NearNihil Experience

Just looking for any sort of insight, critique, opinion, or random info about his work. Mostly "The Sickness Unto Death" and "Fear and Trembling". I'm pretty familiar, so feel free to include the heavy stuff.

thanks

Frotiw

Please ask a little more specific. I am not a hardcore Søren Kirkegaard reader but I have much of his publications and can read it in the original language being a dane. Perhaps I can assist.

I have always though the project seems sort strange(metaphysically) I know he does not consern himself much with metaphysics(in the classical sense atleast) but many of his claims seem to me to have metaphysical complications. I am thinking of his concept of freedom

If your pretty familiar you already know the following. His concept of "freedom" is really important to investigate. The same goes for his 3 stages of human life. Well his a bit too religious to my taste.

btw. I don't know how his puplications are to read translated but in danish you might agree or disagree with him philosophically but in anycase he writtes very very beautiful and intelligent. It's a pleasure to read.


Cheers Frotiw

NearNihil Experience

I'm just interested in what anyone thinks of his ideas, critical or supportive. The despair idea I think is good, but goes too far. Self is reflection against past self, society, and God. Past self and Society seem to cover all the bases...apply Occham's Razor.

Also, A Knight of Faith is stupid. Just like Hope, faith means you have left something to chance, stopped working towards an end and started wishing towards it. Acting on such faith is reasonable when all possibilities are truly exhausted...but even then how can you be sure all avenues are exhausted? Its like this voluntary powerlesness over your situation.

My proiblem is even his good, tight philosophical discourse is clouded and mired in mythology. Any ideas on straightening out these unnecassary kinks?

thanks

luvluv

From what precious little I know about Kierkagaard, the fact that faith leaves something to chance is the entire point. Everyone who believes anything takes a chance (didn't Kierkagaard even dispute Descartes claim that one could not doubt the existence of the mind?). But for Kierkagaard (in my incredibly uninformed opinion) the point of faith was that it SEIZED this risk actively, subjectively, whereas those who wait on proof or evidence for action accept the world passively. If I remember correctly, it was this passive acceptance that was the preeminent trait of the aesthetic stage of life. Kierkagaard was not into exhausting possiblities as much as he was into creating possibilities through his own subjective choice.

But didn't Kierkagaard doubt that we could know even the existence of a sustained consciousness? So if we were to use Ockham's Razor consistent with his thought, one would have nothing to reflect on, not even the self. Certainly not society. Wouldn't Hume say that even the belief thatf a society exists would be one we are not rationally justified in holding?

But on a certain level this misses the whole point of his philosophy, in my meager understanding of it. The whole point of his existentialism was a rejection of the objectively rational and real for the ultimate freedom and uncertainty which inevitably confronts each and every one of us in his own private life.

I think...

Anyway, I hope this conversation continues (not that I can contribute much to it). I picked up a book called Reflections which is a collection of Kierkagaard's writings, and I've read a few short biographies of him. He seems a really interesting fellow and he had some great ideas.

John Page

Lovetronian:

I think so and he wasn't claiming that sustained consciousness couldn't be known - just that one always has the demonstrative ability to doubt one's knowledge. Indeed, that some doubt that Kierkagaard's observation is true actually supports his observation. Reach the point at which one has no doubts brings us to the realm of faith.

Cheers, John

luvluv

John Page:

I call my last post the back-board shaking, baby-making, rim-swaying, game-delaying, metaphysical, modern miracle.

(A little Darryl Dawkins humor, for the uninitiated).

Seriously though, good points. I often wonder what you folks on this atheist board think about existentialist philsophy. While it is quite often atheistic, and it is the place from which atheism gets some of it's better known representatives, it would seem that modern atheism (at least taken from you guys) is more rational in it's rejection of theism. I wonder specifically what you think of subjective philosophizing at it applies to questions of the existence of God.

NearNihil Experience

everything you guys have said has helped. thanks.
I just imagine Mr Kierkegaard in the 21st century gleefully and in complete resignation "letting go of the wheel" and promptly killing himself and a family of six. Sure somethings are out of your control, like if someone runs into you, but letting go of the wheel is tempting fate, taking unecessary risks, possibly harming others through negligence, and for Kierkegaard testing God. If Soren, instead of Jesus, were on the tower with Satan and was tempted to throw himself off the tower, because surley God would save him, Soren would have done it...ignoring two points...you do have control over your life...and there is no reliable God (or at least a God who would save your dumb ass from a self imposed life threatening action.)

As far as doubting goes...everything in moderation. doubt is healthy, but at every turn? and all the way down to even doubting if your doubting...and calling it rational? Decartes gave us some important ideas, so too Kierkegaard...just not to practical. You remember what you did on your 15th birthday? yes or no, You are definatley searching around in yourSelf. More selves...You(observer) yourSelf(You, past\probable future).
You know who you are and what you've done. If you have...its in the brain somewhere...availability and recall are tricky. No need to throw away yourSelf(mostly past) because its clunky or troublesome...so is life and thats the problem. One needs a past in order to know who they are. As the Zen destroy their ego and id, they create a super ego that is only momentary and passing at every passing moment...Destroy the I, destroy the self and from moment to moment noone exists...there remains a vague collection of sensory impressions...but without I to string it all together, you have far less than a self, aware of itself beyond the moment...the moment hardly consistites an entire life of character. No rewards or punishments, for who could claim or deserve them...certainly not these folks...they don't even have a reliable picture of who they are and what they have done. Someone else would have to tell them...unless we were all Zen...then we would be wandering around driven by the moments impressions...future making itself...too passive for me.

To me, that fact that a question about yourSelf actually sets You off thinking or trying to remember is enough of a clue that doubt can only go so far without distorting the picture and therefore the authenticity many need. How far I'm not sure.

anyway...thanks again and keep it comin'..anyone with the slightest clue welcome...Hell you don't even need a clue here...just an opinion...hehe

John Page

I doubt it, but one can.

Cheers, John

Carl Treetop

One two three. Text in bold. Text in italics. Abcdefg hihklmno pqurst uvwxyz.

pug846

I wish I had time to participate in this thread, but I’m about to start finals, and so I only have time to take part in the mindless dribble in the political discussion forum.

I’m a huge Kierkegaard fan, and he’s definitely in my top-5 brilliant thinkers of all time. I was actually taking a class on Kierkegaard while an undergrad when 9/11 happened – it certainly took some of the “umph” out of Keirkegaard’s option of becoming a Knight of Faith. The terrorists on 9/11 would have had Kierkegaard’s philosophical blessing.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in Kierkegaard, I highly recommend the first part of Either/Or, Sickness unto Death, and Fear and Trembling. If you are a Christian, you might be interested in FT to see how Kierkegaard ties in Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his own son at God’s request with the nature of God and a Christian’s commitment to God.