What do you think?
Rate this book
A Confusion of the Spheres
Cursory allusions to the relation between Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein are common in the philosophical literature, but there has been little in the way of serious and comprehensive commentary on the relationship of their ideas. Genia Sch�nbaumsfeld closes this gap and offers new readings of Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's conceptions of philosophy and religious belief.
Chapter one documents Kierkegaard's influence on Wittgenstein, while chapters two and three provide trenchant criticisms of two prominent attempts to compare the two thinkers, those by D. Z. Phillips and James Conant. In chapter four, Sch�nbaumsfeld develops Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's concerted criticisms of the "spaceship view" of religion and defends it against the common charges of "fideism" and "irrationalism."
As well as contributing to contemporary debate about how to read Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's work, A Confusion of the Spheres addresses issues which not only concern scholars of Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard, but anyone interested in the philosophy of religion, or the ethical aspects of philosophical practice as such.
Chapter one documents Kierkegaard's influence on Wittgenstein, while chapters two and three provide trenchant criticisms of two prominent attempts to compare the two thinkers, those by D. Z. Phillips and James Conant. In chapter four, Sch�nbaumsfeld develops Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's concerted criticisms of the "spaceship view" of religion and defends it against the common charges of "fideism" and "irrationalism."
As well as contributing to contemporary debate about how to read Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's work, A Confusion of the Spheres addresses issues which not only concern scholars of Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard, but anyone interested in the philosophy of religion, or the ethical aspects of philosophical practice as such.
- GenresPhilosophy
222 pages, Hardcover
First published September 27, 2007
3 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 3, 2009
"Neither author seeks to substitute one philosophical preconception for another—one thesis for another—but to hold up a mirror to the reader that will show her that however beautiful her reflection might be, it is a false image not worthy of her attachment."pg 41
"Kierkegaard was by far the most profound thinker of the last century. Kierkegaard was a saint." Ludwig Wittgenstein (Quoted by M. O’C. Drury, in Rhees, Recollections of Wittgenstein, 87)
Genia Schonbaumsfeld has tried to build a more complete case for the parallels between Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's thoughts - particularly those writings regarding ethics, illusions, attachments, religion, faith and those related paradoxes. She does a far more thorough job than authors before her, but occasionally leans on a few general phrases more than she needs to. The problem she faces in aligning these two authors' works lies in the prevelant idea that they should not be aligned at all.
"What is revolutionary in Kierkegaard’s and Wittgenstein’s conception is precisely to challenge the idea that as regards religious faith only two options are possible—either adherence to a set of metaphysical beliefs (with certain ways of acting following from these beliefs) or passionate commitment to a ‘doctrineless’ form of life; tertium non datur (there is no third way)."
The author seeks to trace the extent of Kierkegaard's influence on Wittgenstein; show how remarkably like-minded the two philosophers are on such important issues as the nature of philosophy and religious belief; restify distortions that Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's views have been subjected to in the philosphical literature.
The author also challenges the stereotypes of Kierkegaard as only a religious thinker, while Wittgenstein offers a more neutral philosophical position. Her point (that has been made by other authors as well) is that by choosing not to write more on subjects such as religion, esthetics and ethics, Wittgenstein actually reveals "common ground" between he and Kierkegaard.
As Schonbaumfeld notes, there is quite a lot of material, particularly in Wittgenstein's letters and journals, to back up the assertion that Kierkegaard profoundly influenced Wittgenstein.
Hermine, for example, writes in her letter to Ludwig from 20 November 1917:
"Thank you very much for your lovely card from 13th November. You were perfectly correct in supposing that I did not receive the earlier one with your request for books, but I’ve just been out for them and a number of Kierkegaard volumes are already on the way. I hope they are the ones you want, because, given that I don’t know anything about him and his writings, I simply chose a few at random. The Diary of a Seducer, which I bought in a different bookshop,
will follow."
Sometimes the author stretches slightly in comparisons, calling on certain phrases like, "it is the paradox" (which appears in Philosphical Occasions) is a particularly Kierkegaardian 'turn of a phrase.' Yes, it could be - or it could just be Wittgenstein's. I think there is enough evidence of the profound effect Kierkegaard had on W., without pulling from (in comparison to other proclamations) such statements. Especially in light of direct references such as this from his journal (1922):
"As I said, tonight I saw my complete nothingness. God has deigned to show it to me. During the whole time I kept thinking about Kierkegaard and that my condition is ‘fear and trembling’. I would not go so far as to say that "it is as if Kierkegaard himself had written it" however."
Confusion of Spheres is an excellent, easy-to-follow read and provides more than adequate, if not occasionally heavy-handed, arguments - as well as bringing journal and correspondence excerpts to which some readers may not have been exposed.
One note to getting the most from this text - read the footnotes. The footnotes are almost as valuable as the main text and should be read as thoroughly.
Favorite quote:
(Actually one of my favorite Kierkegaard quote.)
From "The Point of View", ‘there is nothing that requires as gentle a treatment as the removal of an illusion’.
