What the fuck did he mean by this?

Someone will probably tell me I'm wrong and stupid, because I've never read much Kierkegaard.

Seems like he's saying that human beings are a relation (i.e. a synthesis, a relation between two), but can't be said to have a "self" in the conscious sense unless they reflect on their condition as a synthesis (i.e. relate the relation to the relation, which is the human being).

In any event it seems unnecessarily convoluted. It could express the idea in half the length. But the Hegelian influence definitely comes through in the pointless verbosity.

Kierkegaard doesn't go past a third relation;
>self is a relation that relates itself to itself
Three relations. Self is a relation, that relates between two: itself to itself.
>or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation
Still three. Just slightly changes the idea of self. Self is "in the relation" instead of "is a relation".
>the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself
Still three. Self isn't a relation but is relations' relating. Relation is two, the relating of relation is three.

Three is a synthesis:
>A synthesis is a relation between two.
>In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity,

>A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis.
the takeaway is this passage. ignore the rest of the incoherent babble.

>ignore the good idea he had about relating your body to your soul with a foundation in a positive unity, so as to unite all aspects of reality under a relation in itself.

>just believe in the infinite and finite bro like really, it's all just temporal eternal and necessary braaaahhhhh. Here smoke this my man

it isn't incoherent unless you're a brainlet. The two explanations of self or human being - one clear, one discursive - are meant to be together, which is itself a synthesis.

He's making fun of hegel.

Rather, it is in itself a relation. In the attempt to relate the soul to the body and the body to the soul, there has to be a third uniting these. It's either God or not God. If it isn't God, it's the negative third, which results in either focusing on too much psychical influence (like Nietzsche) or too much physical influence (like the deterministic materialistic consumerist culture we live in today). To truly master one's self and reality, you must be grounded in the positive third. This is antithetical of a negative third, which is derived either FROM the body or FROM the soul, not from the relation of both.

It's just, your word choice of synthesis there is a bit odd in my opinion.

youtube.com/watch?v=ecLT5aiMc34
Hubert Dreyfus is the only guy I feel has explained this paragraph thoroughly.

Kierkegaard is saying that a human is both body and soul. When you relate to one or the other you have you'll form a third relation, and that becomes the "negative" because you are relating to either your body or your soul, and in doing so are not recognizing your the other as apart of your"self"

Yep. If the work is not explicitly authored by SAK, then its a socratic attempt to prove you're wrong. If you agree what he's saying ofc.

>all these brainlets pretending to get it
>it’s a satire of hegel

Close, the evolution is continuous and unceasing. The body is a mirror, relevant but not original. The relation between the two isn't god nor is it "not god". The soul is the relation between the eternal self, or selfless depending on your approach, and the body. This is all basic emanation stuff.

How is it odd? Its the word he himself uses. I think what's odd is your putting your own opinions into this, he doesn't mention God in this passage, but says if for example the relation is between the physical to the psychical it isn't full self, its a negative unity, self is only the relation relating itself to itself, not body to mind.

your actualized finite replies, and my potential infinite rebuttals are causing me too much anxiety.

Incorrect. The passage in which this is taken from directly states that grounding your spirit in the eternal, i.e. God, is a necessary component of understanding the relation of the relation.

I'm sorry, but I just intellectually can't take people seriously if they honestly tell me any part of Kierkegaard's philosophy is somehow 'not' in reference to God. God is an extremely important part of his philosophy.

He does go on to explain that not grounding your spirit in God or faltering in your faith does produce a negative unity between the body (temporal) and the soul (eternal aspect of self).

He mentions it soon thereafter. Have you read the book it's from? Thy Sickness Unto Death?

>satire
>not a blatant rip-off
self-relation of the relation of the self as a relation to itself as an other is a basic Hegelian concept

Ok? He doesn't mention God in the passage quoted, but he obviously mentions god "thereafter" because its fucking Kierkegaard. I'm not going to respond anymore, seems silly.

Again, God is an important part of his philosophy.

Please don't tell me you don't believe? You're part of the ''''''intellectual elite'''''''' right? Don't make me laugh.

Negative. God is grounded at a different point for any examination assuming an origin of 'theodicy'. It could be proven, but I am too busy right now.

damn

Sounds like Hegel on meth

>Hegel and satires of Hegel are virtually indistinguishable

Really activates my amygdala

I'm just saying, friend, that what I believe to be true is that faith in the eternal is necessary for the positive third. I'm certain I don't have Thy Sickness Unto Death around me right now, but I know for certain that is something that he wrote very soon after this passage in his book.

this is Bashō, Kierkegaard needed to talk to some Zen masters

I hate shitposts like this but this made me laugh

What Kierkegaard is saying is basically his one question that obliterates Hegelianism: "what about the individual? Where do I fit in your great system?"

