96 Faith rnul phiiosophv

srrme that the PSR-dr-.n1.ing ciaim, -E: Thse is uts explanation for t!rc trutlt ttfP ttnd so no csusnl etylcuation for P, is alscs contingentlv true. {Note: prussemplovs onl1, the second conjurrct in rvhat I have called *E; hower.,er, hederives it from the first.) Let 1{i. be a possible world in ra.hich the conjunc-tion' P and -8, is true. since this conjunction is, if tme-, corrtingr.ntly true,thc're is a possible it'c'rld, 1,v,.. in which it false. The Brour,vc'r u*iom iells r.rsthat if a claim is true, then necessarily it is possibly true. so, from tl-re Brou-wer axiom it i*llorvs that in w,, though P crild *E is falsg it is nonethelesspassibly true. Gven Aristotelian mocal vie'ws, il p nnd -E is possibly truein trv" then some thing or thirrgs in tr{" must ha'.'e causal pc*ers cipabiecf bringing about the lruth af P nnd *E. But, it is impossible for anythhrgto cause it to be the case thai an uncaused state of affairs obtains. so, thtlaffirmation of the PSR-derrying -8, together with an Aristotelian accountof modality results in an absurdity. lt follow-s that it is not possible that theAristotelian modal r,,ielv bt-'trur. and PSR false.

Nor is it possible in a brief review to describe'adequately the richness ofPruss'i u,-ork. ltexemplifies analytical rigcr and invites ccntinued reflecfion.Any'one interested in PSR owes Alexander R. Pruss a debt of gratitude.l

. lThqF to l)cruglas Croothuis ancl Mark l.inville for ver"y helpful comirrents on earlierdrafts uf the rc.vit\r'.

Ktcrktgiard an Fsith *nd the self: collected Essays, b.v C. stephen E'als. Bay-lor Universig' Press, 2006. Pp. 352. $49.95 (hardback).

Kit:rkrgaartl's Ethit cf Laztt: Dirtine conrcunds snd Mora! ablig*tians, byC" Stephen Evans. Oxford Ltniversify Press, 2004t2006 (paper), pp. ZZ6.$195.00 (hardback), S45.00 (paper).

MYRON BRADLEY PENNER" Prairie Calle,ge

Thege tra'o books represent the oilmination of decacles cf reading Kierke6;-aard's texts and philosophical reflectiorr on them.i They offer both a de-fense af the relevance of Kierkegaard to philosophy tocla-v and a polemicagainst r,arious {misire-adings erf Kierkegaard. Evans is one af {en, anal.vticphilosophers who sec.s value in Kierkegaard's thought and r,r,ho has pa-tiently and carefully spent time in the Kierkegaardi;m texts. As a resulthe has prcduced a substantjal body of vr.ork over some thjrty vears thatbrings Kierkegaard's thought to bear not orrly on issues in philosophy ofreliginn, but the rryider questions of contemporary analvtic philasophyas well. Both tirese backs warrant close reading by an1'one intereste'd in

. lFor simplicitir, both Er,-ans anci I rise the terrn "Kierkegaard" ii'r re{er to the body of

thcught presented in the texts historically rrrritten bv Soren Kierkegaald, whether pseud-ol].rTo3s cr not. This is not to overlook the immense imporiance of pseudcnymitljbui tclsirnplifv rc.ference.

BOOK R.:yiE1.t'5

contemporary philosophical debates, especially in philosophy <-rf religionand moral philosophy (e'thics and meta-ethics). Honiever, those interestedin the methods and theme.s of continental philosophy and hor,v Kierkeg-aard's tcxts appear in tight of them rvill find little in Evansh work but asustaine-d ar€pment against continental interpretations of Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaord An Frtith and thc Sdf

