What should one read before attempting to read Kierkegaard?

What should one read before attempting to read Kierkegaard?

Other urls found in this thread:

warosu.org/lit/thread/9949259
reddit.com/r/ExistentialChristian/comments/66cxn2/a_kierkegaard_reading_list_introductions/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Thew New Testament
Pascal's Pensées
an introductory work on Hegel (not actually Hegel, that's not worth it just to get to Kierk)

And what would be some good introductory work on Hegel?

Howard Kainz: G.W.F. Hegel
or
Kaufmann: Hegel - a reinterpretation

I should add that it's not necessary, just helpful. You could easily go into Kierkegaard just having read the bible

Do I need to have watched Don Giovanni to understand Either/Or Part 1?

How about a math or science book so you skip him and his idiotic theistic ramblings and actually learn about reality?
Why are there so christcucks on this board lately?

>mathematics and hard science
>teaching you how to properly Be-in-the-world

>implying they cant
>being this much of a brainlet

Not to appreciate it or learn something, but if you're doing a scholarly analysis, sure. I'm not the person generally answering your questions, just a passer-by with a love for K-Rock.

Uh-huh. I think, Kierkegaard is actually an indispensable view on the nature of our reality, from a philosophical, theological, and a literary perspective. You seem to promote math and science as an alternative to Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard, near at the opening of Works of Love says:

"If it were true, as conceited shrewdness, proud of not being deceived, thinks, that we should believe nothing that we cannot see by means of our physical eyes, then we first and foremost ought to give up believing in love."

This is one of the corner-stones of existential thought, as well of years of neurocognitive research. The mechanic of a chemical, here oxytocin, may affect but does not define. The mechanic of our perception and that which perceive are mathematical, but the underpinnings of our mind have thus far refused to comply.

>See Skinner's Behaviorist view + Operant Conditioning vs. Chomsky. Yes, Chomsky is meme tier. This argument is essentially why Chomsky became a meme. He removed Skinner's Behaviorist balls.

Read the entire One Piece manga :)

I never understand this question. Kierkegaard had to read the Bible and Hegel and whoever else in order to write. You don't have to read shit before reading him. He, like most authors, either explain or indicate their subjects. You can look them up as you go.

So many of you retards put off reading great works because you erroneously believe a solid foundation is required. Stop being idiots.

Mathematics are formulae used to understand and crystallize the world around us. They form a mechanism, but do not define a process. Science is a critical record of observation, associated with derived meaning and collected evidence.

That has no bearing on what we -should- be. Who we -should- be. The how, in how to live. Science does not give us good or ill. Mathematics is no approach to be, truly, yourself. Fluid dynamics will explain the turbulence of my aircraft, biology and chemistry the fight or flight response, but they will not guide me through understanding my fear, and making peace with the knowledge of my own death.

>being this spooked

How droll

Can anyone recommend me some good anime?

>Implying a creative nothing would create other languages it does not and will never understand, that actually translate into real information.

>Implying a creative nothing creates something if it does not act upon it. There is something that exists that you will see, know of, or interact with. It still objectively exists.

>Implying there are any other actual people being or experiencing being, any relation between these beings would constitute a "most tangible" world, and without the ability to enact agency outside that system, such a system must be treated as reality.

And best of alllllllllll
>Implying you are the creative nothing, Existential thought and the understanding of oneself, who you are meant to be, is infinitely more important than understanding the mechanics of the world you've already accidentally generated.

I'm thinking that this must be a troll, or a different person. Honestly, if you're a troll, I'll admit I've been had. I've basically devoted my life to neurocognition research to study how far down our understanding of being is, and how universal it is, to fuck over Stirnerfags.

>Bocco No Pico

But more seriously, Elfen Lied, The Big O, Cellphone Diaries, Cowboy Bebop.

What was Kierkegaard's position on the JQ?

Take his advice. I regretted not being familiar Hegel before Fear and Trembling.

*with Hegel*

i would jump straight into kierk, here's my advice:
either/or, pt. I
>preface
>diapsalmata
>rotation of crops
>seducer's diary

either/or, pt. II
>everything, but particularly "the balance between the aesthetic and the ethical"

fear and trembling
>first read Genesis 22, KJV
>think about Gen 22 for a day or two, really trying to visualize it
>then read all of F&T (you can skip preliminary expectoration if you really want)

the sickness unto death
>go on Facebook (if you still have one) and study the profile pages of all the vapid boys and girls from high school/college. have they changed? what do they value? what do they want out of life?
>maybe call up a depressed loner that you know but haven't caught up with in a while. what are their issues with society? do you think there's hope for them?
>then read sickness unto death

for historical context, all you need to know is that kierk was opposed to two things: danish hegelianism and modern christianity. the former advocated that reason was man's salvation and that the individual should become self-conscious so that he may serve the state. [the state for hegel was, ideally, all of mankind working rationally together. think schiller's "ode to joy" without the sexiness.]

the second had leeched out the fearsome nature of faith and made it extremely comfortable for christians—basically like today. in fact, you'll see just how prescient kierk is in diagnosing culture.

if i could have one point of advice, please just read "diapsalmata" and see how you like it.

paranoia agent, shirokuma cafe, the tatami galaxy and danshi koukousei no nichijou

He was woke to it.
>these petty souls clink their coins a trifle like the (((Jews)))....