So is he saying that mind and body relate to each other and to their relation of each other, and that this is a negative, not Self, whereas if the relation between mind and body relates to itself (over time?), this is Self and is positive?

The individual is the cataclyst and place of realization of the absolute subject. The absolute doesn't exist 'in and of itself' anywhere but in the human mind. Groups, infrastructures and ideologies aren't related to / conscious of their self-relatedness, they're just pure, blind striving.

yeah, it's "the relation of mind and body to itself is the mediation of the apparent contradiction between the two", or something along those lines.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Kierkegaard's great critique of Hegel is basically that individuals in his system are replaceable. For example, the advent of someone like Napoleon was inevitable, and if it hadn't been Napoleon Bonaparte, it would've been some other individual to serve history's purpose. Kierkegaard is basically asking "where does that leave ME?" But I'll admit I haven't really read Hegel very thoroughly, I only sat through lectures about him (phil major)

I'll have you know Kierki had sex at least once in his life (a drunken encounter with a prostitute)

He's taking the piss out of Hegel's style, but the concept itself is positively Kierkegaardian.

I haven't watched the video, but I disagree with your summation. If you read on, the human spirit is in its proper, third relation before God; in Works of Love (an exegesis on Jesus' commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself"), he has a passage in which he states "God is the middle-term" — which is to say, it's not "neighbor loving neighbor" but "neighbor loving God loving neighbor (ad infinitum)." Here, he's saying that the self is not a static, discrete entity but rather a dynamic, continuous tension between bipolar influences.

meant for

What is this from? WTF I like Kierkegaard now. Fear and Trembling sucked, but I like this

>If we go on to cast a look at the fate of world historical personalities [...] we shall find it to have been no happy one. They attained no calm enjoyment; their whole life was labor and trouble; their whole nature was nothing but their master passion. When their object is attained they fall off like empty hulls from the kernel. They die early, like Alexander; they are murdered, like Casear; transported to St. Helena, like Napoleon.

Historical progress, in so far as it is objective, is inevitable, Napoleon, in so far as he was the manifestation of a qualitative shift within that progress was inevitable, but there's something which is very much not inevitable: The extent to which you, as an individual, are able to find a connection to the absolute, and become free.
It's a bit silly, but maybe you can understand what he means though religious metaphor memes: The kingdom of god is inevitable, but the fate of the individual is their own.

I think he meant what he said, and he said what he meant. Soren was faithful, one hundred per cent!

Fear and Trembling is not my favorite book either because it doesn't have as much practical weight as TSuD. "Either/Or" is a great starting point, though the middle-third of Part I slogs a bit. TSuD is one of my favorite books (literary, philosophy) of all time.

Is this excerpt from TSUD?

It's the opening passage. It's funny, but it kinda sucks because it discourages some people from reading further — they think the whole book will be pseudo-Hegelian babble. The portraits of characters in different levels of despair have so much insight (I read it once and was shocked to have my entire personality laid bare in 3-4 pages) and use outside of theory (such as, in literature).

Possibly, but it seems unlikely.

nybooks.com/articles/1997/09/25/not-a-seducer/

>regurgitating the most pedestrian scholarly opinion about this passage, a shitty opinion that comes from Judith Butler of all people
>doesn't realize that for Kierkegaard, satire is very often the best way to convey philosophical content, Kierkegaard being the sole and only heir to the genius of Socrates, meaning that even if it is nothing but a satire of Hegel, there is plenty to get
>calls others brainlets

Get off the board wikipedia-warrior.

I'm definitely going to go buy this asap. It's perfectly coherent, all he's saying is that everything is a relationship. There is no complete independance within ourselves. Whether it be spirit or the self or our limited capacities with the limitless: Every one of our faculties is interrelated. The last part of the excerpt when he refers to the, "third as a negative unity" confuses me a little bit, but that's probably b3cause there is a gap in the excerpt of the op...probably started the book this way to filter out the plebs desu

What is Kierkegaard’s best work?

>the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself.

>The last part of the excerpt when he refers to the, "third as a negative unity" confuses me a little bit
Have you read Hegel? That point is where he states his intention to go beyond Hegel, who leaves the definition of "self" right at the first clause of the fifth sentence:
>The self is a relation that relates itself to itself
which is a neat summary of Hegelianism. K. is saying that — if the self is no more than that relation — it becomes a static and discrete entity (negative). It's like a stone that sinks to the bottom of the ocean and can't swim. The positive unity is the dynamic and continuous relation, but this poses the problem of infinite regress (like the issue of resemblance of finite particulars to Forms in the Parmenides). The only way of establishing the "positive unity" is in relation to God.

