A Note on Secondary Sources
In addition to the close readings and conversations that will
take place in our class, one of the purposes of this seminar is to introduce
you to a much larger scholarly conversation about Kierkegaard. This conversation
is extremely diverse. As in class discussions, comments in this scholarly discussion
range from the very bad (boring, disorganized, pointless, etc.) to the very
good (interesting, clear, insightful). The approaches to Kierkegaard range from
Continental, poststructuralist, deconstructive approaches (such as Derrida and
Mark Taylor) to extremely fine-grained analysis.
For each reading, I have selected some of the most important and valuable secondary
literature on each reading. This is on reserve in the library. The articles
are organized by primary texts. Thus, for example, there is a folder that contains
all of the articles on Sickness unto Death. There are also several good books.
I have listed references to those books on the syllabus. In addition, for most
classes I have highlighted two or three secondary sources that I think will
be particularly helpful and/or interesting for this class. These are listed
on the syllabus.
This secondary reading is optional. I recommend at least looking at what material
is available for each class, since you are likely to find some pieces that will
shed light on particular problems areas for you. When you are writing your seminar
paper and final paper, I particularly recommend looking at the secondary literature.
How to use secondary literature properly
This material puts you in touch with a largely philosophical community, discussing
the same material that you are discussing. Reading this material is particularly
helpful for three purposes:
(a) Correcting basic mistakes. You might develop an interpretation of a text
that is inconsistent with certain obvious and well-known passages, passages
that you just missed (it happens; these are long books!). Secondary sources
will draw your attention to those passages. You might also make a philosophical
argument that seems reasonable at first, but against which there are definitive
objections. You might have an objection against something in the text, but the
text might answer that objection elsewhere. The secondary literature will help
you avoid those mistakes.
(b) Highlighting key issues. Often a text seems so clear, or so confusing, that
it is hard to know what are the most important philosophical issues in interpreting
it. Secondary sources will not necessary draw you to the issues that are most
important, but they will draw your attention to problems that have interested
enough people to be discussed in the wider philosophical community. These problems
will usually have at least some intrinsic philosophical interest, and they might
be problems that weren't initially obvious.
(c) Raising objections and showing the uniqueness of your view. Often the meaning
of a text, or the solution to a problem, seems so obvious that defending it
is not even worthwhile. One sees the need to defend one's own interpretation
(or solution) only when one finds that others do not share it. Secondary literature
can draw attention to different interpretations and positions, along with arguments
defending those interpretations and positions. This provides interlocutors against
whom you can defend your own views.
Secondary literature can be dangerous, however. If the secondary literature
distracts you from engaging with the primary texts, you are misusing it. Benefiting
from secondary literature depends on one important discipline: READ THE TEXT
FOR YOURSELF FIRST. Only after you read the text carefully, think about it,
and develop your own interpretations and critiques, should you turn to the secondary
literature. If the text seems totally overwhelming, such that you just need
some help orienting yourself, you should still read the text first, then go
to secondary literature, then return to the text. Without this discipline, you
may end up just adopting another person's philosophical stance without thinking
for yourself.