Kierkrgnurd On Faith and the Sef conveniently presents in one volume awide-ranging ccllection <lf seventee'n of Er.ans's most important essayson Kierkegaardt philcsophy of religicn, ethical and meta-etirical thoughtpre.vicuslv published betr,r,-een 1979 and 2000 (wiih min<)r changes), andarranged into four grcups: "Kierkegaard the Philosopher" (Part Trvo), "Ki-erkegaard on Faith, Reasorl and Refcrmed Epistemology" (Part Three),"Kierkegaard on Ethics and a-uthority" ([]art Four), and "Kierkegaard anthe Self: I'hilosophical Psychology" (Part Fiv-e). fhere are also two nelv es-says that bookend the re-published ma"rterial, tire Intrcduction, "Kierkeg-aard as a Christian Thinker" (I'4rt One), and the Conclusion, "Where CanKierkr-.9;aard Take Us?" {Part $x), giving the book its shape' and telos.Taken as a rvhr:le they *ffer. Ev{ns argues, "the kernel" o{ a "way of read-ing Kierkegaard" that is ccrnsisfient and unified, thorrgh initially rvrittenrvithout any such "detailed plariof attack" {p. x).

The first thing to say about tlds collection of essays is that each one iswell-written, r.v'ell-argued and deselves doser attention than can be givento them here- One. ol Evans's virtues as a philosnpher is his ability to bringclarit_v to Kierkegaardt rather ccr:nplex authorship. llire result may be.

slightly misleading, hcwe'.'er, to readers unfamiiiar r,'v'itir the primary textsthemselves. Ou sxsultation thev mav firrd the issues less straiehtforwardthan they appear in Evarrs's hancts. (ierkegaard is an enigmat"ic w'riter atbest aucl otten there are good textual and philosophical reasons for ihevarious uses to w.hjch h-. is put. Forhrnatc.ll' Evans is lve.ll al,n-area of. thisfar-t alrcl generally doe's not present his reading as tire cnlv pcssible r.vav trluntlerstand Kierkega;lld; it is simply the best one he can discern.

The collective aim of these crssays is to correct "deeply rooted tradi-tions of misinterpretation" of Kierkegaardt terts that cause so many read-ers to labor under "the illusion that they dreadtl unde'rsta.nd him" (p. 5).More to the point, Evans seeks to rebut tlre entrr*nched interpretations ofKierkegaar:d as an irrationalist ficleist about faith and reason, a relativistabcut propositianal truth, a subjectivist about moral norms, a nonf<)lrn-claiionalist about epistemic jusfification, and an auti-r'ealist about tmth,language and metaphysics. The.sc' misin terpreta ticns, Evans su ggests, dis-tort Kir.rkegaarrd's terxts and ultirnately undermine his stati"rs as both "aserious philosopher" and "p'g15aps the greatest Christian thinker sinccrthe middle ages" {p.8'), one r.r4rose thought is deeply relevant to our con-temporarl.'n orld, sacred ancl secular (pp. +-5,26)-

Evans's tlresis nrairntains that Kier:kegaard is first and foremr:st aChristit*t tirinker, anct that as a Christian thinkc.r he makes an important

99

i00 Faith anrj })hiiosaph"y

contr:ibution to rvider philasophical thought. lronically; Kierke.gaardkChristianity is not sometiring one may take for granted in Kierkegaardiancircles, eve'n though most of Kierkegaard's authorship is focused explic-itly on Christian themes. The existential seri:jectivist-irratjonalist readingsof Kierkegaard promulgated b3' philosophers like- Alasdair Maclntirre,zanc{ the so-called "postmodem" liierarv-ironist readings of someone likeRcger Pacle.r saddle Kierkegaard with the view ihat graunds for one's be-liefs are utierly subjective {or "emotive," as Maclntyre wcluid have it) anclirratir:nai anel, as Pcxrie dainrc, that the Kierkegaardian texts offer nothingby nay cf propositi*nal tmths r:r doctrines. On the forrner r4ew, Kir,.rkeg-aard adr.ances these's that ultimately have nc raticnal basis, w.hile on thelafter he advances no theses urhatsoever. In both cases Kierkeg;aard is ananti-philosopher rvho wittingl3r or nct unclercuts the basis fcr Christianbe'iief, rendering him eithe'r a {philcsophically) useless Chrjstian thinkerrlr not reallv a Christisn thinker at all. Tirese are the so$s of readings Ev-ans means to quash.