God as defined by Kierkegaard is, at times, very heterodox. "Works of Love" is a brilliant treatise on Christian ethics wherein he defines God firmly as the source of all Love. In the second-half of TSuD, he redefines "sin" as despair. Don't be turned off by God, desu, if you're a non-believer.

IMO, there are four:
>Works of Love (on ethics)
>Concluding Unscientific Postscripts (a dense critique of his contemporary philosophers, littered with prophetic gems — such as the fundamentally anonymous nature of true humor *cough*)
>The Sickness unto Death (on the human condition)
>Either/Or (beauty, humor, and literary flair)
Either/Or is always my recommendation as a start, but there are parts I consider non-essential for first-time readers. In Part I, I would recommend reading from the "Preface" to the end of the "Diapsalmata," then from "The Rotation of Crops" to the end. Read all of Part II.

He kind of looks like Ryan Gosling irl.

What about Fear And Trembling? I have always thought that was his “main” work.

I've always struggled with Fear and Trembling: it reads like a personal account of his trying to divorce himself with the Danish Hegelians in the face of Christianity. There's a lot of great insight in it, and I'm not the smartest person, but (to quote Fear and Trembling itself):
>I am sufficiently brash to think that when I cannot understand particular passages despite all my pains, he himself may not have been entirely clear.

That's H.C. Andersen, known chronic masturbator.

Gross! Was the "princess" a metaphor for himself, and the "pea" for his dick? I work blue, and also every Thursday. Tip your waitress!

Kirkegaard was stoned out of his mind.

I'm I haven't said anything contrary to that in my post. I believe your right when the relation is in the positive third term. I was describing what Kierkegaard ment by the self in relation to itself in a negative third

You're right; I don't think I read your post properly. Such is the consequence of being a dum-dum phoneposter.

sarte had a nice talk on those very words from him, shame i can't recall it, it's somewhere in being and nothingness

Anybody?

sartre can lithe juvenile shit-stains of his limp, shriveled dick. i hope that fucking gulag-apologist burns in hell.

embarrassing

So the Self is a relation between mind and body that relates to itself, and is positive. The relation to itself is meant to keep track of growth right? The Self keeps track of how the mind and body is relating to each other and to how both mind and body are relating to their relation? The Self is about finding a positive balance between the psychical and physical, which is to be found while relating those things to each other and to their supposed balance throughout your life?

Yes. It's the (hillariously Hegelian) alternative to simply abandoning either mind or body and trying to avoid having to deal with the imminent contradiction of being a 'duality'.

The joke with Hegelian logic is that often two 'simple'ideas seem to be mutually exclusive, so in an immediate state of mind pursuing one seems to necessitate not pursuing the other, and so if you don't know how 'mutual mediation' works you end up thinking you should just min-max your life to put as many skill points into the the passion of your choice while disregarding everything else, but really you're just being an intellectually lazy piece of shit and you should be ashamed of yourself. This doesn't just apply to mind and body, but to freedom and responsibility, detachment and directedness, selfishness and selflessness, power and weakness, really, to all of the major terminological oppositions we structure our lives around.

I have not read Hegel, but I have a strong feeling this is a good post. I don't want to waste your time explaining what I think is wrong with this explanation without first reading the two books. But, it sounds like K is using this metaphysical conclusion as a means to justify his belief in God, which doesn't make sense. Just because something couldn't exist without God, within our limited understanding, does not mean that it does exist, and even if it did, to say God is love, and despair is sin, is so fucking wishful and weak that I'm surprised anyone--of intellectual standing--would agree. What if God is a war-God and despair is the mechanism by which we get stronger? Lame. But good post nonetheless, thanks user

So the proper balance needs to be found, which can only be done in relation to the "balance" that you have had before. I assume he explains by what standard we judge the balance to be "better" or is it an experiential "better", one we feel in our being?

*Saying what I think is wrong metaphysically, not the conclusions he makes based off of those metaphysical premises. Bc I totally will waste your time doing that ;)

I'm just giving you my interpretation of this, because I don't know what he sais. Desu you should, at least ideally, feel that balance, because the balance of thought and feeling is itself a part of the balance you're looking for, but the feeling doesn't have any reality in itself. Feelings aren't magic. The standard by which you judge the progress you make changes as you make progress, in a parallel self-reflective process, which keeps you in touch with the absolute.

