Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique

Kevin Storer

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14

| Peer-Reviewed

Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique

Kevin Storer

Published in International Journal of Philosophy (Volume 11, Issue 3)

Received: 29 July 2023 Accepted: 15 August 2023 Published: 28 August 2023

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Kierkegaard is well-known for his development of an authorial strategy called indirect communication, a maieutic communicative approach intended to enable the subjectivity of the reader in ethical and religious upbuilding. Unfortunately, Kierkegaard at times makes statements that seem contradictory in his own discussions about indirect discourse. This article will suggest that the reason for these seemingly contradictory claims is that Kierkegaard actually develops four distinct models of indirect communication at different places in his authorship. These four models will be called: 1) the “Preservation of Subjectivity” model (which claims that indirect communication is necessary to respect the free subjectivity of the reader); 2) the “Incognito God” model (which claims that God can only communicate to human beings indirectly, and therefore that Christ’s own self-communication was necessarily indirect); 3) the “Deception into Truth” model (which claims that deception is necessary to unlearn an error); and 4) the “Inadequacy of Language” model (which claims that existence cannot be thought or communicated directly). This paper will argue that while no individual model is entirely successful on its own logic in establishing the necessity of indirect communication, the models do show the usefulness of indirect communication when they are employed in an ad hoc manner. Consequently, as communicators identify the unique strategic aims of each model, they will be better equipped both to read Kierkegaard’s authorship more coherently and to employ indirect communication more effectively for the benefit of their own learners.

Published in	International Journal of Philosophy (Volume 11, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14
Page(s)	69-77
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Communication, Subjectivity, Religious Language, Paradox, Freewill