Philoscphically, the i1.r-rchpin of Evans's way of reading Kierkegaard,whicilvr.e e'ncounter in Chapters Two and Threg is tlre claim that Kierkeg-aard is a reaiist rn'ho not only believes in t}-re possibility oi metaphysics, butis himsc'lf engaged in a metaphysical project of sorts. Kierkegaard is "un-comprr:misingly on the. side cf r"ealisrn" if by that one rneans Kierkegaarclbelieres ti-rat thu're is objective tmth independent cf human minds (pp. 9,56*58). And Kierkegaard is a metaphvsician if we thirrk of metapirysics interms set forth by William fames as "an attempt ta darify a perscnt deep-est beliefs abr:ut wirat is real, those beliefs that both stem from and shapea person's acfual life-choices"-urhat Evans calls "mere metaphysic$"' {pp,9, 49; 19-57,58). These ciaims bc-rtir hinge on Evansk realist interpretationof Kierkegaard's "truth is subjectivity" {his subjectivity principle) whichapplies, first, only fa moral ancl religious truth, and seconrl, to the truthof a perscn's iife alcl not to propositional truth {p. 5S). 5o far tiom being aspl:jectivist abcr.rt prcpositional tn-rth, Kierkegaard's subjectir.itv principleactually presupposes the objeciive (realist) truth of prcpositions. Kierkeg-aardk oft-alleged anti-metaphysicai texts turn out merel;' to assert that a

person's spirifual and inr+ard development is essential to the discov"eryof metapirysical trutir {pp. 10, 62-$5). Thus the *,ay is opened far a Ki-erkegaardian c'pistemolog,r. that is (in Chapters TEn and Eleve'n) a formof modest fouldaticnalism, a Kierkegaardian e.thics that is not a fonu r:frelativism {Chapters Twelv-e and Thirteen), and a !'ierv cf the self that isnornatjv-e (Cirapters Fourteen and Fifteen).

Thankfulll,i Evans's insistence that Kierkegaarcl is not a wild-eyed re-ligicus fanatic rvho jettisons reasorl altogether has nort' becrrme, largely

'?Alasdair biaclntyre, ?,fier Virrue {l{oire Darne, IN: University of Notre f)anre Press,1981), pp. io-5t).

3Roger Poole', "Tlie Unknown Kir.rkegaard: Tr,.'entieth Cie.ntury;1sc!-prtiotrs," inThe C*m-!:ridge CcmTtanian to Kietktga.*rii, e<i. A. F{annay;rnd C. !{arir,o iNe.rv York: C:rmbridge Uni-vcr:it) Press, 19qbj, pp.66tt.

BOOK,RfVIEI4TS

because of Evans's work collected in this antholcgSt, a rather standardreading of Kierkegaard's so-called subjectivitv principlr-.. Furthermore,one hr:pes that other phiiosophers heed Evanst admoniti<-n {ChapterNineteen) that Kierkegaard's thought is particularlv ge-rmane to our in-creasingly p*stmodr.rn tjmes. But thcre are questions about Evansk ap-proach to Kiertegaard. For starters, Evans habituall,v collapses metaphvs-ical qrrestit-xrs tc their epistemclcgical dimensions, privileging epistemicover hermeneutical rc.flection. in order to demonstrate how it is that r,vhaiKierkegaard actuallv opposes are certain modem epistemic assumptions.such as infallibiiism, ciassical foundationaiism and umnediated access toreali[,' as it "really"fs, ctc. Thus, all the statements in the Kierkegaardian r ..

tcxts that appear.jn radical arc, ()rlcc Hvans is tlrrough, rcallv just atFirnr- , l€t'ing r,vhat is (norv)'gene'rallv acceptable to the philosophical mainstream inanalvtic philosopirl'.

