A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self...

>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.

What did he mean by this?

We had an identical thread a while back. I may have saved some of the contributions.

Here's the repost:

8959140>>OP:
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?

8960721>>OP:
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.

(Comment too long, con't below)

MEI 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.

Basically without God there is no true self it's pretty dumb I can't believe the brilliant mind who wrote Either/Or wrote this drivel but the role of his broken engagement can't be ignored in his philosophical suicide.

Alright, Camus, back to bed.

HOLY FUCK OP I completely forgot that I read this so long ago when reading Kierkegaard. I always had this faint memory that he was difficult but just thought it was because I was 16 at the time.

Now it all comes back to me. I spend a decent amount of time reading just this passage back then.

Now I understand that its just Hegelian shit. My god the inability to use language clearly and gracefully in what you have posted is just disgusting. At so many points in this passage does it lend itself to confusion by allowing the word "relation" to do all the work.

>What did he mean by this?

He was parodying/satirizing Hegel, dumb fuck.

>brb going for a ride

KEK

...