What are your areas of interest?

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

I think it is fascinating too that as someone interested in philosophy of religion that you like Nietzsche. I am an avid fan of Kierkegaard (and not philosophy, but Dostoevsky has been the greatest influence in my life, personally), and I am also a huge fan of Nietzsche. I think there are some themes in both Kierkegaard's and Nietzsche's works that would be fascinating to compare and analyze and frankly I'm not sure how much scholarship has been devoted to that (could be, because I've only ever personally explore scholarship devoted exclusively to Nietzsche). 

 

Kierkegaard is fascinating - though it's rather frustrating to see how the state of modern Kierkegaard scholarship. There seem to be a few pockets of specialists (Fordham and St. Olaf's, for instance, both have a handful of people working on him), but in most major departments you're lucky to find a single professor with even a passing interest in him. Though it's understandable, I guess... Danish isn't exactly a critically important academic language. 

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

Kierkegaard is fascinating - though it's rather frustrating to see how the state of modern Kierkegaard scholarship. There seem to be a few pockets of specialists (Fordham and St. Olaf's, for instance, both have a handful of people working on him), but in most major departments you're lucky to find a single professor with even a passing interest in him. Though it's understandable, I guess... Danish isn't exactly a critically important academic language. 

This is very true- I personally find him to be, along with Nietzsche, the most compelling of the existentialists (in fact I have no interests in the 20th century existentialists). I think you make a great observation about the language- Danish- ahhh, if only he had been German! That has probably deterred many a scholar from pursuing Kierkegaard in detail. I was lucky to have a professor who adored him- she always said that even her militant atheism could never drive her away from her adoration for K.!

[isostheneia]

Though it's understandable, I guess... Danish isn't exactly a critically important academic language. 

 

If only I realized this before taking Norwegian/Danish instead of German...

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

If only I realized this before taking Norwegian/Danish instead of German...

 

Never too late to declare Kierkegaard as an AOS

[Monadology]

I think it is fascinating too that as someone interested in philosophy of religion that you like Nietzsche. I am an avid fan of Kierkegaard (and not philosophy, but Dostoevsky has been the greatest influence in my life, personally), and I am also a huge fan of Nietzsche. I think there are some themes in both Kierkegaard's and Nietzsche's works that would be fascinating to compare and analyze and frankly I'm not sure how much scholarship has been devoted to that (could be, because I've only ever personally explore scholarship devoted exclusively to Nietzsche). 

 

There are a few books on the Nietzsche/Kierkegaard comparison. Here are a few:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Kierkegaard-Nietzsche-Best-Way-Life/dp/1137302097/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421170911&sr=8-2&keywords=nietzsche+kierkegaard&pebp=1421170925033&peasin=1137302097

http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Kierkegaard-Nietzsche-Critical-Thinking/dp/0754665747/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421170940&sr=8-1&keywords=nietzsche+kierkegaard+power&pebp=1421170943555&peasin=754665747

http://www.amazon.com/Either-Kierkegaard-Nietzsche-Intersections-Continental/dp/0754654745

 

Kierkegaard is fascinating - though it's rather frustrating to see how the state of modern Kierkegaard scholarship. There seem to be a few pockets of specialists (Fordham and St. Olaf's, for instance, both have a handful of people working on him), but in most major departments you're lucky to find a single professor with even a passing interest in him. Though it's understandable, I guess... Danish isn't exactly a critically important academic language. 

 

You are definitely right. My most significant historical interest is in Kierkegaard, so the realization that there are few major Kierkegaard scholars in PhD programs was pretty frustrating (St. Olaf's has no PhD program!). On the other hand, it might not be the language. I think M.G. Piety and Alastair Hannay have suggested that many Kierkegaard scholars don't know Danish (that may or may not be true). That said, I know that there are some scholars in PGR departments with strong interests in Kierkegaard that have not been on the front burner research-wise. For instance, Mark Wrathall and Mark Alznauer. Also, Sara Buss is a huge fan and is working on a paper on Kierkegaard and contemporary ethics/agency. 

Edited January 13, 2015 by Monadology

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

You are definitely right. My most significant historical interest is in Kierkegaard, so the realization that there are few major Kierkegaard scholars in PhD programs was pretty frustrating (St. Olaf's has no PhD program!). On the other hand, it might not be the language. I think M.G. Piety and Alastair Hannay have suggested that many Kierkegaard scholars don't know Danish (that may or may not be true). That said, I know that there are some scholars in PGR departments with strong interests in Kierkegaard that have not been on the front burner research-wise. For instance, Mark Wrathall and Mark Alznauer. Also, Sara Buss is a huge fan and is working on a paper on Kierkegaard and contemporary ethics/agency. 

 

I've seen a handful of professors who will list Kierkegaard among their interests (John Hare at Yale, for example), but I've yet to find many in major departments who list him as their major research interest. It may just be that I'm not looking hard enough, though! It would be rather upsetting if leading Kierkegaard scholars didn't at least have some reading proficiency in Danish, though. I can only imagine what it would be like writing a book on Aristotle while only using English translations! 