A gacd example of this is r,vhen Evans feels ire rnust resclle Kierkegaardfrom antirealism-ir view r.vhich, as Evans himself admits, Lrlrfclmpassesa range of positions on the nature of re-ality and its relation to humancr:gnition-lest Kierkegaard collapse bar:k intc the'irrationaljst and anti-Christjan (mis)readings ot him. Antirealism, hcr,vever, may mean any-thir"rg; tram a rronfactualist r.,iew, accordirrg to which the propositions orsent€n{es of a disr-rrurse do not exprL.ss genuine- pre-dicative judgmentsand nrakc'no claim about the wrtrld (or some external state of aflairs) sotirat no t-'laim a.bout the woild eould render them ttue or false, to a per-spectival view which holds onlv that for anv proposition p we assert as

truc, the conditions under which "that 1:;" is true are contextual and lim-itecl ta the pe-rspecfive from rshich it is made. The fcrmer Evans no daubt*'ishes to avoid, but whv tl"re latter? Evans circumv-ents the antirealistcharge by (arnong other things) defining the sort of rnetaphvsics Kierkeg-aard opposes as focr-rsed on its presumed epistemic status, and not thecbject of study fcr metaphysics. That is, Kierkegaard certainly rejects sonetorms of nretaphysical inquiry-such as Plato's tlr Hegc-ik*-br-rt he doesso, Evans claims, only because of the presumed epistemic status of tireirmetaphysical claims, and not because they engage in metaphysics shnplir-ifr:r. There are te.xtual reasons tc challenge this notion, brrt even a realistmight be' forgiven for feeling a bit cheated r,r,hen she discove-rs that allEvans apparc'ntly means by calling Kir-rkegaard a realist is thai Kierkeg-aard is interested in metaplwsics (and truth) in the "Jamesean sense" thatseeks to elucidate our actual life commitnents. Kierkegaard's metaphys-ics has "no hint of finality or certainty, no daim to absolute knowledgebut rather a ccntession that theoretical evidence is not decisive" (p. 51).

Jamr.s cer:tainly rvas no friend to anvihing like traditional rnetaplrysics in-sofar as it incluires into the nafure of Being c-r Reality as it really is, andcould be quite comfortable instead r.r'iih a form of discourse- that focusesmere.ly on BeinglReaiitv-as-it-comes-to-us. Ge'nerally this wr:rks as an ac-count of the statr-rs of metaphysics in Kierkegaard's thought, but is thisrvhat characterizes nr"taphlrslsnl incluiry generallv? Historicalll,? Iteject-

lnI

\C,

1n,) F ai th an cl l>ltii os o tthsl

ing Nagc.l's famous "view from ncr,vhere" and admitting that the kindsaf tr:uths arzailable tc'r humans are af a second<rrder is not tantamount toher:esy or philoscphical suicide. What is uror€,, Kierkegaard's subjeciivityprinciple sits cluite cornfortably in some of tirese kinds of perspectival ver-sions cf antirealism. I therefore see no reason why one could not continueto understand Kie.rkegaard as a Christian vvhose thought has continuingphilosopirical relevance r,vhile eschewing a realist metaphysics. As a mirt-ter of fact, Kierkegaard's relevance to postnrcdemit-y in particular mightbe even greater.

!Ve'fincl another t-vpical erample of Evans's method of collapsing meta-physical questions into epistemologicai ones r,vhen he r,r'rites:

If we trsk why Kierkegaard believes in an objective reality as lvhat knon'l-edge attempts to approxim;rte, the answer soems to be that this is part cfthe structure of belief or {ailh.l-}rat is just lvhat a be.iief is or rioes, 'Ihe mindindependent character of reality is preciseiv lvhat givi:s belicl its risky r.:har-acter. Beiief is iust the human atiihrde that takes this risk and takes &-he1t

is apprehended as real....Klerkegaard seems to be of the oplnion, shareclby Fiume and Reid and l\{oore, t}rat certai"n kinds of beiiefs are .itist r"raturalthough perhaps nr:t ineviiable; the,v are calied forth by life itself, Skepticismis difficulf oile must rvork to be a skeptic. (p. 44)

