/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11740293]

>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

at last i truly see... philosophy truly is deep... so enlightening... whoa...

[Anonymous No.11740356]

>read the first chapter of sickness unto death
>get stuck on the first paragraph
>post meme on lit
>pseud cred acquired

[Anonymous No.11740397]

>>11740293
>he thinks he can outmeme the master of dialectics and irony

[Anonymous No.11740425]

@11740356
idiot cat poster
thats not what happened at all!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11740545]

>the self is a relation
>actually no it's not
Okay, so why did you write that? Also what IS the relation in question? Does he say more about it than that it relates itself to itself? Because the first relation that comes to mind that satisfies that description is equality - equality equals (is) equality. So is a human being the fact that ===?

[Anonymous No.11740620]

>>11740293
>read the first fucking sentence of kierkegaard
>ah thats enough reading for today, what did that sentence even mean lol?
>time to shitpost about it on /lit/

fuck you fucking faggot i hope kierkegaard manifests himself across time and smacks you in the fucking face for being so arrogant he literally spends most of the rest of the book explaining what that sentence means god fucking damn

[Anonymous No.11740694]

>>11740293
Did you try reading beyond the first page?

[Anonymous No.11740703]

>>11740293
he's saying that the self is not a relation, but the relating itself, the self is relating. That is how i see it, he didnt write the sentence very well.

I came to the same conclusion, except I called it merging.

if you have two things that merge to become one then you have something relating to itself, being the relating but also the things.

[Anonymous No.11740712]

>>11740620
It's a shitty sentence though. He wouldn't have to spend so long explaining it if it was easily understandable in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11740738]

>>11740703
>That is how i see it, he didnt write the sentence very well.
Of course not, it's translated.

[Anonymous No.11740786]

>>11740712
It's perfectly understandable. Take it slow

>>11740620
based

[Anonymous No.11741019]

>>11740293
Yes, unless you accept the existence of an undefineable 'soul', the homunculus argument craps all over the notion of a meta-self.

[Anonymous No.11741028]

>>11741019
Although I hasten to add this demonstrates the merit of logically rigorous philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11741161]

>>11741019
isn't the homunculus the meta-self you goober? I love it when autistic westerners can't into witness-consciousness

[Anonymous No.11741664]

He's literally just making fun of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.11741686]

>>11741161
The homunculus argument is a logical argument for why there can't be a homunculus or 'meta-self'. If there has to be some entity observing our sense-data, by what mechanism does that entity observe and on into infinite regress. The only way around it is spiritual hand-waving.

And I'm not just a goober, I'm a Super Goober.

[Anonymous No.11742644]

>>11741664
No he's not. And even if he was the sentence can be unpacked to make sense

[Anonymous No.11742694]

Is this it?

[Anonymous No.11742745]

>>11741686
>he doesn't have a homunculus

[Anonymous No.11743624]

>>11740425
Okay, this is epic.