/lit/ - Literature

>>8071983
You just gotta believe.

FINGER YOUR ASS WHILE HIGH

why don't you ask your dad?

>>8071992
boring fucking gimmick

>>8071994
shut up gaywad

double back your legs and volley piss into the air, arcing it back into your asshole

this is literally EVERYHING

>>8071983
Listen to Primus

God is the highest realization of both beauty and ethnics, no suspension of the aesthetic or ethical is necessary. Kierkegaard is wrong.

>>8072022
>God is the highest realization of both beauty and ethnics
>ethnics

>>8071983
You cannot not do so properly.

>I find it hard to truly suspend my own sense of objectivity and subjective ethics
Because belief is a compulsion you fucking dingbat
All you can do is alter the circumstances that give rise to it

>>8072047
More Orthodox ethnics

>>8072022
kill yourself and go back to reddi/his/ trannie

>>8072052
That would require suspension of the ethical.

>>8072047
You can't expect much from a russian tranny

>>8072022
>God is the highest realization of both beauty and ethnics, no suspension of the aesthetic or ethical is necessary.
Why are trips utter cancer on every fucking board?

>>8072057
>he's russian
Damn he's truly gutter trash

>>8071983
Don't do it. You'll turn into another Glenn Beck

>>8072050
It's a compulsion if you want to be a religious zealot. I'm trying to become a knight of faith, which requires direct passionate action to obtain in the light of faith's own subjective truth and my own uncertainty. But I am interested in what you mean by altering the circumstances that give rise to belief.

Kierkegaard was a depressed and reclusive altar boy who called off his wedding because life was just too much for him to handle

>>8072022
Ethics is what one believes personally, aesthetics in this sense is material beauty and physical pleasure.

>>8071991
kek

>>8072110
Aesthetics and ethics (contra Kierkegaard) aren't relative. Kierkegaard is the Protestant par excellence, which means his philosophy takes a lot of secular postulates over Christian postulates.

>>8072136
>Christian postulates.

I think you mean a bunch of stuff that isn't in the Bible that """"""""""theologians"""""""""""""" invented.

>>8072143
Wrong, I'm Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.

The Bible doesn't see morality as relative, righteousness is very black and white.

>>8072150
Ethics is not morality, you moron.

>>8072150
Kierkegaard didn't see morality as relative either but he also understood that you cannot prove this because to claim objective morality is an act of faith.

>>8072088
All beliefs are compulsions, not merely religious ones. You cannot merely choose to agree with a premise you already disagree with.
>But I am interested in what you mean by altering the circumstances that give rise to belief.
You can indeed choose whether or not, and how, to listen to others' arguments and examine your own. The result may indeed be a shift in your views, but this shift is not of itself voluntary.
This holds more generally as well, so its useful to formulate it abstractly. Excessive alcohol consumption (or weed, MDA, etc.) often makes people temporarily accept emotional premises they otherwise would not. Burdensome cognitive tasks have consistently shown to increase individualistic and hierarchical thinking for their duration. And so on

>>8072157
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ethics

>>8072164
To claim truth is objective is also an act of faith, yet he didn't advocate "teleological suspension of the truth." Although he sure as heck comes close to saying, "Christianity is believing something you know to be untrue."

>>8072192
Is there anything in that link about being a trannie?

>>8072192
>To claim truth is objective is also an act of faith,

Maybe in the 21st century but when Kierkegaard was writing everyone was still on board with the idea that 2+2 really does equal 4.

>Although he sure as heck comes close to saying, "Christianity is believing something you know to be untrue."

To believe that Almighty God was born in a stable among bulls and asses and literally rose from the dead is pretty unbelievable on it's face t.b.h. famalam.

>>8072192
>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ethics
lol

>>8072214
You have to understand that our dear tranny hasn't read Kierkegaard and knows little about theology and philosophy

>>8072214
>To believe that Almighty God was born in a stable among bulls and asses and literally rose from the dead is pretty unbelievable on it's face t.b.h. famalam.
AHEM *adjusts bowtie* *adjusts pants* *licks thumb and straghtens eyebrows* *takes off fedora* *bows* *takes a deep breath*
You just have to believe, case closed.

>>8072214
>Maybe in the 21st century but when Kierkegaard was writing everyone was still on board with the idea that 2+2 really does equal 4.
Guessing you're not familiar with Berkeley or Hume.

>To believe that Almighty God was born in a stable among bulls and asses and literally rose from the dead is pretty unbelievable on it's face t.b.h. famalam.
But it's something you affirm as true for all people, not something you affirm merely as a personal faith.

>>8072221
I suppose I deserve it for engaging with a tripcode user.

>>8072222
>>8072222
>>8072222
>>8072222

Quads confirm.