References

[1]	Kierkegaard (1992), Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Volume 1, ed. Howard and Edna Hong (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 75.
[2]	Kierkegaard (1967), Søren Kierkegaard's Journals and Papers, Volume 1, ed. Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong, and assisted by Gregor Malantschuk, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967), 1, 650. (Throughout this article, I will be referring to Kierkegaard as author of his signed writings, and to Kierkegaard’s pseudonym as author of Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous writings).
[3]	Kierkegaard (1998), The Book on Adler, ed. Howard and Edna Hong, (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 184.
[4]	Kierkegaard (2014), Journals and Notebooks 7, ed. Niels Jorgen Cappelorn, et. al., (Princeton: Princeton University Press), NB20: 152.
[5]	Antony Aumann (2010), "Kierkegaard On Indirect Communication, The Crowd, And A Monstrous Illusion," in International Kierkegaard Commentary Volume 22: The Point of View, ed. Robert L. Perkins, International Kierkegaard Commentary, Vol. 22, 295-324, (Macon: Mercer University Press), 295, provides the term “indispensability thesis.”
[6]	Jolita Pons (2004), Stealing a Gift: Kierkegaard's Pseudonyms and the Bible (New York: Fordham), 46.
[7]	Kierkegaard (1995), Works of Love, ed. Howard and Edna Hong, (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 274.
[8]	Kierkegaard (2011), Journals and Notebooks 5, ed. Niels Jorgen Cappelorn, et. al., (Princeton: Princeton University Press), NB6: 68.
[9]	Kierkegaard (1991), Practice in Christianity, ed. Howard and Edna Hong (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 134.
[10]	George Pattison (1992), Kierkegaard: The Aesthetic and the Religious: From the Magic Theatre to the Crucifixion of the Image (London: Macmillan Academic), 85.
[11]	Strawser (1992), "Welcome To The Jungle: The Problem Of Language In Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein," Topicos 3.1, 97-110, 159.
[12]	Kierkegaard (2011), Journals and Notebooks, 5, ed. Niels Jorgen Cappelorn, et. al., (Princeton: Princeton University Press), NB10: 154.
[13]	Kierkegaard (1998), The Point of View, ed. Howard and Edna Hong (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 34.
[14]	Richard McCombs (2013), The Paradoxical Rationality of Søren Kierkegaard (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 118.
[15]	See Immanuel Kant (2002), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Allen W. Wood et al (New Haven: Yale University Press), 79.
[16]	Kierkegaard (1985), Philosophical Fragments, or a Fragment of Philosophy/Johannes Climacus, or De omnibus dubitandum est., ed. Howard and Edna Hong (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 84.
[17]	Peter D. Fenves (1993), "Chatter": Language and History in Kierkegaard (Stanford: Stanford University Press), 147.
[18]	Mark C. Taylor (1987), preface to Patrick Begelow, Kierkegaard and the Problem of Writing (Tallahassee: Florida University Press), xi.
[19]	Steven Shakespeare (1996), "Stirring The Waters Of Language: Kierkegaard On The Dangers Of Doing Theology," Heythrop Journal 37, no. 4, 421-36, 435.
[20]	Aaron Edwards (2017), "Kierkegaard As Socratic Street Preacher?: Reimagining The Dialectic Of Direct And Indirect Communication For Christian Proclamation," Harvard Theological Review 110, no. 2, 280-300, 289.
[21]	George Pattison (2002), Kierkegaard’s Upbuilding Discourses: Philosophy, Theology, Literature (London and New York: Routledge), 143.
[22]	Kierkegaard (2011), Journals and Notebooks 4, ed. Niels Jorgen Cappelorn, et. al., (Princeton: Princeton University Press), NB: 134-35.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Kevin Storer. (2023). Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique. International Journal of Philosophy, 11(3), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Kevin Storer. Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique. Int. J. Philos. 2023, 11(3), 69-77. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Kevin Storer. Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique. Int J Philos. 2023;11(3):69-77. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14,
  author = {Kevin Storer},
  title = {Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique},
  journal = {International Journal of Philosophy},
  volume = {11},
  number = {3},
  pages = {69-77},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijp.20231103.14},
  abstract = {Kierkegaard is well-known for his development of an authorial strategy called indirect communication, a maieutic communicative approach intended to enable the subjectivity of the reader in ethical and religious upbuilding. Unfortunately, Kierkegaard at times makes statements that seem contradictory in his own discussions about indirect discourse. This article will suggest that the reason for these seemingly contradictory claims is that Kierkegaard actually develops four distinct models of indirect communication at different places in his authorship. These four models will be called: 1) the “Preservation of Subjectivity” model (which claims that indirect communication is necessary to respect the free subjectivity of the reader); 2) the “Incognito God” model (which claims that God can only communicate to human beings indirectly, and therefore that Christ’s own self-communication was necessarily indirect); 3) the “Deception into Truth” model (which claims that deception is necessary to unlearn an error); and 4) the “Inadequacy of Language” model (which claims that existence cannot be thought or communicated directly). This paper will argue that while no individual model is entirely successful on its own logic in establishing the necessity of indirect communication, the models do show the usefulness of indirect communication when they are employed in an ad hoc manner. Consequently, as communicators identify the unique strategic aims of each model, they will be better equipped both to read Kierkegaard’s authorship more coherently and to employ indirect communication more effectively for the benefit of their own learners.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique
AU  - Kevin Storer
Y1  - 2023/08/28
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14
T2  - International Journal of Philosophy
JF  - International Journal of Philosophy
JO  - International Journal of Philosophy
SP  - 69
EP  - 77
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7455
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14
AB  - Kierkegaard is well-known for his development of an authorial strategy called indirect communication, a maieutic communicative approach intended to enable the subjectivity of the reader in ethical and religious upbuilding. Unfortunately, Kierkegaard at times makes statements that seem contradictory in his own discussions about indirect discourse. This article will suggest that the reason for these seemingly contradictory claims is that Kierkegaard actually develops four distinct models of indirect communication at different places in his authorship. These four models will be called: 1) the “Preservation of Subjectivity” model (which claims that indirect communication is necessary to respect the free subjectivity of the reader); 2) the “Incognito God” model (which claims that God can only communicate to human beings indirectly, and therefore that Christ’s own self-communication was necessarily indirect); 3) the “Deception into Truth” model (which claims that deception is necessary to unlearn an error); and 4) the “Inadequacy of Language” model (which claims that existence cannot be thought or communicated directly). This paper will argue that while no individual model is entirely successful on its own logic in establishing the necessity of indirect communication, the models do show the usefulness of indirect communication when they are employed in an ad hoc manner. Consequently, as communicators identify the unique strategic aims of each model, they will be better equipped both to read Kierkegaard’s authorship more coherently and to employ indirect communication more effectively for the benefit of their own learners.
VL  - 11
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Kevin Storer