I started with the concept of anxiety, now I have no more anxiety and a fetish for tying young boys up with rope

as for the special word that Moses would cry out, the one Kierk could not conceive, well for me it came easy as there’s no conflict from above

>.t someone who cant into Stirner
Amazing that someone who has supposedly devoted their life to "fuck over stirnerfags" doesn't even understand his concepts at all

What does Stirner mean when he talks of the creative nothing?

How the arguments in that post refute this concept?

Treating Stirner as the theistic argument against atheism seems to be used by both Stirnerfags and his opponents.

transcripts

Okay, what did I miss? My conception is that the nature of all societal (philosophical, political, interpersonal, etc.) constructs are believed to be spooks because they themselves are just that. Constructions of the mind, which are vapor to the mind that has itself constructed it. I think some hard Stirnerfags actually believe that they live in a universe of their own creation, but the base principle is the aforementioned.

If my understanding of the initial is correct, I'll hold to my prior convictions. I'll admit, however, that I could be wrong about it. Starting with the implication that you are a legitimate individual sincerely representing a position that you either believe in or otherwise understand, what can you tell me to expand my understanding of the Stirner position?

I think I understand the concept, which is why I believe Stirner to be essentially impotent. You can call government, justice, morality, rule of law as spooks, right up until the moment the state executes you for murder. A man kicks a rock and says: "I refute it thusly."

My concept of the general gist is above, again, totally open learning more about the subject.

My understanding of the creative nothing was that it refers to the unique character of a person which cannot really be adequatly represented even by terms like indivdual - there can be nothing that is you but you. The creation part seems to be more that it is this creative nothing which gives value and worth.

As for spooks I can say that it is not correct to say that spook = immaterial/mental construct. What makes something a spook is the approach one takes to it. Concepts which you dogmatically subordinate your unique interests to are spooks whilst those which you subordinate to your interests are your property

Accordingly what can be a spook to one person can be the property of another - logic being a great example of this.

For one person its a tool to understand the world better and find consistencey. For another it can become a pseudo master - think of the person who idolises being a Spock like figure and who feels that any emotion must be suppressed and not factor into any consideration (despite how illogical that is)

Stirner doesn't argue that an external world doesn't exist, he simply advocates for absolute individuality and a rejection of any criteria of values foreign to the ego.
If a government executes you for transgressing against a concept of theirs, that doesn't prove that this concept and the subsequent system enacted to uphold it are vindicated by some objective and external criteria, it is merely an exercise of power over another.
Stirner does not think that nothing but his own Self exists, he says that nothing but his own Ego should be acknowledged as a source of authority and that all arbitrary constructs are impotent, vapors, spooks.

bretty gud advice desu
However i would advise you also read the "ancient drama" chapter from either/or part 1

So, if I I am hopelessly in love, love is a spook. If another is hopelessly in love with me, love is my property.

This would seem to prevent one's legitimate investiture, present interest as a zero sum game, and otherwise create an antagonistic landscape. This seems like an argument not that all charitable people are actually selfish, but that if a person is performing charity for any reason other than their own gratification they are a fool.

It also feels self defeating.

>"I will not let any one, any thing dogmatically control me! With the sole exception of this dogma."

You're only trading investiture in the external with investiture in your self minus the focus on what that self is v. existentialism classic. You will die, and all your creativity with it. Stirner's property evaporates on the death bed, but reality does not.


That does change my perspective on what I'm talking about, but my angle stays the same. You may not value the system, because it is external, but that changes the fact of the system being not one iota. If you choose not to believe in God, religion does not cease to exist, much less does God Himself.

The infinitely subjective you as authority vs. others, and they as impotent seems patently false. If I say that I am beautiful and everyone in the room claims otherwise, my authority on the matter seems largely questionable.
Other degrees might include:
A mathematical fact, you say 1+1= 5, the rest of the room says 2, or vice versa.
An opinion, that government should be dissolved and NAP Anarchy should begin immediately, room says otherwise.

It runs headlong into Plato's Cave, without realizing that the other people have the right to be informed, or at least persuaded. I also don't see how something you yourself believe minus the external dogma is a spook.