Er.ans is snrely correct here, as far as he goes. Surprisingly; Evans quickl_vskips from the fact that in Kierke'gaardt texts belief (or faith) is a naturalcognitive disposition to the conclusion that such beliefs entail a full-blou'nmetaphvsics of precisely how it is that their propositional e'xpressions aretnte (i.e., "obje.ctire," "realist," etc.). Evans takes the approxintate knowl-edge of objr.ctive realifv- and objectir.ely risky character of belief in theKierkegaaldian texts to affirm the objective certainty of the existence ofthe extemai world and the realist interpretation of tht mind-/language-r.vorld connection.In all lhis Evans dismisses the fact thatffp+|Kierkeg-aard's posititln rnight be compatible with a ve.rsion of alethic realism (touse.Aiston's term) that does not re'quire that the ngtion of obje'c1ive truthbe drar,r,n out in a metaphysically robust wa1,, andqp'*)the ultimate aimof the Kierkegaardian subjectivity principle is i6 |oint ihe readet awaufrom these sorts of philcsophical accounts in the first place. Kierkegaarddces not exhibit a lot of interc'st in making the objects ol:our beliefs, espe-ciallv Christianit,v; any easier or safer or mort comfortabie tor his rt-'aders,though his goal is not to make it more difficult than it rcally is. Fle seerns r,. .

rathei' to ernphasize that ihe+rr*rf such abstract pieces rt phri;;;ilil ae ti .t):.end 3:- ,4 r,.^'"Ical reasoning/+sonly/unct'rtaintv arrclthat livinrr wcll requircs

" iiff"i"rr.\:t, " 11"' ins I "gnd '' 'n

philosophicJfupptdt-one that Lregins aniJ entJs witli the concerns ofoneself as a sribic'ct. None of this means that Evans is wrong about Ki-erkegaard per se, or that his reading lacks a high degree of explanatorvcog€.ncli but it does provide a r,r'arning that w,e might be moving awavfrom precisely the approach to Kierkr.gaard's texts vvhich render their richphilosopl'rical insights rnost edifying.

d€li (p.lL)'''iR..-,, " iii-:d'

dci: ''(,r.J)" ,,

in5 ; "5ccc'\cl

BOOK lieylIt\,'s

Kierkegnard's E/lr;c af Loae

Kierkeganrtl's Ethic of Loue picks up and develops at book-length one of thenrain conclusions of Kit:rkegaartl An Faith and Self, namely that Kierkeg-aard's thaught lras importance for Cirristian ethics insofar as it providesthe basic reasources tor an account of holv an etiric of dut,v can be linked toan ethic of virtuc'by lvay of divine. cornmand theory Evans has two pri-marv concems in Kierkegattrd's Etkic aJ Lcce. The firsi is to develop, exaln-ine. and evaluate the vier,r'that moral obligations depend on God firundin tire w'ritings t-rf Kierkegaard ipp.5-6). The second is to shor,v hon'thisvierv of moral obligations, lr'hite rcoted in religious faith, contributes toa pluralistic society without compromising its convicticlrrs (p. 7)" In re-gard to the fu'st matter, Evans's Kierkegaaldian account folkrws RobeltAdams in claiming that moral obligations are grounded in the commandsof a gcod, lovirrg God, partinrlarly the command tr-r lorie God and onehneighbor as oneself. The classic question he're is, the.n (as per tire Euthy-phro dilt--mma), honr onr. par$es out moral cbligations in refere.nce to God:lJoes the normativity of Godt commands inhere in Cod's beirrg or in thegoodness o[ s'hat is ccmmanded? As to the second issne, Evans arguesthat his Kierkc.g;aardian divine command theory demonstrates horv moralobiigations can L'e objectivei overriding and unir.ersal in the double sensethat all Fersons in a pluraiistic st'rcietv rvhe.ther religious t'rr not, are sub-iect to thern, and that all persons must be treated equally {because of thecommand to lor.e one s neighbor) in a pluralistic s<xiety, regardless of age,race, gender or creed"

