Either/Or

Aesthetic life can be united with the Ethic one. The two don't necessarily contradict each other.

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

If the aesthetic life means "choose to not choosing" and the ethic one means "choose to choose", then it's possible to choose a project and meanwhile be free to experience the world. You have a project: yourself and your development.

bump

nuh uhhh, all clothing is made by slave labor

You don't stay in 1 of the 3 stages faggot, you move through them inwardly dialectically through an upward motion to the religious frontier

Is that your own theory or your conclusion on Kierkegaard's point in Either/Or?

not OP, but that's Judge Williams's point of view in part II, specifically developed in his first letter "the esthetic validity of marriage"

is it obligatory? what if one don't believe in god, for example

a first thought.

Kierkegaard psuedonymous workings are his path to making the leap of faith. Walk with him and be seduced by the greatest shittalker of all time all the way to contemporaneousness with Christ

The leap of faith is an illusion. I want to see reality face to face.

Posit thyself from this paradox

explain please

Define reality

every definition is futile
I don't want to dedicate my life to someone else, to be dependent to someone else; to become what I am, is my task

Anxiety may be compared with dizziness. He whose eye happens to look down into the yawningabyssbecomes dizzy. But what is the reason for this? It is just as much in his own eye as in the abyss, for suppose he had not looked down. Hence,anxietyis the dizziness offreedom, which emerges when the spirit wants topositthe synthesis and freedom looks down into its own possibility, laying hold of finiteness to support itself. Freedom succumbs to dizziness. Further than this,psychologycannot and will not go. In that very moment everything is changed, and freedom, when it again rises, sees that it is guilty. Between these two moments lies theleap, which no science has explained and which no science can explain. He who becomes guilty in anxiety becomes asambiguouslyguilty as it is possible to become. Vigilius Haufniensis,The Concept of Anxietyp. 61

what did he mean by this?

Much freedom, meaning many choices, can be overwhelming? And one must, or might, grapple with their freely made choices?

Freedom to be ignorant, freedom to pursue knowledge, and once knowledge and understanding gained, freedom lost, for that knowledge and understanding makes certain determined demands?

Anyone got a chart for his writings?

Once again it is psuedonymous but when he says anxiety is the dizziness of freedom he is meaning you are at the precipice of the 'absurd', the finite and the infinite, and there are infinite ways to act that is overwhelming, he would also claim, psuedonymously arguing for the ethical, that once the self is posited from the paradox in the eyes of God you are still eternally wrong

>that once the self is posited from the paradox in the eyes of God you are still eternally wrong
how did he reach that conclusion?
What would God think is right for us?

Read this plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard

you could have just given me a quick rundown