"Kierkegaard was by far the most profound thinker of the last century. Kierkegaard was a saint." Ludwig Wittgenstein (Quoted by M. O’C. Drury, in Rhees, Recollections of Wittgenstein, 87)
Genia Schonbaumsfeld has tried to build a more complete case for the parallels between Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's thoughts - particularly those writings regarding ethics, illusions, attachments, religion, faith and those related paradoxes. She does a far more thorough job than authors before her, but occasionally leans on a few general phrases more than she needs to. The problem she faces in aligning these two authors' works lies in the prevelant idea that they should not be aligned at all.
"What is revolutionary in Kierkegaard’s and Wittgenstein’s conception is precisely to challenge the idea that as regards religious faith only two options are possible—either adherence to a set of metaphysical beliefs (with certain ways of acting following from these beliefs) or passionate commitment to a ‘doctrineless’ form of life; tertium non datur (there is no third way)."
The author seeks to trace the extent of Kierkegaard's influence on Wittgenstein; show how remarkably like-minded the two philosophers are on such important issues as the nature of philosophy and religious belief; restify distortions that Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's views have been subjected to in the philosphical literature.
The author also challenges the stereotypes of Kierkegaard as only a religious thinker, while Wittgenstein offers a more neutral philosophical position. Her point (that has been made by other authors as well) is that by choosing not to write more on subjects such as religion, esthetics and ethics, Wittgenstein actually reveals "common ground" between he and Kierkegaard.
As Schonbaumfeld notes, there is quite a lot of material, particularly in Wittgenstein's letters and journals, to back up the assertion that Kierkegaard profoundly influenced Wittgenstein.
Hermine, for example, writes in her letter to Ludwig from 20 November 1917:
"Thank you very much for your lovely card from 13th November. You were perfectly correct in supposing that I did not receive the earlier one with your request for books, but I’ve just been out for them and a number of Kierkegaard volumes are already on the way. I hope they are the ones you want, because, given that I don’t know anything about him and his writings, I simply chose a few at random. The Diary of a Seducer, which I bought in a different bookshop,
will follow."
Sometimes the author stretches slightly in comparisons, calling on certain phrases like, "it is the paradox" (which appears in Philosphical Occasions) is a particularly Kierkegaardian 'turn of a phrase.' Yes, it could be - or it could just be Wittgenstein's. I think there is enough evidence of the profound effect Kierkegaard had on W., without pulling from (in comparison to other proclamations) such statements. Especially in light of direct references such as this from his journal (1922):
"As I said, tonight I saw my complete nothingness. God has deigned to show it to me. During the whole time I kept thinking about Kierkegaard and that my condition is ‘fear and trembling’. I would not go so far as to say that "it is as if Kierkegaard himself had written it" however."
Confusion of Spheres is an excellent, easy-to-follow read and provides more than adequate, if not occasionally heavy-handed, arguments - as well as bringing journal and correspondence excerpts to which some readers may not have been exposed.
One note to getting the most from this text - read the footnotes. The footnotes are almost as valuable as the main text and should be read as thoroughly.
Favorite quote:
(Actually one of my favorite Kierkegaard quote.)
From "The Point of View", ‘there is nothing that requires as gentle a treatment as the removal of an illusion’.
March 27, 2024
This book is very well written and shows how Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard two authors who seem very difficult to read compliment each other in the understand of their collective goal. This book clears up misconceptions of religion being empirical and speculative philosophy seeking to take the place of empirical science. Probably the perfect book if you are writing a thesis on either Kierkegaard or Wittgenstein or, like myself, both.
June 10, 2025
Schönbaumsfeld’s scholarship is exemplary, and her prose is clear, lithe, and engaging. This is a masterful treatment all around, a must-read for anybody interested in either of these philosophical giants.
July 24, 2022
A book that imo effectively accomplishes what it sets out to do and worth going over again and again.
Schönbaumsfeld isnt just a brilliant academic she is also an incredibly clear and rigorous writer.
Along with the priceless insights into both these incredibly demanding thinkers, it was a joy to read her vicious defense of the standard reading against the resolute perspective on several relevant points of the Tractatus. She is clearly tremendously passionate about her work and subject matter and we all come out winning because of it.
A masterwork by someone who could only be described as an absolute rockstar
Schönbaumsfeld isnt just a brilliant academic she is also an incredibly clear and rigorous writer.
Along with the priceless insights into both these incredibly demanding thinkers, it was a joy to read her vicious defense of the standard reading against the resolute perspective on several relevant points of the Tractatus. She is clearly tremendously passionate about her work and subject matter and we all come out winning because of it.
A masterwork by someone who could only be described as an absolute rockstar
October 25, 2012
This book is very similar to all the other Wittgensteinian books about theology: they all make the same arguments (whereby the religious must be understood in the context of their religious language game), although I have yet to see any positive contributions to the theological enterprise in terms of a utilization of Wittgenstein's philosophy. I do think such a utilization is possible, and I think that Phillips's stuff is most helpful in this regard.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews