ahhh

[Anonymous No.14161244]

time to relax...

[Anonymous No.14161274]

>>14161244
I read this book last night. Still not convinced that faith is something noble and great, even greater than love or honour.
>bro you have to accept the impossibility of something but still believe you’re going to get it
Eh. From how much he gets shilled here I expected him to be more convincing.

[Anonymous No.14161386]

>>14161274
brainlet

[Anonymous No.14161425]

yeah kierkegaard fucking sucks

this post was unironically made by camus gang

[Anonymous No.14161431]

>>14161274
Describe anything good or evil without an emotional appeal to belief.

[Anonymous No.14161484]

>>14161244
This book is fucking stupid, unironically. It never ceases to amaze me that it gets shilled here. Even if you're a Christian, you have to concede that this book is heretical.

[Anonymous No.14161489]

>>14161274
So many philosophers spent all their time trying to come up with explanations for why mummy and daddy were right and they should stick with tradition. It's why Aquinas was the ultimate cuck.

[Anonymous No.14161508]

>Bro faith alone is epic
>*spends all his works writing about how epic faith is*
>NOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THAT BEING FAITHFUL IS VAGUE AND CAN BE APPLIED TO LITERALLY ANY OTHER DEITY NOOO MY GOD IS THE ONLY GOD NOO

[Anonymous No.14161513]

>>14161484
What is it about? from the title and the cover I can guess it's a criticism of the story of Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac, or perhaps it's some kind of an apologist's theological beating-around-the-bush kind of a deal

[Anonymous No.14161516]

>>14161513
He essentially spends the whole book praising Abraham using the concept of a knight of faith. It's apparently noble because he acted while unsure. It's heretical because he says that Abraham performed a teleological suspension of the ethical by attempting to sacrifice Isaac, because killing Isaac would be something unethical, which would have to mean that God commanded Abraham to do something unethical. Oddly enough, it's the new hip pseud book.

[Anonymous No.14161527]

>not reading kierkegaard for the prose

[Anonymous No.14161540]

>>14161516
>because killing Isaac would be something unethical

Wait, isn't obeying God regardless of the command considered "ethical" in Christianity? With God and his words being the source of "ethics"? on what basis did Abraham (as the author suggests) assume that it's "unethical"? Applying logic on God?

Maybe I'm too much of a brainlet to understand any of this...

[Anonymous No.14161619]

Lads the intended topic of discussion was the Juul.
OP is one of two things.
>A gargantuon brain who uses the Juul to illustrate the worldliness and hypocrisy at the heart of Kierkegaards Judeo-Protestant view of faith.
>A shitposter who just wants to stir up a war of words about Juuling and literature.
I say we assume him as the former and continue the discussion in that light.

[Anonymous No.14161630]

>>14161540
Obeying God is an inherently Jewish concept. True Christianity (the teavhings of Christ) preaches ascetecism and self denial, similar, if not identical, to Buddhism.
Read the New testemant and then read the old testemant, they could not be any more different.
Schopenhauer says that putting the new (christian) testemant with the old (jewish) testemant is akin to painting the head of a man on the body of a horse.
They are totally incompatible.

[Anonymous No.14161633]

>>14161619
>google Juul
>brand of e-cigs
Who the fuck cares. Kill yourself like a normal person, with booze.

[Anonymous No.14161635]

>>14161516
>teleological suspension of the ethical
You know you say that shit in all these threads

[Anonymous No.14161644]

>>14161274
This, nothing but protestant trash

[Anonymous No.14161646]

>>14161540
That's why it's heretical and retarded
>>14161635
Sorry for using his term

[Anonymous No.14161647]

>>14161244
What's on top of the book?

[Anonymous No.14161650]

>>14161646
Dude lmao you say the same shit in every Kierkegaard thread.

[Anonymous No.14161652]

>>14161647
A vaporizer e-cig, Juul

[Anonymous No.14161657]

>>14161244
Lmao

[Anonymous No.14161659]

>>14161652
Why do people use them?
Less harmful?

[Anonymous No.14161662]

>seething Catholics
>seething atheists
based Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.14161663]

>>14161659
Less disgusting than cigarettes. They smell like sweet flavored treats. The verdict is still out on safety

[Anonymous No.14161665]

>>14161662
Atheism is essentially an extreme form of Protestantism, so it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.14161668]

>>14161665
I'm Catholic. I'm just a fan of Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.14161670]

>>14161665
You say that in too many threads. Christians are just pagan Jews

[Anonymous No.14161677]

>>14161244
He reads like a fag

Was he a closeted gay or what

[Anonymous No.14161678]

>>14161668
How is it possible to be a fan of someone who is heretical in your belief system
>>14161670
Christians are not pagans

[Anonymous No.14161686]

>>14161678
>How is it possible to be a fan of someone who is heretical in your belief system
Because I disagree with the church over some things and without Kierkegaard, I wouldn't even be a Christian.

