/lit/ - Literature

>>20045086
I'm a Christian fideist who doesn't want to go to Hell OP.
>Final boss defeated

>>13130752
This cute motherfucker.

Post a philosopher and a song that represents their philosophy or one of their books.

Kierkegaard

Song:
>Crywank - Memento Mori
https://youtu.be/YasRuLucsCo

>>12527478
Is transgenderism the ultimate example of the "aesthetic stage"?

Kierkegaard had stunning facial symmetry and eyes like an anime girl.

>>9459589
>tfw Knight of Faith

>>8929185

Literally nothing wrong with that senpai

Kierkegaard is the most brilliant mind to grace philosophy in centuries

Kierkegaard is apparently one of the most insightful writers on the human condition ever.

Which of his works best backs up this claim

When will /lit/ realize that Kierkegaard was the closest humankind ever got to God?

post a writer
identify the spooks they're haunted by

Why is existentialism so gloomy? I'm taking a course on the subject and all the notable existentialists seemed not to live a "happy" life, including the father of existentialism. He even made his Christian life seem depressing even though it was his "passion". Camus seemed to be the most "human" and even he despised being labeled an existentialist.

Kierkegaard

have read nothing of his other than a few encyclopedia entries about him/his work, where do I start?

As far as philosophy goes, I've read Plato and some Kant, Nietzsche, and Hegel, if that matters.

>>6419412
I love Kierkegaard's parody of Hegel's writing style:

“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.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uYO0vsI6UM

>To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your own religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion.
Why wouldn't I be okay with this?

Are there any good critics of Kierkegaard? I just read the chapter on him in Irrational Man and he seems full of shit.

Why the hell does he think my pursuit of fun and knowledge and endless pussy and shitposting is going to lead to despair? Even if it does, how is being a deluded white knight faggot going to help?

>>5969898
>wanting freedom of speech instead of freedom of thought

peasants

>>5327679

You're just another scared young man making pretentious posts on the internet because you're afraid of the risks and failures that may be awaiting you later in life.

An understandable fear - and one that you shouldn't be afraid of feeling - but these naive pontifications of yours are stock standard amongst the teenage set on this board.

Grow past this phase soon, please.

It is most unbecoming to see a young man cling to the idea of remaining a teenager.

I want to read Kierkegaard.

What background knowledge of religion (and any other literature/knowledge) should I be well versed in before I will understand his works?

The Christian God is an "absolute paradox" , "something that thought cannot think", which requires a leap of faith
"Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite"
Each individual struggles to maintain that synthesis/unity, and the struggle causes unhappiness ("man is not yet a self")

DO YOU AGREE?