>>8072224
My guess is that you aren't familiar with Berkeley or Hume either

>>8072136
>ierkegaard is the Protestant par excellence,
This is why I like him despite my atheism tbqh, I might become Christian just to go full knight of faith

>>8072229
Only in the sense of having read both. The idea that our empirical reality requires faith to believe was around long before Kierkegaard, it dates back to ancient Greece, where people even said the material world is *not* to be believed. Berkeley dismissed both materialism and rationalism altogether, where Hume put a strong dent in rationalism. Even Plato, the rationalist, said in of the dialogues (in critiquing his own theory) that 1 and 1 can only be made 2 in mental abstract, because in reality you can't add something to another, you can only increase their proximity, and there is no mark as to how close the proximity must be before it is "added".

>>8072224
>Guessing you're not familiar with Berkeley or Hume.

Two (2) philosophers doesn't change the fact that the audience Kierkegaard was writing to by and large accepted the idea of objective truth which is why he didn't write about "telelogically suspending the true."

>But it's something you affirm as true for all people, not something you affirm merely as a personal faith.

Yes but that doesn't change the fact that until you actually encounter the Living God, the entire Gospel narrative is basically impossible for a rational person to believe.

>>8072257
I'm sure his audience didn't think morality or aesthetics were relative then, either. His was the Hegelian age.

>>8072303
I'm sure you're not sure of that and are merely trying to salvage your silly critique that Kierkegaard was a moral relativist.

>>8072327
He IS a moral relativist, or at least sees it as having a teleos distinct from religion.

>>8072345
>sees it as having a teleos distinct from religion.

Which is literally what Jesus taught, although I'm sure the Pharisees would love your religion = morality argument.

>>8072345
>sees it as having a teleos distinct from religion.

Just like Jesus!

However, I'm sure the Pharisees would approve of your religion = morality position.

>>8072385
Jesus saw the Pharisees as immoral hypocrites, he didn't see morality as relative.

>>8072385
Thanks for the WebM

>>8072408
Neither does Kierkegaard! However like the Pharisees, you are troubled by the fact that both Jesus and Kierk point out that morality has a telos distinct from religion.

>>8072432
np xo

>>8072450
Both Christ and the Pharisees saw their respective moralities as expressions of their religion.

>>8072480
Jesus' "religion" is to prioritize moral action over religious observance. For example, healing on the Sabbath was religiously wrong but morally right. One of the purposes of Christ's ministry was to reveal that religious behavior and moral behavior are often distinct.

>>8072523
So Jesus suspended the religious in favor of the ethical? Is what you're saying? As opposed to suspending the ethical in favor of the religious?

>>8072539
I'm not going to say that Jesus "suspended the religious" because He Himself partook in religious behavior (fasting, prayer, the Lord's Supper etc...) however Jesus taught that religion should not obstruct moral behavior which is why He violated sabbath traditions and associated with unclean people.

>>8072574
>however Jesus taught that religion should not obstruct moral behavior which is why He violated sabbath traditions and associated with unclean people.

The laws of a different religion though, no? "Come to fulfill the law" and all that?

>>8072574
So then the Pharisees followed Kierkegaard, whereas Jesus did not. Kierkegaard framed it religious > ethical > aesthetic, and that the ethical is to be "suspended" when it conflicts with the religious (using the example of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac).

Would you smoke weed with Kierkegaard? I would

>>8072590
DUDE

>>8072592
FAITH

>>8072581
Jesus is YHWH and the Pharisees claimed to worship YHWH so no it is the same religion; the problem is that the Pharisees did not recognize who Jesus is (i.e. the Word made flesh). Prior to Christ's ministry, the law was all the Jews had to go off of and therefore the Pharisees were not necessarily wrong in their puritanical adherence to it. Their failure was their refusal to adapt to the new revelation given through Christ's ministry.


>>8072586
When Kierkegaard wrote about "ethics" he was referring to moral systems based on human reason which is not what Jesus was preaching about so your analogy is unfounded; Jesus' teachings are ethical by virtue of His divinity and not because they can be rationally "proven" to be so (although Kant made an admirable effort). Furthermore, the Pharisees did not think they were "suspending the ethical" by not associating with sinners and tax collectors, they believed that not associating with the unclean WAS ethical.

Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac was an act of faith based on a system where morality is defined by obedience to God which is obviously contrary to any moral system based on human reason. Both Jesus and Kierkegaard prioritize obedience to God over human ethical reasoning and that some of Jesus' teachings can be supported by reasonable arguments is secondary to the fact that He is the incarnate deity and His word is therefore objective truth. Kierkegaard is a Christian because he chooses to have faith that Jesus is God and not because it can be objectively proven that Christianity is correct.