I, personally, believe in God. Is religion still then a spook? At best only the organized sort.

Well, my friend, your problem is that you are spooked to hell
>it also feels self defeating
>i will not let anyone control me etc except for the exception of this dogma
You've actually pointed ouy the fundamental flaw with Stirner's philosophy and i tend to agree with you here. I'm not a follower of stirner myself but i like his dialectics and some of his concepts are useful, but yeah, ultimately i see it as self defeating
>if i am hopelessly in love, love is a spook?
Yes, because you are now possessed by something foreign
>if another is in love with me, their love is my property
Only if you understand your relation to this love and have your own Selfish reasons for allowing it
A better explanation of the "one person's spook is another person's property" would be to think of it as a master/tool. For one person, money is their master and they are perverted by their pursuit and use of it; for another, money is a tool used to exercise their Individuality, it is their property
>the infinitely subjective you as authority vs others etc
We aren't talking about opinions, and an Egotist doesn't irrationally reject what he can prove to be provable to himself (1+1 = 2 etc)
>god and religion
very big spooks indeed

You opened by claiming I'm spooked to hell, but point by point you seem to be suggesting that I have the right of the matter, or at least the landscape.

To the contentions, I said more exactly "If one is hopelessly in love with me, then love is my property." The other as an individual has nothing to do with the matter, and this goes better to your master/tool analogy, in that their hopeless love is the exact tether of such mastery.

Again, this prevents legitimate investiture. I cannot believe a thing is good unless it is good for me, much less seek to provide it for another. A sunset that I cannot see is still beautiful. Water to a man in the rubble does not slake my thirst, but in the very ideation I see value, something to fight for. You also confirmed my suspicion of interest as a zero sum game, in that my direct investiture (my loss) equates to your gain. This is entirely unrealistic. My donation to charity does not improve your station for having not been "spooked". You are not the better for refusing to believe in something greater than yourself. You are just more alienated.

Opinions seem to me exactly what we are talking about. What else is one's own thought, without perfect evidence, supported by only one's own authority? Your saying "This, that, the other thing, are good, bad, hilarious." Is simply a bias without external authority. If the facts do not directly support your statement, it is in fact coming from the infinitely subjective you. If the Egoist must reject all that he himself cannot prove, that is a strict cap on all investiture in perceptive reality.

I think you missed the point on God. It is something I believe myself, whether or not it is good for me, whether or not I can prove it. It is the choice that I make. Is it still vapor?

>So, if I I am hopelessly in love, love is a spook. If another is hopelessly in love with me, love is my property.

No, I wasn’t clear enough its how **you** value and treat the idea. If you are genuinely hopelessly in love with someone then its closer to being your property. However if you try and force yourself to love someone because you feel that you have duty obligation to then you are spooked.

Indeed if you are hoplessly in love with someone to deny those feelings because its unmanly or illogical that is spooky.

>It also feels self defeating.
Its the opposite its self gratifying. Indeed it can and has personally lead to me having more fulfilling and genuine relationships.

>"I will not let any one, any thing dogmatically control me! With the sole exception of this dogma."

Should you read the book you will find that this is actually his criticism of all previous thinkers and the challenge his books sets out to solve without falling into that hypocrisy.

>You're only trading investiture in the external with investiture in your self minus the focus on what that self is v. existentialism classic.

I don’t think Stirner tried or intended to end all philosophical inquiry with that one book – nor is that a product of his thought.

>You will die, and all your creativity with it. Stirner's property evaporates on the death bed, but reality does not.

Of course, property in Stirner’s thought is an approach not physical property like your computer or home.

I know that you werent responding to me but Stirners thought literally does set out to establish atheism nor does it necessitate God being a spook

>You've actually pointed ouy the fundamental flaw with Stirner's philosophy

Where does Stirner say all people must be despooked or that everyone must become egoists?

Stirners work only shows the hypocrisy of previous thinkers in making a God like figure out of Humanity despite rejecting Gods.

After this he just points out how as individuals we have our own unique interests and that these interests have just as high a claim as those external to the individual

>but they will not guide me through understanding my fear, and making peace with the knowledge of my own death

But they will though? Understanding why you're afraid is explained by chemistry, right? That's the cause of fear, chemical reactions, that's all there is to it. What else could you "understand"?

>Yes, Chomsky is meme tier.

You better back this shit up.

bump

i hope these posts were made ironically

warosu.org/lit/thread/9949259

reddit.com/r/ExistentialChristian/comments/66cxn2/a_kierkegaard_reading_list_introductions/

>no biography
>no "concept of irony"
otherwise p. solid advice.

...

Why wouldn't the chemical mechanism define it?

How would being that Spock like character be illogical?

bump