David Lappano | St Augustine's College (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by David Lappano
The Heythrop Journal, 2014
Kierkegaard's Theology of Encounter
Kierkegaard's Theology of Encounter
This thesis provides a theoretical framework that brings the unity of Kierkegaard’s ‘middle perio... more This thesis provides a theoretical framework that brings the unity of Kierkegaard’s ‘middle period’ into relief. I will analyse Kierkegaard’s writings between 1846 and 1852 when, I argue, the socially constructive dimension of his thought comes to prominence, involving two dialectical aspects of religiousness identified by Kierkegaard: the edifying and the polemical . How these two aspects come together and get worked out in the lives of individuals form the basis of what can be called a Kierkegaardian ‘social praxis’. I conclude that the tension between the edifying and the polemical can be coherently maintained in a communicative life that is also characteristic of a militant faith . This militant faith and life is presented as a critical guard against absolutisms, fundamentalisms, and intellectual aloofness; but the ‘militant’ individual is also utterly dependent, in need of edification and critique, and therefore chooses the risk of encountering others, seeking relationships out...
Kierkegaard's Theology of Encounter
Kierkegaard's Theology of Encounter
Kierkegaard and Political Theology, 2018
When Kierkegaard claims, on numerous occasions and in various voices, that he is really engaged i... more When Kierkegaard claims, on numerous occasions and in various voices, that he is really engaged in a kind of poetic communication, that the single individual is the sole audience and goal of his writing, that he speaks without authority, and that he is absolutely not interested in politics, I believe we ought to take him seriously. But taking Kierkegaard seriously means not taking his rejection of politics directly. Why not? Because Kierkegaard has indicated, through what he calls his maieutic carefulness, that not only does he care about sociality but his authorship is nothing if not an invitation to venture into existence with others as an active, fully engaged ethical-religious subject. This engagement comprises what we can call Kierkegaard's politics in the soft sense of the term. Certainly for Kierkegaard this requires deep psychological reckoning with the spiritual or theological dimensions of our human experience. Hence we can speak of a 'political theology'. My intention here is not to settle a debate about Kierkegaard's politics. I am not going to argue for the true Kierkegaard, or that Kierkegaard properly belongs to any particular faction recognizable to twenty-first century political allegiances. I do acknowledge that Kierkegaard's anti-political and anti-democratic direct statements make him susceptible to a conservative and reactionary politics. But I believe that his indirect communication and the long-view of his authorship seriously undermine the 'conservative' reading of Kierkegaard's more direct statements. Admittedly, then, I will rely on the plasticity of Kierkegaard's thought to stretch him perhaps beyond his own acknowledged positions, but I am confident that the configuration here remains faithful to Climacus and the two 'Kierkegaards' I will highlight.
Just as Kierkegaard recognized that subjectivity is complex and differentiated, so too does he recognize the need for a complex and differentiated approach to our social communication, engagement, and activism. Therefore, I identify three approaches to social engagement that incorporate his religious imperative to work for edification and to provide for (polemical) critique. Each approach is associated with a particular voice or ‘Kierkegaard’ and each voice presents a strategy for social engagement. (1) Johannes Climacus communicates a pedagogy of becoming from the point of view of a philosopher, or otherwise ethically committed individual who understands the religious life-view. (2) Søren Kierkegaard (1847), in Works of Love, invites us to direct personal engagement with our fellow humans, but also demands vigilance against closed structures of belonging. (3) Søren Kierkegaard (1855) presents us with the direct action option of provocation and disobedience toward a Church triumphant or a divinized political order.
Conference Presentations by David Lappano
The Heythrop Journal, 2014
Kierkegaard's Theology of Encounter
Kierkegaard's Theology of Encounter
This thesis provides a theoretical framework that brings the unity of Kierkegaard’s ‘middle perio... more This thesis provides a theoretical framework that brings the unity of Kierkegaard’s ‘middle period’ into relief. I will analyse Kierkegaard’s writings between 1846 and 1852 when, I argue, the socially constructive dimension of his thought comes to prominence, involving two dialectical aspects of religiousness identified by Kierkegaard: the edifying and the polemical . How these two aspects come together and get worked out in the lives of individuals form the basis of what can be called a Kierkegaardian ‘social praxis’. I conclude that the tension between the edifying and the polemical can be coherently maintained in a communicative life that is also characteristic of a militant faith . This militant faith and life is presented as a critical guard against absolutisms, fundamentalisms, and intellectual aloofness; but the ‘militant’ individual is also utterly dependent, in need of edification and critique, and therefore chooses the risk of encountering others, seeking relationships out...
Kierkegaard's Theology of Encounter
Kierkegaard's Theology of Encounter
Kierkegaard and Political Theology, 2018
When Kierkegaard claims, on numerous occasions and in various voices, that he is really engaged i... more When Kierkegaard claims, on numerous occasions and in various voices, that he is really engaged in a kind of poetic communication, that the single individual is the sole audience and goal of his writing, that he speaks without authority, and that he is absolutely not interested in politics, I believe we ought to take him seriously. But taking Kierkegaard seriously means not taking his rejection of politics directly. Why not? Because Kierkegaard has indicated, through what he calls his maieutic carefulness, that not only does he care about sociality but his authorship is nothing if not an invitation to venture into existence with others as an active, fully engaged ethical-religious subject. This engagement comprises what we can call Kierkegaard's politics in the soft sense of the term. Certainly for Kierkegaard this requires deep psychological reckoning with the spiritual or theological dimensions of our human experience. Hence we can speak of a 'political theology'. My intention here is not to settle a debate about Kierkegaard's politics. I am not going to argue for the true Kierkegaard, or that Kierkegaard properly belongs to any particular faction recognizable to twenty-first century political allegiances. I do acknowledge that Kierkegaard's anti-political and anti-democratic direct statements make him susceptible to a conservative and reactionary politics. But I believe that his indirect communication and the long-view of his authorship seriously undermine the 'conservative' reading of Kierkegaard's more direct statements. Admittedly, then, I will rely on the plasticity of Kierkegaard's thought to stretch him perhaps beyond his own acknowledged positions, but I am confident that the configuration here remains faithful to Climacus and the two 'Kierkegaards' I will highlight.
Just as Kierkegaard recognized that subjectivity is complex and differentiated, so too does he recognize the need for a complex and differentiated approach to our social communication, engagement, and activism. Therefore, I identify three approaches to social engagement that incorporate his religious imperative to work for edification and to provide for (polemical) critique. Each approach is associated with a particular voice or ‘Kierkegaard’ and each voice presents a strategy for social engagement. (1) Johannes Climacus communicates a pedagogy of becoming from the point of view of a philosopher, or otherwise ethically committed individual who understands the religious life-view. (2) Søren Kierkegaard (1847), in Works of Love, invites us to direct personal engagement with our fellow humans, but also demands vigilance against closed structures of belonging. (3) Søren Kierkegaard (1855) presents us with the direct action option of provocation and disobedience toward a Church triumphant or a divinized political order.