Crossroads of forgiveness: a transcendent understanding of forgiveness in Kierkegaard’s religious writings and immanent account of forgiveness in contemporary secular and Christian ethics

3Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to clash the problem of forgiveness as formulated in contemporary secular and Christian ethics with Kierkegaard’s considerations concerning this issue. Kierkegaard’s thought is increasingly used in the modern debate on forgiveness. It is therefore worth investigating whether Kierkegaard’s considerations are really able to overcome in any way contemporary disputes concerning this problem or enrich our thinking in this area. The main thesis of this paper states that there is a fundamental, ontological difference between Kierkegaard’s understanding of forgiveness and that of modern thinkers. While the Danish philosopher refers to the transcendent reality of spirit, where the act of forgiveness is always performed by God, in contemporary ethical and Christian thought, forgiveness is first and foremost formulated from an immanent point of view that appeals to the world of human values. This difference is demonstrated by analyzing the four main themes corresponding to the most important issues taken up in the contemporary debate on forgiveness. These are: the victim-offender relation, the conditionality and unconditionality of forgiveness, the issue of condonation, and the problem of the unforgivable. As a result of the analyses presented herein, the impossibility of directly applying Kierkegaard’s transcendent theses to ethical thought of the immanent variety will be shown.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Słowikowski, A. (2020). Crossroads of forgiveness: a transcendent understanding of forgiveness in Kierkegaard’s religious writings and immanent account of forgiveness in contemporary secular and Christian ethics. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 87(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-019-09733-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free