In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS 183 This portion of Garelick's discussion, although employing a means-ends distinction that is at times somewhat facile, is faithful to Kierkegaard's insistence upon a hard God and an uncompromising faith. But the second half of Garelick's concluding thesis, namely, that Climacus perverts Christianity by making it rationally acceptable, loses much of its initial plausibility through the unconvincing way in which it is worked out. Having (I think mistakenly ) identified subjectivity with the quest for eternal happiness earlier in the chapter, Garelick now maintains that since all concern with eternal happiness must be rational, Climacus makes the problem of subjectivity, and hence ultimately of Christianity, a rationalspeculative one as well. The argument is sophistical, since it rests on a confusion of the movement of faith with the movement of reason: "Only the rational man can inquire about a non-temporal eternity. Only with speculative, systematic reason is it possible to maintain that some indefinite, eternal happiness is more important than present, temporal happiness. This attempt to live for one's eternal happiness is the essence of rational activity " (p. 66). Citing Kant, Garelick next maintains that once reason's inherent limitations are recognized, "it is rational or at least not irrational to venture to accept any non-rational means that promises eternal happiness" (p. 67). In effect, Climacus is repeating Pascal's wager. "Since reason is limited and cannot legitimately speculate about the existence of God, freedom, and immortality and yet since God, freedom, and immortality are needed for human life, it is rationally permissible to predicate them as existing" (p. 69). But Garelick moves very quickly to an uncritical form of Jamesianism: "But to leap at anything when reason admits its limitations, is to give us some real chance at finding eternal happiness; refusing to do so nullifies any chance to succeed" (p. 70). Anything? This is neither good James nor an argument in favor of the Christian vs. some other (religious or non-religious) mode of leaping. Still, Garelick's conclusion is arresting: There are, then, two movements in the Postscript. First, the movement in which Climacus attacks reason but where, if he has done his work well, he is left with a paradox which is not at all irrational to embrace, since if reason fails to attain eternal happiness, passion and irrationality may .... The second movement is Climacus making the leap as difficult as possible, talking about the necessity of crucifying the understanding, and maintaining a belief in the Paradox of Jesus as Christ in spite of reason. This demands a rejection of the first part of the Postscript--the critique of reason, since the Paradox is absurd only if reason's judgments against it are valid. (p. 70) This dilemma the Postscript fails to resolve, suggesting that for Kierkegaard the Postscript "is a stage to be overcome in the movement to Christianity" (p. 71). Garelick may well be right. It is regrettable that so little sustains the occasional flashes of brilliance and insight that are unquestionably here. PETER FUSS University of Washington American Intellectual Histories and Historians. By Robert Allen Skotheim. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Pp. xi + 326. $6.95.) Even though there are many histories of American thought, until recently there was nothing, beyond a few articles, which attempted to deal with the historians and their works. Skotheim states that intellectual histories, though they are primarily attempts at studying climates of opinion, are themselves documents for such study. Yet, American historians have been primarily concerned with writing and teaching history, not with the theoretical problems involved in doing so. Skotheim attempts to discuss some of those problems in the works of Moses Coit Tyler, Edward Eggleston, James H. Robinson, Charles Beard, Carl Becker, V. L. Parrington, Merle Curti, Samuel Eliot Morison, Perry Miller, and Ralph Gabriel. 184 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Skotheim quickly sketches the works dealing with American thought up to 1900 and at this point focuses the main part of his study upon the rise of the New ~istory or Progressive Tradition in historical writing. The unifying belief among these historians was that ideas reflect, and could be explained in terms of, socio-economic conditions. This trend culminated...

pdf

Share