necessity of a reciprocal relation between the synchronic and the diachronic dimension of time, but ultimately privileges the latter (i.e., the relation remains asymmetrical). 3. An embodied phenomenology opens up a way to bring the synchronic and diachronic dimension of time in a reciprocal and symmetrical relation that does not privilege the one over the other.

The Danish word 'incognito' means to appear in disguise, or to act under an unfamiliar, assumed name (or title) in order to avoid identification. As a concept, incognito occurs in several of Kierkegaard’s works, but only becomes a subject of reflection in two: the Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments by Johannes Climacus and Practice in Christianity by Anti-Climacus. Both pseudonyms develop the concept from their own perspective and must be understood on their own terms. Johannes Climacus treats incognito as a category of existence, defining it as a comic contradiction that creates a disguise in order to hide and protect the inwardness of the existing individual. However, Anti-Climacus treats incognito as a category of communication. He defines it as “a sign of contradiction” that creates a disguise in order to activate and disclose the inwardness of a listener or reader.

Paul Valéry is the poet who maintains silence; the thinker who refuses to be a philosopher; the writer who takes language to court; the expert who insists on being an amateur; the mystic who seeks refuge in mathematics; the stutterer who suffers from an ailment of precision; the Narcissus who might have preferred to embody Orpheus. He is the chronicler of thought and the master of contradiction. I try to imagine him. It is 1894, Valery sits at his table, writing in the notebooks in which he records his thoughts every morning "entre la lampe et le soleil," resulting in approximately 30,000 pages of unstructured incompleteness: the Cahiers. [In Dutch] Paul Valéry is de dichter die zwijgt; de denker die weigert filosoof te zijn; de schrijver die de taal in staat van beschuldiging stelt; de expert die volhoudt een amateur te zijn; de mysticus die zijn heil zoekt bij de wiskunde; de stamelaar die aan een kwaal van precisie lijdt; de Narcissus die misschien toch liever Orpheus had willen zijn. Hij is de chroniqueur van het denken en de meester van de tegenspraak. Ik probeer me hem voor te stellen. Het is 1894 en hij zit gebogen te schrijven in de schriftjes waarin hij elk ochtend 'entre la lampe et le soleil' zijn denken fileert, een project dat uitmondde in ca. 30.000 bladzijden weerbarstige onvoltooidheid: de Cahiers.

Is de herhaling mogelijk? Deze ogenschijnlijk simpele vraag vormt het uitgangspunt van De herhaling. Een proeve van experimenterende psychologie door Constantin Constantius (1843), een van de meest curieuze geschriften uit het oeuvre van Søren Kierkegaard. In dit artikel worden twee aspecten aan de orde gesteld die De herhaling tot een nog altijd belangrijk boek maken: 1) De ongewone filosofische stijl die in dit boek ontwikkeld wordt en 2) De eigenzinnige opvatting over vrijheid en subjectiviteit die er onder de noemer 'de herhaling' in naar voren wordt gebracht. Zoals de ondertitel 'een proeve van experimenterende psychologie' al aangeeft, is De herhaling geen klassieke filosofische verhandeling waarin op systematische wijze wordt uitgelegd wat er onder de herhaling - als filosofische begrip - verstaan moet worden. Integendeel, het is een uiterst experimenteel boek waarin een nieuwe filosofische stijl wordt geïntroduceerd. Er wordt zodoende nergens een eenduidige definitie gegeven van de herhaling in filosofische zin die ik in het vervolg zal aanduiden als de 'existentiële herhaling'. Sterker nog, de twee verschijningsvormen van de herhaling - de alledaagse en de existentiële herhaling - worden telkens welbewust met elkaar verward. Pas in de afsluitende brief aan de echte lezer van dit boek wordt duidelijk in welke richting we het verschil tussen deze twee vormen van herhaling moeten zoeken. [In English: Is repetition possible? This seemingly simple question forms the starting point of "Repetition: A Venture in Experimental Psychology" by Constantin Constantius (1843), one of the most curious writings in the oeuvre of Søren Kierkegaard. This article addresses two aspects that make Repetition a still relevant book today: 1) The unusual philosophical style developed in this work, and 2) The unconventional view of freedom and subjectivity presented under the concept of 'repetition.' As the subtitle "a venture in experimental psychology" suggests, "Repetition" is not a classical philosophical treatise systematically explaining what should be understood by repetition as a philosophical concept. On the contrary, it is an extremely experimental book in which a new philosophical style is introduced. Consequently, nowhere is a clear definition given of repetition in the philosophical sense, which I will henceforth refer to as 'existential repetition.' Moreover, the two manifestations of repetition—the everyday repetition and the existential repetition—are deliberately confused with each other throughout the work. Only in the concluding letter to the true reader of this book does it become clear in which direction we should look to find the difference between these two forms of repetition.]

In the realm of the humanities, Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) is widely viewed as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. He published an impressive and comprehensive oeuvre that made an impact on almost all areas of the humanities. By combining the resources and insights of phenomenology and hermeneutics, he developed new perspectives on the text, on metaphor, on narrative, and on personal identity that pervaded theology, history, linguistics, psychoanalysis, ethics,(philosophical) anthropology, cognitive sciences, and so on. In light of his centennial in 2013, the question arises whether his theories have a future and can be extended to capture new phenomena studied in the humanities: What is the impact and meaning of the oeuvre of Paul Ricoeur for the humanities? In particular, one may develop this question as follows: Which of Ricoeur’s major contributions can be expected to remain relevant for the humanities? In what way can we relate Ricoeur’s oeuvre to ideas and methods of other philosophers and scientists? Does Ricoeur’s paradigm of the text still provide a relevant framework for thinking about the basic questions that concern the humanities today? If so, how can we bring Ricoeur’s perspective in a fruitful tension or dialogue with other, competing paradigms?