Eva ns argues that Kierkr-gaard's version cf m<tral obligations, trv rootingGod's commands in God's broade'r teleological vision of the good, shor,r's

iust ht"nv rvrong-headed typical charges r:f albitrarir"ress are to divine com-nrands (p. 9). Such a theorv of divine commands, grounded in the preemi-nent command to love onet neighbor as oneself, is humanistic in that iiunderstands moral obligatir:ns as snccessfrrlly clirected towards humanflourishing, thus effectivelir linking deontolog;ical and aretaic approaches(p. 300). Flor Evans, Kierke.gaard's conception of the st-lf as a spiritiral andn-roral agent enables "him to import a Kantian dimension to what seemsfornralll' to be an Aristotelian framework'' (p. z?).Thus the ethicai task . \,for each pexson is the Aristoteliaryleneof beconiing oneseli bui the sell c$el l' od€ ',

one must become is the sc'[f God ctimtnau ds one tc become (p. 23). Pers<malhappiness and flourishing, for Kierkegaard, cannot be defined purely orer.'en mainly in terms of Aristcltle's natural gcods. Ultimatelv human floul-isiring is rneasurecl b,v an jndividualt spiritual and moral deve.lopment.As suclr, human ilourishing and self-development are inextricably boundto onet re.lation to God and requires obedience and the crucial passionsof faith and love.

'lhere are three features oi this account that recommend it tc a pluralisticsociefv, despitc its overtlv tlhristian character. First, the command to lcve,lvhile Eirounded ftecause of sin) in special revelation, is irlso promulgated

103

jr*;. '.,+nl*

104 Faith r*wl llhiiosophy

by general re\€lation through hunran moral conscience. Thr-rs ail humansencgunter the call of God to love the neig,hbor, however distorted this ma-vbe because oi sin, and such a divine command can commetnd itself even tohumans r,',ho do not accept such a revelation (pp.161-1,62,301)" Seconcl, asKie.rkegaard unpacks the commancl to ne.ighbor-lcve. it provides a non-adhoc e'galitarian L'asis tar ethics. God is "the middle term" in eivery- g,enuinecase of nr-ighbr:r-lor'e and thereby provides the f'cundaticn for human love.T'hus. in neighborJove the other is construed through the infinite e.clualityof Godk love fbr his creaticn ancl in the r-rnconditional soliclaritv of beingCcd's children (pp. iI3, 300). Third, Evans presents this Kierkegaardianaccount of uroral obligatioir as outstripping the naturalistic aiternatives byproviding what they cannct; namely a satisfactory accorurt of r.vh-v suchnatural desires for dominance should not legitimize the victimization ofothers.. why hurnan persclns should be obligated to those unable to con-tribute to societli and r.vhv we calnut seriouslv majntain that racists iurdsu ccessf url criminals are m e relv rni stake'n (Chapters lbn-J'rvt*'l ve).

This book is important tbr several reasons, Lrut one of the chief reasonsis its poiemic (found primarily in Chapter Three) against the standard ac-ccunt of Kierke'gaardian ethics and thc. (in)famous "teleological sr.rspensiorrof the ethical," shifting the ircus cf Kierkegaard's ethics away frr'nnFenr tutdTrcntblittg and on to ltbr&s af Laue rvhere it shoulci bt. "The point of lFear antlT'rembiingj," Evans helpfully reminds us, "is not to hc.lp us ge-t clearer aboutethics, but to help us get clearer about faith" (p. 75) *s*heq&re main pointof Feor sntl Ti't:mltling and its suspensir:n of ti-re ethical is to call into questionthe identitication of faith, lvhich is alrout "the absrrlut{-:," *.ith ethics, rt-hich

@isdtrselyidentifiedlvitirHegel,ssitt|ic.1rkeit--the ethical dutie.s people have b,v virtue of their concr€te social relations(pp.69,83). For a positive account of ethical life one must lcok insiead toWorks of Loae, lvhich is rvriften later under Kierkegaard's own ncune, as op-pcsed to the psetrdonvlnous Feor nrrcl Trenthlittg, as it gires specific anntentto the tormal accor,mts of the- eti'rical given in the earlier ro;crks (p. 1 1 1).

