@article{ART002102724},
author={HoKoang Jang},
title={The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard},
journal={The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics},
issn={1229-8387},
year={2016},
number={34},
pages={175-207},
doi={10.21050/CSE.34.06}
TY - JOUR
AU - HoKoang Jang
TI - The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard
JO - The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics
PY - 2016
VL - null
IS - 34
PB - The Society Of Korean Christian Social Ethics
SP - 175
EP - 207
SN - 1229-8387
AB - The current Korean society is filled with the lack of communication and consideration, the winner-take-it-all and weak-to-the-wall mindset, the excessive sense of rivalry, the political and ideological extreme confrontation(the right and the left) and the splitting and extreme polarization caused by the power harassment of the haves. Namely, the Korean society is faced with the sad reality that moves towards the hostile relationship of hatred and ignorance between self and others rather than it forms the relationships of coexistence and mutual recognition. In this regard, the purpose of the paper is to introduce the intersubjectivity of Works of Love of Kierkegaard, and implicitly to suggest the solutions to address the issues of the Korean society caused by this extreme polarization. This paper introduces the concept of intersubjectivity of Kierkegaard in the recent Korean society. This paper argues that intersubjectivity is not limited to the internal state or human emotions but needs to be expressed as tangible phenomena(behaviors). Also, this paper develops that the intersubjectivity of Kierkegaard is more clearly revealed in the interactive actions that create changes between the lover and the loved, in other words, self and others. This action of Love is introduced as “debt of love” and “virtue of love”. Lastly, this paper emphasizes the mutual communication between the agents rather than just a simple delivery action of communication between the one-sided fixed ‘sender-receiver.’ It concludes with the expectation that the concept of intersubjectivity of Kierkegaard which searches for coexistence and mutual recognition between self and others will contribute to the present Korean society as a new alternative to straighten the recent perversions of it.
KW - Kierkegaard;neighborhood;intersubjectivity;Works of Love;recognizability
DO - 10.21050/CSE.34.06
ER -
HoKoang Jang. (2016). The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard. The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics, 34, 175-207.
HoKoang Jang. 2016, "The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard", The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics, no.34, pp.175-207. Available from: doi:10.21050/CSE.34.06
HoKoang Jang "The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard" The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics 34 pp.175-207 (2016) : 175.
HoKoang Jang. The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard. 2016; 34 : 175-207. Available from: doi:10.21050/CSE.34.06
HoKoang Jang. "The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard" The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics no.34(2016) : 175-207.doi: 10.21050/CSE.34.06
HoKoang Jang. The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard. The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics, 34, 175-207. doi: 10.21050/CSE.34.06
HoKoang Jang. The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard. The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics. 2016; 34 175-207. doi: 10.21050/CSE.34.06
HoKoang Jang. The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard. 2016; 34 : 175-207. Available from: doi:10.21050/CSE.34.06
HoKoang Jang. "The Christian Socio-Ethical Meaning of Intersubjectivity in Works of Love by Kierkegaard" The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics no.34(2016) : 175-207.doi: 10.21050/CSE.34.06