[Anonymous No.14161924]

>>14161686
>Because I disagree with the church over some things
You literally cannot be Catholic if you disagree with its teachings. Literally. State of lit

[Anonymous No.14161933]

>>14161665
how does "soli deo gloria" fit in atheism

[Anonymous No.14161948]

>>14161933
Sola scriptura leads to science denial which leads to realizing science is right which leads to atheism usually. Protestantism is self refuting

[Anonymous No.14161994]

>>14161540
Abraham, according to Kierkegaard, was “in an absolute relation to the absolute”. He, through faith, managed to transcend the ethical. You want an explanation? Well, don’t expect one. Kierkegaard essentially says that it’s unexplainable because faith is by definition beyond human reason. Just like a the Knight of Infinite Resignation accepts that he won’t get the princess, the Knight of Faith, also accepting this, believes that he will get the princess anyway.
So Abraham, accepting the death of his son, had faith and believed that his son wouldn’t die anyway. Or something like that.

[Anonymous No.14162020]

>>14161948
>Sola scriptura leads to science denial
How?

[Anonymous No.14162037]

>>14161994
This is a good post, but you should also remind the pseuds that Kierk was writing pseudonymously as an asshole who just thinks abraham is interesting and aesthetic(maybe even the dude who wrote diary of a seducer), and that he criticizes hegel for presenting philosophy as truth and not a thought experiment, so we really dont know if he is just fucking with us.

[Anonymous No.14162042]

>>14161924
My mom says she is catholic but believes in a woman's right to choose. Truly boomers are the worst.

[Anonymous No.14162044]

>>14161924
Imagine actually wanting to be catholic now that's hilarious.

[Anonymous No.14162282]

>>14162020
>world was created 6k years ago

[Anonymous No.14162368]

>>14161665
I see this shit so many times and good god this opinion is really one-sided, as if everything must be viewed through protestant lenses to make sense.
>meanwhile, in ancient greece/rome
>"Hm, i don't see any of these gods, and they never seem to answer our prayers despite how loudly we cry at these statues or how many pigs and lamps we sacrifice. It's almost like there is nothing to hear our prayers. What if this world is all there is, material? What if there is no greater power to guide it? I've never seen the gods guide and nurture it either way, only in it's supposed birth about which poets speak. But if such gods existed surely they would interact with their creation and their worshippers, right?"
It's simple as that. There is no need for protestantism to reach this conclussion.

[Anonymous No.14162384]

>>14162368
God is presupposed. You have to do mental gymnastics to stop believing. Thus, Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.14162471]

>>14162384
I just showcased a reasoning for atheism that doesn't require christ or a hebrew god, the pope, and the revolution against the pope's theology for a very specific dogmatic religion and his politics to be proven. If you instead dub "Protestantism" as any idea that revolts against the supposed existance of god then sorry, you are right, obviously atheism is the result of the revolution against the idea that god exists, but you need to explain yourself better. Otherwise saying that the 15th century theological and political movement of Protestantism is the root of all atheist thinking is an extremely narrow view. It can be considered one of the roots of ENLIGHTENMENT-ERA atheism, but certainly not of the idea that this physical world is all there is and no god created or dictated it.
For fucks sake Ionian philosophers in 6th century BC were already making a case that the origin of the world is not of divine but of material nature, by 4th century BC Protagoras had stated that he knows only that he cannot know whether gods exist or not, and by the 3rd century BC there had been philosophers known for either their lack of faith or outright denounciation of divinity. Unironically thinking that the idea itself of the non-existence of gods sprung into existance after the 15th century reformation of a specific religion is in every sense of the word retarded.

[Anonymous No.14162578]

>>14162471
People believe silly things. Don't know why they convince themselves that God doesn't exist, a fact given to them upon birth. Don't see how your post refutes me.

[Anonymous No.14162638]

>>14161508
this
also applies for Pascal sort of

[Anonymous No.14162725]

>>14161516
>>14161540
The ethical is not an absolute ethics like Christianity would have it — it's Hegelian universal social "ethics." You'd have to read Hegel's Philosophy of Right before Fear and Trembling. Don't criticize Kierk if you're going to be such a brainlet, >>14161484.

