ABSTRACT

According to Roger Poole, theological interpreters of Søren Kierkegaard’s indirect communication privilege content over form, whereas deconstructive interpreters privilege form over content. Here, I offer a reading of Johannes Climacus’s Philosophical Fragments to illustrate how, in this case, the theology/deconstruction and form/content binaries both break down. The form of Fragments is as theological as it is deconstructive: Climacus’s kaleidoscopic quotation of scripture, and his parabolic tropes both attest to this. Similarly, the content of Fragments is as deconstructive as it is theological: the deferral of names, the madness of the moment of decision, and Climacus’s use of contradiction all unsettle any naïve theology. Ultimately, I suggest, the reason that Fragments resists the form/content and theology/deconstruction binaries is because it is a text about the incarnation – a paradigmatic combination of form and content, and a paradoxical reality that bursts apart any division between theology and deconstruction.

摘要

根据 Roger Poole 的说法，Søren Kierkegaard 间接交流的神学解释者将内容置于形式之上，而解构式解释器则将形式置于内容之上。在这里，我提供了对 Johannes Climacus 的哲学片段的阅读，以说明在这种情况下，神学/解构和形式/内容二元论是如何崩溃的。Fragments的形式既是神学又是解构：Climacus 万花筒般的经文引述和他的抛物线比喻都证明了这一点。同样，Fragments的内容与神学一样具有解构性：名称的推迟、决定时刻的疯狂以及 Climacus 对矛盾的使用都使任何幼稚的神学都感到不安。最后，我认为，片段之所以反对形式/内容和神学/解构二元论，是因为它是关于化身的文本——形式和内容的范式结合，以及一个矛盾的现实，它打破了神学和解构之间的任何分歧.