/lit/ - Literature

A dilemma is a problem with two possible solutions, neither of which is particularly appealing – think of the idioms, ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ or ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’. The two possible solutions are called the problem’s two ‘horns’, the idea being that you would rather not be impaled by either one. Kierkegaard’s dilemma is this:

Either (a) God exists or (b) God does not exist.
(b) If God does not exist, then it is impossible to prove that God does exist.

(a) If God does exist, then it is foolish to want to demonstrate it, since I have already presupposed God’s existence.

So, the dilemma starts with a problem in the form of a disjunction (either… or… ). The next step is to take up each horn of the dilemma separately, and see what happens. So we assume (b) God does not exist. But if we assume this is true, then how can we prove that God does not exist? Then we assume (a) God does exist. But if God’s existence is my starting point, then why bother trying to prove it? Of course I could prove it:

Premise 1: God exists.
Conclusion: God exists.

But such a proof, at least according to Kierkegaard, seems pointless.

Soeren Motherfucking Kierkegaard.

This nigga knows what's up

>>3733030
Nope - Who's Aron?
>>3733043
Why I love you too Anon

Is suicide acceptable?
If you got a deadly disease
or
get the aknowledge that: life is meaningless.

Someone explain Either/Or to me. It was like the whole thing went in one ear and out the other.

Serriously, /lit/ why is this guy (and all the other existentialists) so fucking popular?