Trendelenburg's Influence on Kierkegaard's Modal Categories (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 467 both are to be applicable in a time-bound sensible world, by means of both political laws and individual moral judgments. (d) In view of the pregnant words at the end of the third Cr/t/que voicing the claim that the "objective reality" of freedom is proved in nature "by its possible effect there" and also by its supersensible reach which "can extend reason beyond the bounds, to which every natural, or theoretical, conception must remain hopelessly restricted,"4 one rightly expects, in a work with this tide, to find an explanation of Kant's defense of this doctrine which roots the possibility of human cognition in freedom's practical reason. It is important to identify those whom a writer is attempting to refute before setting out to comprehend the work he has presented; for most serious works, including Kant's, are essentially polemical in nature.5 Until we know what the debate is truly about, it is difficult to assess what even the most systematic work is trying to accomplish. It is well to mount a defense against the charges of some particular critics; but if these comprise a narrowly oriented circle, this should be explicated at the outset. When those critics have largely misconstrued the criticized philosopher from the outset, it would seem incumbent upon the defender to highlight their misconstrual rather than bind himself within the narrow limits in which their criticisms are offered. Useful as this work might be, that utility is circumscribed at the outset by the very confining parameters within which its author has chosen to conduct his defense. CHARLES M. SHEROVER Hunter College, C.U.N. Y. Arnold B. Come. Trendelenburg's Influence on Kierltegaard's Modal Categories. Montreal: Inter Editions, 3oo5 Barat Road, Montreal, Canada H3Y 2H 4, ~991, Pp. ix + 95- $13.oo. In this brief but timely study Prof. Come examines Kierkegaard's critical appropriation of Trendelenburg's concepts of possibility, actuality, and necessity. If we are to understand the process of egological genesis and formation in Kierkegaard's works, we must, Come claims, appraise Trendelenburg's logical use of these modal terms. To justify his undertaking, Come points out that although the secondary literature on the nature of the self in Kierkegaard is plentiful, very litde has been done to establish the continuity between Kierkegaard's thought and its historical roots. Yet, Kierkegaard's interest in logic and his efforts to master its intricate dynamics in Kant and Hegel indicate that he took this subject quite seriously. In fact, Kierkegaard considered the pursuit of logic to be so invaluable that he studied intensively not only Trendelenburg's earlier works on Aristotle, such as Elementa logicesAristoteleae and 4 Immanuel Kant, CritiqueofJudgement, Part H, Critiqueof TeleologicalJudgement, trans. J. C. Meredith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), 149. s As Saner demonstrated, Kant's work is essentially polemical--see Saner, Part Two, esp. 193-~s3. 468 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 30:3 JULY 1992 Erl~uterungen zu den Elementen der aristotelischen Logik, but also his Die logischeFrage in Hegels System and his masterpiece, Logische Untersuchungen. It should be observed that Kierkegaard's interest in modal categories relates to his fascination with "Aristotle's view that motion is the fulfilling of what exists potentially" (9). The Aristotelian concept of kinesis, translated by W. G. Tennemann in his Geschichte der Philosophie, as Ver~nderung, "change," increasingly drew Kierkegaard's attention. According to Come, Kierkegaard was profoundly indebted to Trendelenburg. The problem, however, is that Trendelenburg's works inclined more toward mathematics and the natural sciences than to ethics. But this did not deter Kierkegaard from formulating his own ideas about the nature of possibility and necessity in relation to actual human existence. For while Kierkegaard recognized the cogency and validity of Trendelenburg's logical investigations, he noted in his journal that the Aristotelian logician did not "seem to be aware of the leap" (13). In other words, Kierkegaard criticized Trendelenburg for adhering too closely to the "organic world-view" characteristic of the "Aristotelian notion of purpose (Zweck)" which is inherent in a unified system of physis 08). The ordered progression that animates such a structure and the successive coherence...