For Kierkegaard the ‘psychological experiment’ is a literary strategy. It enables him to dramatize an existential conflict in an experimental mode. Kierkegaard’s aim is to study the source of movement that animates the existing individual (this is the psychological part). However, he is not interested in the representation of historical individuals in actual situations, but in the construction of fictional characters that are placed in hypothetical situations; this allows him to set the categories in motion “in order to observe completely undisturbed what these require” without caring to what extent someone has met this requirement or is able to meet it (this is the experimental part). The ‘psychological experiment’ is a category of indirect communication that is developed most extensively by Frater Taciturnus, the pseudonymous author of the third part of Stages on Life’s Way. (I) Taciturnus introduces the psychological experiment as a new trajectory in modern literature that offers an alternative to poetry and speculative drama. He develops this new trajectory in praxis (in the novella ‘“Guilty?”/“Not Guilty?” A Story of Suffering: A Psychological Experiment by Frater Taciturnus’) as well as in theory (in the ‘Letter to the Reader’ that accompanies his novella). (II) Two other pseudonymous authors further enrich the conceptual field of the psychological experiment. Constantin Constantius develops the notion ‘experimenting psychology’; Johannes Climacus reflects on the reader’s contemporaneity with the character.

Hub Zwart's latest book, "The Truth on the Wall: A Psychoanalysis of Knowledge," establishes compelling connections between the literary and the scientific imagination. The author explores how seemingly fantastical literary tropes can serve as reflections of scientific progress. A notable example is the vampire archetype, traditionally depicted as a nocturnal, undead entity that sustains itself by consuming the blood of the living. This imagery, Zwart argues, can be interpreted as a metaphorical representation of scientific developments. He analyzes the central motif of blood exchange between vampire and victim as an allegory for the scientific discourse surrounding blood transfusion in the late 19th century. During this period, blood transfusion posed significant challenges due to the undiscovered nature of blood groups. Furthermore, Zwart draws parallels between vampire-hunting strategies and scientific efforts to combat mysterious, potentially epidemic diseases, viewing both as attempts to control unknown and threatening forces. [In Dutch: In "De waarheid op de wand: psychoanalyse van het weten", het nieuwste boek van Hub Zwart, worden de literaire en de wetenschappelijke verbeelding op inspirerende wijze aan elkaar gekoppeld. Zo blijkt het schijnbaar fantastische beeld van de vampier, de levende dode die in de nachtelijke uren tevoorschijn komt om zich te voeden met het bloed van de levenden, gelezen te kunnen worden als een reflectie op wetenschappelijke ontwikkelingen. De eerste associatie die het beeld van de vampier oproept, de uitwisseling van bloed tussen prooi en slachtoffer, interpreteert Zwart als een verbeelding van het wetenschappelijke debat over bloedtransfusie aan het eind van de 19e eeuw. Bloedtransfusie was destijds nog zeer problematisch omdat men nog niet wist van het bestaan van bloedgroepen. De strategieën die worden ingezet bij het bestrijden van vampiers, ziet Zwart als een beeld voor het wetenschappelijke gevecht tegen onbekende, geheimzinnige ziektes die uit kunnen groeien tot een nauwelijks te bestrijden epidemie.

In 'Literature Suspends Death: Sacrifice and Storytelling in Kierkegaard, Kafka and Blanchot' Chris Danta takes Genesis 22 as the starting point for an investigation of the role of literary imagination. His aim is to read the Genesis story from a literary-theoretical perspective in order to show how it can 'illuminate the secular situation of the literary writer.' To do this, Danta stages a fruitful confrontation between Søren Kierkegaard as defender of religion and inwardness and Franz Kafka and Maurice Blanchot as defenders of literature. In this review, three important points in this confrontation are highlighted. 1. The problem of identification. 2. The moment of substitution. 3. The spectrality of the writer.

In almost all of his early works Gilles Deleuze is concerned with one and the same problem: the problem of genesis. In response to this problem, Deleuze argues for a system of heterogenesis. In this article, I argue that Deleuze’s system of heterogenesis operates on three levels: (1) the differential multiplicity of virtual Ideas; (2) the implied multiplicity of intensive dramas; (3) the extensive and qualitative diversity of actual concepts. As I hope to show, the relation between these three levels can be explained in terms of the logic of expression that Deleuze develops in 'Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza.' In this way, I hope to gain clarity without losing nuance. The rather technical and abstract language of expression will become more concrete and understandable when it is understood in terms of intensive dramas, virtual Ideas and actual concepts. At the same time, the three levels of expression make it possible to show how these notions are interlinked. Accordingly, this article is divided in four parts. In the first part, I will explain how Deleuze takes up Kant’s discovery of the principle of difference as a reaction against the model of representation. The second part focuses on the two multiplicities (virtual Ideas and intensive dramas) that produce diversity (actual concepts). In the third part, these two multiplicities are linked to each other with the help of the logic of expression that Deleuze derives from Spinoza. The fourth, concluding part will connect the logic of expression to the complex dynamic of difference and repetition.