Evans has made a pr'ovocati'"'e and por.rterful contribution to rneta-e'thicsby sho,,vhg hcw Kierkegaard's thought may help us bring c'thical approach'es that understirnd rnoral cbligations in tenns of clutv together with virJueapproacires, united under a divine conunaud theory Once again, hcwever,Evanshas creativelt'deployed tl'u'concepts involv-ed. [n the section in whie'hhe argues that Kierkegaerd's pseudon)rynous Climacus is a de<ntcrlogist, Ev-ans also tells us that what he mean-s by this is that Ciimacus'ethics tocuses

on duty rather than sin'lpl,v achieving gcod consequer-rces {p. 99). Evarrs fur-ther clarifies that his *nphasis on deontolcgv- is not mearrt to focus on ac-

titrls rathe:r tiran the acirievt:ment *f c-haracter in moral assessment {p. 99n).

But isn't this pr-ecisely the point of difference betweerr virttte and tra-ditioral deontoktgical theor:ies *f tnoral obligation? It is not, after all' as

if Aristotle' and especiallv r\quinas would be surprised b,v the suggestionthat moral obligatrons couid be packaE;ed in the forrn r:r{ cornman,ls. lVhatjs at issue fcr Kant and iris ilk is precisely the orientation of duty towards

d€t: \[lst[",e.

, "

ccrp ''t-"

de l-, " ir': kicrl'-cc{.r<-rft{

infuri., $oc.'k

8{)(]K RgvlEl,trs

the contingent imperatives of human flourishing as opposed io the intrin-sic nature of actions. This comes even clearer into vier,v when one bringsdivine commands into plar,', as tire command of God imme.diately impliesthat actions are, in tart, rr<tt intrinsically good -a point which generates theEuthyphro dilemma in the tir:st place. Frtxr an or:ertly Christian perspec-tir.e, such as Evanst Kierkegaardian one, the motivation to understeurdmoral obligatir:ns in hlndamentally deontological terms is lcst. As Evanshas developecl Kierkegaard's pcsition, God gives us commands {whichreallv arnount to just one) so that we ktve tod, as opposed to merelv olal,and therebv fulfill our te.los as individuals created by God. This is precise-i1i'hor,v Evans sidesteps traditional objections to divine command thr.or|,but this is essenliallv a version of Aquinas' ansl.ver as r,'"e11. Subseque'ntlv,I doubt w'hether Evans r,vill change the mind of an1'one rvho comc-s to thebook staunchlv committe<l to a virtue approach tc moral n()rrns, but theyna_y find new and creative ways to articr"rlate and defend their prrsition.

Conclusitsn

In both bocks Evars is a careful and appreciative, trut at times critical,interpreter of Kierkegaard, who capablv brings l(erkegaard's thought tobear on contemporary issue-s in philosoph\i Evans rernains conscir:us thati're is ottbring us a pat'ticular'rcading rrf Kierkegaard and that nn reading ofKierkegaard-including his-is incontestabie. The result is a Kierkegaardlvhose vier,r's cannct be igrored by analytic philosophers interested in con-temporary'cluestions in philcsopiry of religion, ethics and meta-ethics"

Persons: Hlnnen and Diuiue, edited [:v Peter van Inlvag€'n and De'an Zim-merrnan. f)xforcl: Clarendon Prcss, 2007. Pp. viii + 380 paB,,.s, $99.00 harct-back, $35.00 paperback.

C. G. WEAVEII" Ciricago State Unir.ersity; Northenr lllilrois University

'Iiris volume is analytic philosophical ther:logv and philosophl'at its best!All essays r.r.'ithin this antholog).'w-ere not previously publ:ished, save sec-tion one of ,Alvin Plantinga's chapte"r" ln addition to introducing us to therespectir.e chapters of thr-. volume., Zimmerman wondertully explains horvanalvtic philosophv is nc longer the enemy of theology

Ideclixn

In "ldealism Vindicated," ItrrbrerJ Adari:s explains that one of the main rea-sons why ldealism is currentlv re'jected bv manv philosophers is becauseof its inabilitri to defend the idea of soulless substances. Adams tries toprovide' just such a defense. First, he admits that he is a mentalist, musingthat everything that is real "is sufficiently spiritual in character to be aptlyconceived on the model of cur or,r'n miirds. as experienced frorn thc- inside"

i05