Why is this obscurist blue-balled cunt so vague and what the fuck does he SPECIFICALLY mean with his claim that everyone is in despair except those with a defining commitment.
Inb4 some utter bollocks about infinite and finite.
Seems like nothing but a charlatan but even atheist meme lords suck his dick
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
OP you musn't confuse Kierkegaard's real views with those of his pseudonyms
... smdh
Stopped reading at "obscurist". You're a dummy
>Kierkegaard
>vague
He's formulaic to an algebraic degree, try harder
Because not having a clear commitment is despair. Most people cannot cope with, say, not having a regular job. Too much spare time tends to lead to crime, alcoholism, drug abuse etc.
Just mindlessly working, however, does not equal a defining commitment, and as such likely will not lead to any sort of happiness. It'll just distract you from the misery of the lack of meaning in your life. Think of the karoushi in Japan, for instance. Just working a ton in itself, like not working, isn't good for the average person.
If you did, however, have a defining commitment, something that drove your every action, your "work" would not be draining. On the contrary, it would likely be giving.
Obviously this is a simplistic perspective on it, which doesn't actually come from any of his texts. I haven't read any Kierkegaard in years, and when I did, I didn't read him in depth.
Also, as for Kierkegaard-love, I don't know about translations, but the original prose is quite beautiful.
Nah man, he's pretty clear.
I'm pretty sure he didn't say "anyone who's not a Knight of Faith is suffering", it's more like "anyone who's thrust into a hopeless situation who isn't a knight of faith is suffering".
Infinite and finite are very clearly cut concepts.
He's specific in abstract, inapplicable (despite going on about the importance of application) terms. He says shit like "live transparently grounded in your defining commitment" and "One must will the good in truth and suffer all for it"
Now apply that to a life led by someone who is not insane. It means nothing.
Do I go to the shops in a way that's transparently grounded in my defining commitment. Utter shit
Actually he did say that as well as those who are knights of faith suffering too. That's just basic in his world of retarded jargon
Eh, suffering less you can say. Being a KoF is kind of constant stoic suffering, but you're better off than a Tragic Hero, so you've got that going for you.
Doesn't seem an accurate reading as he goes on and on and about suffering everything for your defining commitment. It is also pretty telling that no replies have given even a remotely specific definition of despair and why we're all apparently in it
In the lower stages you are apparently not even aware f your despair and so suffering is at least dampened. Only as you increase consciousness of it does the possibility of huge suffering that you actually register with appropriate vigour seem to be a possibility
Was intended to give an example of how it'd work out in real life, as opposed to what is actually included in his writings, since, as mentioned in the post, it has been years since I dealt with the material at all, and even then, it was only on surface-level.
As for suffering for something, I'd (again, an assumption) take it to be more of a matter of being capable of doing so. If you have a defining commitment, you can stand the suffering. If you don't, suffering will lead to despair, and suffering does play a fairly large role in most people's lives.
Despair is, for a large part, a feeling that one will experience sometime or other.
Or maybe they won't, and their lives will just have passed without comprehending their situation, which I always took to define the being of most people in the mind of Kierkegaard, but this is based more on the reading of a high school philosophy teacher, and partially a biography on Kierkegaard, so feel free to disregard it entirely.
But if experienced, I'd say it's difficult to define. Do you never feel as though something is wrong, yet you are incapable of defining it completely? That your time is wasted, yet there is nothing better to do? For me, that's despair, but again it may have to do with my lacking knowledge of the material (and translation in particular).
Generally, however, you should feel free to not mind my posting. I'm mostly talking out of my ass, and just posting for the sake of staying awake. Apologies.
Yeh, The beginning of Sickness Unto Death is clear as day. So clear that scholars can't even decide if its satire. Except you of course, you get it, you're smart!
although i am pretty sure this is bait. who thinks this is satire and what is it satire of
...Hegel
His point in From Sickness Unto Death is that everyone is grounded in something outside of themselves that most are unaware of. Something that is unfixed and not eternal.
Once someone is brought to the realisation that their self is not truly grounded they will fall into a state of despair, until they chose the religious life and commit to a life of faith grounded in "the power that created you", thought to imply God. Read the denial of death if you want a further development of this thought.
>being this much of a pleb
Those statements are pretty clear. They are perhaps somewhat vague, but they are not super abstract concepts.
These concepts are pretty universal for all humans, although not noticeable at first glance.
>Do I go to the shops in a way that's transparently grounded in my defining commitment. Utter shit
This has to be bait
Obscurantist
>hegel knew about kirkeguaard
grounded to what, can you give an example
>Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.
HOLY.. i want more
Come on man, this passage is funny as fuck. Absolute skewering of a particular style of philosophical writing.
>Kierkegaard knew about Hegel
Hell, Kierkegaard's critique of Hegel is actually considered to be his biggest contribution to philosophy.
>grounded in "the power that created you"
or in other words
why you are the case / why the world is the case / why anything ought to be/is the case
It could be anything really, its abstracted as an other for Kierkegaard. It could be a book, an idea, or a piece of music. More often than not its another person.
This isn't what explicitly claims, this is more what Kierkegaardian scholars have gleamed from his work.
What was his critique of Hegel, exactly?
One of the greatest 'What could have been's in philosophy, in my opinion, was that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard didn't cross paths - or at the very least, never saw one another's work.
en.wikipedia.org
...Kierkegaard would have convinced Nietzsche into converting back to christianity, I guarantee you.
Nah, Nietzsche would have slapped Kierkegaard silly and told him to marry the fucking girl instead of dropping her like a hot potato for philosophical feels.
...
as if N's relationship with Salome wasn't a million times more pathetic...
In OP's defenese, the experience of reading Either/Or is not all that different from reading Hegel.
Nah, Nietzsche was just an orbiter desu. Kierkegaard was alpha AF and dropped her to pursue greater things.
Nietzsche was a literal cuck desu
It's not his fault that the only person with whom he had a real/meaningful bond was a hyper feminist. Then again, back then, Salomé was maybe right to realize that in marrying she'd be giving up some/most/all of her cherished independence.
Not sure you can paint him that way considering what he achieved and/or tried to achieve (including marriage/etc) in spite of his countless heath problems. See above for why he failed when it came to marriage.
No.
I've read that most/all of Kierkegaard's work was parodying Hegel in protest against the Danish Hegelians.