Quick question for you, given that Kierkegaard is your major historical interest (and I'm assuming you're not purely reading him in Danish): which translations do you use for his major works? I just got my hands on the Hongs' translation of Either/Or, which looks good at first glance, but I haven't yet compared it with any other versions!

Also, Angier's book sounds fascinating. I shall have to add it to my (ever-growing) summer reading list! 

[Monadology]

I've seen a handful of professors who will list Kierkegaard among their interests (John Hare at Yale, for example), but I've yet to find many in major departments who list him as their major research interest. It may just be that I'm not looking hard enough, though! It would be rather upsetting if leading Kierkegaard scholars didn't at least have some reading proficiency in Danish, though. I can only imagine what it would be like writing a book on Aristotle while only using English translations! 

Quick question for you, given that Kierkegaard is your major historical interest (and I'm assuming you're not purely reading him in Danish): which translations do you use for his major works? I just got my hands on the Hongs' translation of Either/Or, which looks good at first glance, but I haven't yet compared it with any other versions!

Also, Angier's book sounds fascinating. I shall have to add it to my (ever-growing) summer reading list! 

 

Right, I can only think of 4 well known PhD programs in the States that would be especially conducive to becoming a Kierkegaard scholar: Fordham, Baylor, Cornell (Michelle Kosch is awesome) and Chicago (Lear and Conant - not focused Kierkegaard scholars, but I've seen some damn good Kierkegaard dissertations come from there, like Jennifer Lockhart's). On the language stuff, I can't find where Hannay said it (if he did), butI did find where MG Piety says that "One of the biggest problems in Kierkegaard scholarship is how few scholars have even an elementary knowledge of Danish." (like I said, who knows if it is true!)

 

 

Speaking of which: I'm certainly not reading him in Danish, as I am just now teaching myself Danish. There were not many resources I could afford prior to this summer when Duolingo got its Danish course into beta. Though my answer to your question is of considerably less interest after imparting that fact, I tend to use the Hong translations. However, I am a big fan of Hannay (though I am not aware whether he has an unabridged translation of Either/Or; the Penguin edition is certainly abridged). I'll read Hannay where I can. Otherwise Hong is fine.   

 

The only of those three I've read is Angier's, actually! It was pretty interesting. However, I don't know if he gave Nietzsche a fair shake since I'm not very familiar with Nietzsche. 

Edited January 14, 2015 by Monadology

[Establishment]

I try to stay away from the Hong translations. I haven't taken any serious look at their translation, but the reliability of their methodology (if I remember it right, one of them translated from Danish to English, and the other did an English to English finalization) concerns me, and I've noticed they have a tendency to de-Christianize parts of Kierkegaard and also edit out the parts where Kierkegaard is vulgar.

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

Right, I can only think of 4 well known PhD programs in the States that would be especially conducive to becoming a Kierkegaard scholar: Fordham, Baylor, Cornell (Michelle Kosch is awesome) and Chicago (Lear and Conant - not focused Kierkegaard scholars, but I've seen some damn good Kierkegaard dissertations come from there, like Jennifer Lockhart's). On the language stuff, I can't find where Hannay said it (if he did), butI did find where MG Piety says that "One of the biggest problems in Kierkegaard scholarship is how few scholars have even an elementary knowledge of Danish." (like I said, who knows if it is true!)

 

How encouraging - I've already applied to three of those four programs! It's good to know that students at Chicago have already been doing good work on Kierkegaard in the recent past, too. And the summer program at St. Olaf's mentioned in the article is definitely something good to keep in the back of my mind for the coming years.

 

I try to stay away from the Hong translations. I haven't taken any serious look at their translation, but the reliability of their methodology (if I remember it right, one of them translated from Danish to English, and the other did an English to English finalization) concerns me, and I've noticed they have a tendency to de-Christianize parts of Kierkegaard and also edit out the parts where Kierkegaard is vulgar.

 

This is also really good to know! I guess I would need to read more about their exact method before passing any sort of meaningful judgement, but I can only imagine how damaging having a second set of eyes "polish" a piece would be for the textual integrity of the work translated. That's worrisome. 

[Monadology]

I try to stay away from the Hong translations. I haven't taken any serious look at their translation, but the reliability of their methodology (if I remember it right, one of them translated from Danish to English, and the other did an English to English finalization) concerns me, and I've noticed they have a tendency to de-Christianize parts of Kierkegaard and also edit out the parts where Kierkegaard is vulgar.

 

Do you have any examples? I haven't heard much very critical of the Hong translations, aside from run-of-the-mill translation disagreements (and the characterization that they often omit style for more literal translation). 

Edited January 14, 2015 by Monadology

[Hcarp]

Frege, hands down. But after that, Evans, Russell, and David Lewis. I have a super soft spot for early Heidegger.

A few living philosophers I've found super insightful as I've worked through issues: Mark Schroeder at USC, Seth Yalcin at Berkeley, Scott Soames at USC, and Agustín Rayo at MIT.

 

Ditto on Mark Schroeder! Have read a few pieces by him - all extremely insightful.