[Anonymous No.14162762]

>>14162282
Sola scriptura merely claims that the Bible is the only and final source to derive theological doctrine from. There are plenty of Roman Catholic young earth creationists.

[Anonymous No.14162764]

>>14161386
It should be illegal for brainlets to call other people brainlets.

[Anonymous No.14162771]

>>14161431
You literally can't.

[Anonymous No.14162798]

>>14161635
> proving the point that this board is illiterate and doesn’t read shit
Brainlet, that phrase is from the fucking text.

[Anonymous No.14162803]

I think that writer thought that God was evil, and that the only way to save himself is to fawn over Him.

God's an abusive boyfriend, and we are all victimized girlfriends.

[Anonymous No.14162846]

>>14161484
>>14161516
>>14161646
>>14162725
Kierkegaard's theological criticism of Hegelian ethics is pretty much the entire point of the book. /lit/ shouldn't be allowed to discuss anything other than meme 20th century fiction, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.14162864]

>>14162846
Why did you tag me three times? >>14162725 is the guy calling me a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14162925]

>>14162864
You are a brainlet. You're calling Kierkegaard a heretic because you don't understand what he means by ethics (so I assume you haven't read Either/Or as well). Kierkegaardian ethics isn't right or wrong in general, it's very basically the universalized norms and standards of a society and the individual's relation to them.

[Anonymous No.14163142]

>>14162925
> unironically coming to /lit/ to discuss the contexts of the actual text
This thread should convince you that the majority of posters here don’t even read. If they do, then they have poor reading comprehension. It’s people constantly pontificating without having read the text: the college required literature practicum.

[Anonymous No.14163227]

>>14161425
cringe

[Anonymous No.14163465]

>>14162725
>Kierkegaard is just a warmed over hegelian
i cant even deal with this shitty board anymore

[Anonymous No.14163476]

>>14163465
Not that anon but you obviously didn’t read the book. He mentions Hegel multiple times and uses hegels definition of the universal and interiority vs exteriority.

[Anonymous No.14163484]

>>14163476
I did read the book, and again you need to note that Kierk is not the narrator, the narrator is an Aesthete, and also maybe you should speak to the image posted. Kierk despised Hegelian philosophy/

[Anonymous No.14163489]

>>14163484
I know he did but what that anon said wasn’t wrong.

[Anonymous No.14163524]

>>14163484
>Kierk despised Hegelian philosophy
He loved it, he just hated Hegel for failing to deliver answers to the questions that mattered most.

[Anonymous No.14163541]

>>14161508
He writes about faith in the most abstract sense of the word (however ironic it is to apply "abstract" to a thing as personal and existential as faith). Aesthetic differences between gods are well beneath his philosophy. That said, he actually lays down very clearly the conceptual points that distinct Christianity from for example paganism (an example of which he uses Ancient Greece, and he was way more familiar with Ancient Greece than 4chan's weeaboos are familiar with Japan)

[Anonymous No.14163543]

>>14162762
Would like to add that sola scriptura is fucking retarded: biblical canon was assembled under the authority of the magisterium, whereby many creeds were also adopted (Niceno-Constantinopolitan, Chalcedonic, etc.).

[Anonymous No.14163577]

>>14162037
Johannes de Silentio was not really an asshole, even Vigilius Haufniensis is more of an asshole than him. While de Silentio is certainly an aesthete, he's an aesthete in despair way deeper than Johannes the Seducer's, and with a good sense of ethical, too. I'd argue that of Kierkegaard's pseudonyms, de Silentio would be the closest to the personality of Kierkegaard himself, along with Climacus.

[Anonymous No.14163604]

>>14161630
You’re mainly right and I’m glad you’re reading your Schopenhauer but we can’t appreciate the NT without the OT and the former’s dependence on the call-aheads in the latter. Schopenhauer himself has quoted stories of David, Ecclesiastes, obviously genesis, and more, and Goethe says the Bible will remain the best work of literature because of its ability to be re-understood.

[Anonymous No.14163611]

Faith means negating God as the social order, literally teleologically suspending the ethical. This thread is embarrassing

[Anonymous No.14163617]

>>14163577
Speaking about pseudonyms, you should note that using his own name, Kierkegaard was also effectively writing as a character. Soren Kierkegaard the Preacher. It's more of a wisdom of a XX century, that you cannot really divide writer's personalities into more sincere and less sincere, but still.

[Anonymous No.14163691]

>>14161274
Americans love that sort of thinking.

