Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
[I have been arguing that Kierkegaard’s paradox is best understood in terms of a dynamic ethics of immanence, one that refuses the mediation of the transcendent offered by analogy and its sublimation of suffering into theodicy. Allied to this is an insistence that the paradox only exists as figured, expressed or articulated in existence. There is no transcendent original seeking to enter the world from the outside, but only the excessive power of the unconditioned deforming and remaking the world from within.]
Published: Dec 16, 2015
Keywords: Fairy Tale; Christian Theology; Sensual Pleasure; Established Order; Transcendent Meaning
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.