After Descartes, the project of modern philosophy was to clean house of dogmatism (Locke) and offer a systematic investigation into the nature of reality, the limits of human reason and perception, ethics, and aesthetics. Kant reconciled (or at least attempted to) the competing thoughts of the day: empiricism, which had taken some weird turns since Berkeley, and rationalism, which rejected the empiricist claim that all human knowledge was gained from sense-experience. Thus, you have the big Kantian package of epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, ontology, etc. all wrapped up into one neat bow. Hegel and the other German Idealists, in one way, were trying to reassert the rationalist God of Spinoza and were responding to Kant's pessimism in one form or another. This movement, closely linked with Romanticism, convinced many that they were approaching peak-philosophy. It is this belief that Kantbot is parodying here:
youtube.com/watch?v=iOk6HB609po

All this is to say that Kierkegaard was one of the Hegelian true-believers in his youth, as was pretty much every philosopher in Denmark. It's important to understand that Spinoza's God (which is not in any way anthropomorphic; it's the god of the philosophers, really) was packaged into Hegel's system — not only would the Abrahamic God not exist, but also your war-God, Aphrodite, etc. are totally out of the picture. This philosophical system was going to be complete, damnit, and it was going to be logical. (Shades of Russell's and Whitehead's project should be seen here, as well as the eventual Gödelian pin-prick to the balloon.)

As he matured, Kierkegaard had a healthy mistrust of complete, logical philosophical systems. [This is the primary influence you will see in people like Wittgenstein, who called him "the most profound thinker of the 19th century."] Thus, K's aim was not to logically convince you that his thoughts were watertight. He was not a philosopher, nor was he a theologian or a literary author — he was all and none of these, in his own way. The aim of "Either/Or," a literary work, was to deceive the reader into the religious lifestyle. In all of his philosophy, he is appealing to common sense and personal insight: the niggling feeling you have that something is wrong with your life? K. is aiming to exploit that, to make it hurt, so that you really see what you are and what you lack. His Christianity is all-but impossible to follow: for him, the only true Christian is Christ himself. It is the farthest thing from weak I can imagine: it demands penetrating self-insight, a shit ton of sacrifice and it's not even that gratifying (in an immediate sense, anyways). However, it is not pointless martyrdom and it can bring, to some, a more fulfilled and integral perspective on their life.

To sum up K's targets:
>K. hated wishy-washy, comfortable Christianity; his was brutal and torturous
>K. also hated Danish Hegelians, who believed in a philosophical tower of Babel

Some more thoughts:
Hegel does put the empirical individual which has to live with the contradictions of its time in the margins to a certain extent. He acknowledges the particular fairly frequently, but his philosophical investigations mostly deal with the way in which the rational manifests itself, not because he doesn't care about the particular, but because the irrational is the kind of infinity which can never be exhaustively described. Kierke is perfectly justified in explicating this gap, and I believe Hegel would have appreciated his work (at least much more than the political shitshow the left and right Hegelians turned his philosophy into).

It's important to note that Hegels 'system of the sciences' was actually never meant to be the 'set in stone eternal wisdom' as which it is to this day treated by many of the more dogmatic, intellectually lazy followers. He reworked his lectures on religion, history, aesthetics, justice and philosophy pretty extensively over the years. What mattered wasn't so much the specific shape of the damn thing, but showing in which way reality might be conceived of as a dialectic coming-to-know-itself of the absolute subject, the universe, which is self-relation.

I screen-shotted senpai. I'll be back whence I read Hegel, and the other books by K you mentioned. So far --philosophicaally--I've only read Plato, Nietzsche, Hume, FaT by K, Camus, Doesteyevsky and some Sartre: I don't have enough understanding of the history of philosophy to respeond with any real sense. Thank you though for taking the time to reply so thoroughly, if you are still here in a month or two, then I'll either be sucking Hegels--and consequently your--dick, or blasting you as a fraud! :) I've been in a Nietzsche phase for the past year--not that that's all I read--, but I have yet to read a better alternative.....

Dude, if you aren't already taking life by storm, or this sounds cool regaurdless, then you should consider this option. You are clearly upper-echelon/lit/

How did everyone know Kierkegaard's pseudonyms?

Did they pick it off the shelf and know "there's only one motherfucker in this town who can instantly get published"?

Or did he just tell everyone in his in-crowd to pickup his latest hot spicy meme collection at the corner store?

Your post amused me integrally.

You need some Aristotle, Epictetus, Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant and Heidegger my friend.

that’s a lot of fucking garbage and two brilliant men