/lit/ - Literature

>>18040273
>Not the anon you’re replying to, but where would you recommend someone who’s never read Kierkegaard to start?
Not the one you replied to, so I was waiting for someone more experienced to respond since I've only read F&T but that seems like a fine starting place to me. There were parts where it helped me to Google about biblical parables and Greek tragic hero stories, but the emphasis is on the paradox behind Abraham's parable and you don't need to know much more about that before you read this than "God tells man to sacrifice son, Abraham obliges in an act of total faith, God says: Sike, Wrong Number". Although I think Either/Or is a typical response to your question, and from the small bits I've read of it it seems like much more smooth of a read.

>And do I need to read Hegel before I do so?
Not really imo. Even Kierkegaard suggests that he's not a huge Hegel scholar,
>I for my part have devoted a good deal of time to the understanding of the Hegelian philosophy, I believe also that I understand it tolerably well, but when in spite of the trouble I have taken there are certain passages I cannot understand, I am foolhardy enough to think that he himself has not been quite clear. All this I do easily and naturally, my head does not suffer from it.

>>16366971
it does, thats whats great about basedness. it transcends the normal boundaries of "awesome". it's a pure flowing of positivity, of which anything can be within its domain. retards, whores, any size or color (given the right disposition), any concept: in all actuality, the word should have no meaning but the by the overflowing of the Based God himself, or some net positivity underpinning all of existence, the word does have meaning. and lo, things can and are based