[Anonymous No.14163716]

>>14161516
>>14161540
don't conflate the moral and the ethical. "Thou shalt not murder" is an ethical universal within Christianity, a universal which Abraham disobeyed, making his act unethical. But it was still justified morally by faith.

[Anonymous No.14163732]

>>14163524
Kierk loved Hegel? Kierk thinks Hegel is an absolute pseud who believed he had established a presuppositionless system when in reality he had no such thing. Read the Concluding Unscientific Postscript. For Kierkegaard, the existing individual attempting to live world-historically is acting out a category error.

[Anonymous No.14163736]

>>14163617
>Soren Kierkegaard the Preacher
More "Soren Kierkegaard the poet without authority who does not deliver proper sermons but merely edifying discourses."

[Anonymous No.14163744]

>>14161484
The book is unironically for atheists who are tired of being sad faggots all the time.

[Anonymous No.14163747]

>>14161274
Faith wasn't an Indo European value until the incursion of the judeo-christian animus. Prostration before the gods is a matter of orthodoxy, the IE peoples were concerned with orthopraxy. Piety as a function of faithfulness is alien to traditional orthopraxy. This is probably why Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" makes you frown. It's a modern mutation of judeo-Christian anti-naturalism. In short, it's retarded. But Kierkegaard was a product of his time in that respect. Diary of a Seducer was his best work and it's brilliant.

[Anonymous No.14163750]

>>14163744
>The book is unironically for atheists who are tired of being sad faggots all the time.

[Anonymous No.14163787]

>>14163736
The irony here is that it's impossible to get the proper authority unless you are an apostle (that is, by human terms, a madman). Kierkegaard saying he has no authority to preach always has a tongue-in-cheek "still have more authority than you lol" included.

[Anonymous No.14163792]

>>14163750
What's the argument here?
>The absolute state of /lit/ dialectic

[Anonymous No.14163804]

>>14162925
>Wasting energy on seething internet Catholics

[Anonymous No.14163807]

>>14161663
juul pods have crazy amounts of nicotine compared to traditional e cig juices. my brothers been addicted to them since highschool. really sucks.

[Anonymous No.14163830]

>>14163787
well said

[Anonymous No.14164141]

>>14161678
Catholic Kierkegaardian here. You can read grad papers from Catholic universities all about how his Theology is Orthodox and misinterpretations about that is due to disinfo and mistranslation.

>>14163732
Not the anon you’re responding to, but you’re both right (Consider this pic related the sublation of your difference)

[Anonymous No.14164937]

>>14163747
ahistorical nonsense premised on the positioning of protestantism as representative of "original Christianity". For that, look to the Eastern Orthodox Church. They talk little of faith, and more often of metaphysical and spiritual realities with none of the hand-wringing and low-t anxietism of Kierkegaard and the rest. Nice touch shilling the judeo-Christian meme, did you only just finish reading Nietzsche's (((The Antichrist)))?

[Anonymous No.14164957]

>>14164937
where do I start with high-T Christianity?

[Anonymous No.14165048]

>>14161244
I love Kierkegaard. He says everything he wants while using extremely enjoyable prose. Sometimes he makes himself seem a bit coockoo, a bit wacky, he gets going, riled up. All kooky woopy; loco. Truly a patrician. /lit/ getting all riled up over him just shows that their views are challenged as much as they are.
Without being able to resort to a normal factological argument the /lit/ician is forced into a corner, in which only fear and trembling awaits, caused by the seed of stupidity germinating deep within them.

[Anonymous No.14165133]

>>14164957
The Book of Acts and the Gospel of Matthew as a foundation, then go to your local Orthodox Church and follow along with the Divine Liturgy using one of the books they should have in front or in the pews, maybe pick up something by Fr. Schmemann online or from a church library. Good hunting anon

[Anonymous No.14165429]

>>14161484
>This book is fucking stupid, unironically. It never ceases to amaze me that it gets shilled here. Even if you're a Christian, you have to concede that this book is heretical.
I'm a Christian and also thought it was pure garbage

I didn't think it was too heretical as much as it was bad. It seemed like a lot of sentimentality and pointless musing on "having faith".

[Anonymous No.14165497]

>>14161244
Is this a good place to start with Kierkegaard?

[Anonymous No.14165542]

>>14165497
Yes, either start with this or Either/Or.

[Anonymous No.14165833]

>>14165542
good elliot smith as well

[Anonymous No.14166432]

im OP checkin back in and im mad that only like 3 people mentioned the juul