Theological Studies, Evangelical Theological Seminary, Hosur, India

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Kevin Storer. (2023). Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique. International Journal of Philosophy, 11(3), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Kevin Storer. Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique. Int. J. Philos. 2023, 11(3), 69-77. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Kevin Storer. Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique. Int J Philos. 2023;11(3):69-77. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14,
  author = {Kevin Storer},
  title = {Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique},
  journal = {International Journal of Philosophy},
  volume = {11},
  number = {3},
  pages = {69-77},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijp.20231103.14},
  abstract = {Kierkegaard is well-known for his development of an authorial strategy called indirect communication, a maieutic communicative approach intended to enable the subjectivity of the reader in ethical and religious upbuilding. Unfortunately, Kierkegaard at times makes statements that seem contradictory in his own discussions about indirect discourse. This article will suggest that the reason for these seemingly contradictory claims is that Kierkegaard actually develops four distinct models of indirect communication at different places in his authorship. These four models will be called: 1) the “Preservation of Subjectivity” model (which claims that indirect communication is necessary to respect the free subjectivity of the reader); 2) the “Incognito God” model (which claims that God can only communicate to human beings indirectly, and therefore that Christ’s own self-communication was necessarily indirect); 3) the “Deception into Truth” model (which claims that deception is necessary to unlearn an error); and 4) the “Inadequacy of Language” model (which claims that existence cannot be thought or communicated directly). This paper will argue that while no individual model is entirely successful on its own logic in establishing the necessity of indirect communication, the models do show the usefulness of indirect communication when they are employed in an ad hoc manner. Consequently, as communicators identify the unique strategic aims of each model, they will be better equipped both to read Kierkegaard’s authorship more coherently and to employ indirect communication more effectively for the benefit of their own learners.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique
AU  - Kevin Storer
Y1  - 2023/08/28
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14
T2  - International Journal of Philosophy
JF  - International Journal of Philosophy
JO  - International Journal of Philosophy
SP  - 69
EP  - 77
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7455
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.14
AB  - Kierkegaard is well-known for his development of an authorial strategy called indirect communication, a maieutic communicative approach intended to enable the subjectivity of the reader in ethical and religious upbuilding. Unfortunately, Kierkegaard at times makes statements that seem contradictory in his own discussions about indirect discourse. This article will suggest that the reason for these seemingly contradictory claims is that Kierkegaard actually develops four distinct models of indirect communication at different places in his authorship. These four models will be called: 1) the “Preservation of Subjectivity” model (which claims that indirect communication is necessary to respect the free subjectivity of the reader); 2) the “Incognito God” model (which claims that God can only communicate to human beings indirectly, and therefore that Christ’s own self-communication was necessarily indirect); 3) the “Deception into Truth” model (which claims that deception is necessary to unlearn an error); and 4) the “Inadequacy of Language” model (which claims that existence cannot be thought or communicated directly). This paper will argue that while no individual model is entirely successful on its own logic in establishing the necessity of indirect communication, the models do show the usefulness of indirect communication when they are employed in an ad hoc manner. Consequently, as communicators identify the unique strategic aims of each model, they will be better equipped both to read Kierkegaard’s authorship more coherently and to employ indirect communication more effectively for the benefit of their own learners.
VL  - 11
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download