tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post4276985364708513465..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: Autobiographical, Bibliographical RemembranceDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-33591661905339884572009-05-09T22:07:00.000-06:002009-05-09T22:07:00.000-06:00One wonders who "the father of existentialism" may...One wonders who "the father of existentialism" may be. Of course, it depends on how you define "existentialism"--notoriously difficult, that. A rejection of philosophical systems and abstract thinking is part of it. <br /><br />Nietzsche, who usually makes the short list, rejected systems and embraced, ultimately, incoherence, albeit passionately held: deep feeling in the void. <br /><br />SK wanted to shock pseudo-Christians out of a notional orthodoxy (mindlessly reciting the creeds) and instead to really live out the radical nature of Christianity. However, he did believe the historic creeds and the Bible. He was a realist, if a fideist. The two are logically compatible, if not palatable.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-31173589829155800702009-05-09T14:34:00.000-06:002009-05-09T14:34:00.000-06:00Nice post, Doug. I have never bought Schaeffer's ...Nice post, Doug. I have never bought Schaeffer's claim that SK is the father of existentialism, but do, like you, reject his fideism. "Sickness Unto Death," of all of SK's Pseudonymous works, has always struck me as the one closest to his own thinking. Though the language and translation make it a tough read in spots, it's worth the effort.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-34719597284117061932009-05-08T22:35:00.000-06:002009-05-08T22:35:00.000-06:00SK wrote some cogent devotional works, including "...SK wrote some cogent devotional works, including "Purity of Heart." He wrote a huge corpus in a short time. I do not accept his fideism. For an introduction, see the collection called, "Provocations," ed. by Charles Moore, which features some salient social criticisms that still rings true today. I hope it is still in print.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-21132350367517767482009-05-08T10:12:00.000-06:002009-05-08T10:12:00.000-06:00There is something about SK that just relates well...There is something about SK that just relates well to many people. In fact, I would say that he rings true to people today as he did to you 30 years ago. One of my own professors has often said that SK would be perfect pulpit material (assuming that many churches preach as much or more philosophy, psychology and self help than they do exposit the scriptures). I have also found his understanding of Rationalism and the Modernist enterprise insightful.D. A. Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08456306638327419919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-2241602984178842902009-05-08T09:33:00.000-06:002009-05-08T09:33:00.000-06:00Any tips on reading SK if one has never read him b...Any tips on reading SK if one has never read him before or read much in philosophy? Thanks.Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01085435176957418199noreply@blogger.com