Hannay writes: "Climacus's humour is an expression of his position near the top of the ladder. A new translation under the corrected title has recently appeared: see Kierkegaard, Repetition and Philosophical Crumbs, tr. The problem is: if this content is absurd, and so defies understanding, how can it be discussed at all? Marilyn Gaye Piety (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009), pp. Søren Kierkegaard, Alastair Hannay (ed., tr.). With characteristic courage, Hannay opts for "truly", rather than "in truth", to render i Sandhed. ISSN: 1538 - 1617 This fact can be a convenience, but it can also be a curse; in borderline cases, it tempts the translator to sacrifice English clarity for sharper surface echoes of the Danish. Here Hannay points out that Climacus identifies himself repeatedly as a "humorist", meaning that he is a psychological and religious chameleon: he can think his way into all manner of walks of life without committing to any of them. Niels Jørgen Cappelørn et al. George Cotkin, Existential America (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 2003), pp. Finally -- in a grand show of obedience to this same principle -- the book ends by revoking, 's claim to be authored not by Kierkegaard, but by the fictional author "Johannes Climacus", who -- in a further gesture of revocation -- claims not to be a Christian himself. ", The confusion is caused by the words "in truth", which are just the literal equivalents of the Danish ", serves as an adverbial phrase modifying the verb "prays" [, ]; it does not imply anything about the identity of the object of prayer. Having made these distinctions, the Postscript then tries to specify the Christian's peculiar predicament as a sinner seeking salvation in an absurdity. In particular, Climacus can grasp the contours of a religious world-view, and even insert himself hypothetically into such a world-view for the sake of ridiculing the world outside of it, all without committing to that world-view himself. 7, ed. Once again, Hannay provides enough starting information to allow the reader to begin connecting Kierkegaard's argumentative dots. This volume offers the work in a new and accessible translation by Alastair Hannay, together with an introduction that sets the work in its philosophical and historical contexts. Yet it is unlikely to replace the Hong edition in scholarly circles. Hannay strikes a similar tone -- informative, but with a light touch -- in his Introduction's second half, where he sketches the Postscript's various polemical targets (Hegel, of course, but even more so the Danish Hegelian pair Heiberg and Martensen, along with the Romantic theologian Grundtvig). Verder worden recensies ook geanalyseerd om de betrouwbaarheid te verifiëren. A second stage, which it is tempting to call "ethical", was launched in the 1970s by Howard and Edna Hong of St. Olaf College. 190-195; Merold Westphal. The joke is supposed to be a 700 page postscript to a 100 page book. Then he steps back, prudently, from the scene. Or does it matter more that the prayer be genuine with regard to matters of "subjective" concern -- i.e., that it be offered in a genuine way, in a "true relation of inwardness to God" (168)? But that would make the identity of the prayer's addressee utterly irrelevant to the prayer's status as authentic or inauthentic. Johannes Climacus means "John of the Ladder"; it is the sobriquet of a sixth-century abbot, author of the meditative guide, . These puzzles are thick and knotted. How can we tell, the Postscript asks, when a prayer to God is authentic? (We read: the pious idolater "prays in truth to God although he is worshiping an idol.") Aesthetically, it is a masterpiece: it brings Climacus to life in English as never before; it expertly initiates the reader into the Postscript's riddles and satisfactions.