PLEASE FUCKING MAKE SENSE OF THIS TO ME

A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is 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. 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. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in this way, a human being is still not a self
In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation; thus under the qualification of the psychical the relation between the psychical and the physical is a relation. If, however, the relation relates itself to itself, this relation is the positive third, and this is the self.
Such a relation that relates itself to itself, a self, must either have established itself or have been established by another. If the relation that relates itself to itself has been established by another, then the relation is indeed the third, but this relation, the third, is yet again a relation and relates itself to that which established the entire relation.
The human self is such a derived, established relation, a relation that relates itself to itself and in relating itself to itself relates itself to another.

Shut up.

your whore mother should've developed a useful habit of checking for holes in the condoms before she took customers; on the second thought she probably would have died a virgin if she knew in hindsight that even safe copulation would've had the slightest chance of creating an abomination such as you user.

i really want to read this guy, where should I start user?

It is a parody of Hegel

Got it in...four.

hey b nice pal

was it autism?

...

Soren was a reknowned shitposter in his day

10 Posts in and all I get a meme replies

really makes you think about this board....

i want less...

What comes to my mind is, the idea of tabula rasa, I guess, that a human requires (maybe) something other than itself, to 'jump start' itself?

Also what he said, reminds me of mirrors, reflections, like the self is mirrors pointed towards each other, but also towards the world.

Though it does sound like one user said, spoofing hegel, though he might be serious.

The spirit/self 'grapples' with freedom and necessity,

the spirit is freedom, but its relation with body/world requires necessities,

idk mang. Alot of these guys, seemed to be into saying this idea, or thinking about this, how the self holds visions of objects in its vision: like when the self is thinking about a rock for instance, and seeing a rock in its mind, what is that self, does that self fail to exist as itself for that moment, give itself up, to become the reflection of a rock, something it is not: if the spirit is pure and free, and it existed in a vacuum, how much too it would there be, especially considering tabula rasa, if a baby spirit was just born in a vacuum, could it come to think or learn or no anything? Or does the self require, that which it is not, to become itself?

I have hardly read any Kekgaurd

He's parodying Hegel

Oh shit you already said this my bad

>caring about this christian sophist

Read Plato instead.

Yes, this is one of my favorite writings by Kierkegaard. Thy Sickness Unto Death. What don't you understand?

What he is getting at here, is that the relation between physicality and psychicality is negative if not grounded in a source. In other words, if the relation of the two originates from the two themselves, and is not created but created by itself, it is a negative unity. If related to the thing that caused it, i.e. God, then the relation is a positive unity.

This is indeed an important concept in Kierkegaardian existentialism. Is there anything you don't concretely understand here?

He meticulously explains what he means over the next few pages far bettter than anyone could summarise. Just keep reading and it becomes perfectly clear.

I really hate this meme.

It means
HE'S SPOOKED

There is no spirit. There is no self.

>died a virgin
>as an insult in a kierkegaarde thread
m8

it might help if you regard "relation" as a longer phrase like "communication of information". It's not exactly what he means, but it's close enough you might get over the nouns.

I haven't read the work, but this is what I'm getting from the excerpt you've provided.

Kierkegaard is a Christian, so when he begins with, "A human being is a spirit," he is beginning with the a Biblical premise of man as a spiritual being in three parts - body, soul, and spirit.

Taken in the context of the entire excerpt, he equates these three parts with the physical man, the psychic man, and the self.

The two parts which are being "synthesized," in his view, are the physical man and the psychic man - or man's body and his mind, but not the part of his mind which deals with his identity, more so, simply, his cognitive functioning.

The self, the identity, is the byproduct, the negative - the third, of this physical-psychic interrelation.

>The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is 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 self is the process of the psychic man relating to the body and vise-versa, and the experiences of the body - past, present, and potential.

It is not the relation itself, but the process of relating within the context of this physical-psychic relationship which births "self."

>In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity

In other words, it is a reflection of the interrelation between the body and the soul. I do not use the word "mind" because mind could potentially encompass the idea of self, whereas, for Kierkegaard, the soul is being equated with psychic functioning.

>Such a relation that relates itself to itself, a self, must either have established itself or have been established by another. If the relation that relates itself to itself has been established by another, then the relation is indeed the third, but this relation, the third, is yet again a relation and relates itself to that which established the entire relation.

This "self," or spirit, has either been birthed naturally out of the relationship between body and soul, or it was intentionally birthed by an outside force - for Kierkegaard, this is likely God. If it was created, he says, then it is truly the third part of this mind, body, spirit relationship, but even in that case it still is in the position of functioning as a byproduct of interrelation between the physical-psycho dynamics.

He concludes, therefore, that the spirit is a derivative of interrelationships which was created by an outside force, and because of that, must attempt to relate itself again, both to the context of the relationship between the psychic and the physical, and to the source of its origin - God, the infinite, or the eternal.

He is saying he human being is not a relation between equals but a relations between two different entities (our animal, material entity - finite - and our symbolical, meaningful entity - infinite). Therefore, human beings may not be a self. Being is not a state of the self but a condition regarding the relation between these two incompatible entities. We could only have a definite, integral self if those two were equal (thus, were relating to themselves: the self would be the relation of itself to itself).

It's not that hard, pleb.

All of these are right. OP is just stupid. Read the fucking book to the end of it, the point he makes is quite clear.