[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 415 KB, 564x796, serveimage(47).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14658597 No.14658597 [Reply] [Original]

Is he a meme? I always disregarded him because of the christian influence his works, christian writers are generally almost always weak and very pedantic. But it looks like he wasn't christian at all, he just used the philosophy in the Bible to express his thoughts, looks like a lot of atheists like him. What's the general consensus about him here?

Also, yes Kierkegaard is more /lit/ than /his/, since his works are all very poetic, closer to a literature book than a philosophical one.

>> No.14658613

>>14658597
Also, for those who will ask where I read that Kierkegaard wasn't a christian, it was in this very good and thoroughly researched article that shows what's the best intro to his books https://medium.com/@andrew.michael.kirk/how-to-begin-reading-kierkegaard-9682d17dd54c


>To that end, Christianity is weird and difficult to actually obtain and most people who say they have it are deluded to Kierkegaard. Christendom, the term Kierkegaard attributes to everyday self-proclaimed Christians, makes believing one is authentically Christian easy. You can drop the Christianity and maintain the overall critique of authenticity in it’s contemporary form. Important to this reading, though, is that Kierkegaard himself, as a Christian writer, isn’t a Christian. He doesn’t consider himself a believer, instead he is a poet of the religious. He didn’t obtain authenticity very self-consciously and so had to write in a matter that distanced himself from the things he could see but not fully understand. That’s why these pseudonyms matter.

>> No.14658805

>>14658613
This article is a dogshit reading of Kierkegaard.

>> No.14658816

>>14658613
This utter faggot called Heidegger a plagiarist in his first paragraph, no way I'm reading the rest of this shit.

>> No.14659118

>>14658805
Why though? The man provided a full on article on his views concerning Kierkegaard, but you wrote a one-line ad-hominem without any strong arguments at all, how do you expect me to take your word above his?
>>14658816
He made points though and you're making... I don't know... Nothing...?

>> No.14659179

>>14658597
>the man who wrote that faith in God is the highest passion in a human being and believed that God provided the antidote to despair through possibility can't be Christian because that hurts my atheists feelings. :(
You have to go back.

>> No.14659190

Go back to r/atheism, you bugman.

>> No.14659218

>>14658597
He isn't an atheist, he just misunderstood Christianity in such a bewildering way that it somehow turned into an individualistic philosophy, when it is really completely the opposite.

>> No.14659220

>>14659179
Well, ifnyou've actually took your time to read the article I posted that would have answered your stupid questions, but that's ok, I don't expect much from christians bound by dogma.
>>14659190
Go back to the religious temple, swering is ugly, kiddo, meanwhile I'll go back to my temple AKA the library.

>> No.14659236

>>14659220
The library is for us patricians. Plebs and bugmen like you belong in twitter and reddit.

>> No.14659269

>>14658613
lol what the fuck is this shit
how about you just read kierkegaard OP? instead of asking people to dissect this post modern trash why don't you go ahead and read fear and trembling or the concept of anxiety and see just how retarded what you posted is

>> No.14659283

>>14659218

>Move away from tribalism (contrary to Judaism)
>One man's death can change the world
>Literally named after ONE person (Christ)

Yeah not individualistic at all

>> No.14659299

>>14658613
>https://medium.com/@andrew.michael.kirk/how-to-begin-reading-kierkegaard-9682d17dd54c
This is the dumbest thing I've read all week.

>> No.14659302

>>14659269
Retarded? Asking a question, especially a question regarding philosophy, will never be retarded. As you noted I'm don't know much about him and my only introduction was the article, which, I must say, no one was able to refute yet besides calling it mean names.

>> No.14659329

>>14659302
Because the article is self evidently shit for anyone who knows even a little about Kierkegaard. There is no point in refuting it, just go read Kierkegaard. The only advice I can give you to salvage what that article might have done to your first impression of Kierkegaard is to, under no condition, try to read The Concept of Irony first. Go start with Either/Or like a normal person. May brush up a little bit with Wikipedia since things will get confusing.

>> No.14659355

>>14659329
Isn't Either/Or one of his biggest works? Shouldn't this be picked up after one acquired some knowledge about Kierkegaard's philosophy? I was thinking of reading The Concept of Anxiety first, what do you think?

>> No.14659389

>>14659355
I think if you're approaching Kierkegaard trying to find secular meaning, you're best bet is Either/Or. He analyses two modes of life via two pseudonyms in a way that doesn't heavily preach the validity of one over the other. It doesn't get very religious, it explores some interesting concepts like romance/marital love having different manifestations in time (and how that relates to art) and is funny in parts. I'm not religious and for that reason I find a great deal of his works painfully boring, because, the point of most of his works is in justifying his subjective Christian theology. Most of his more religious writings, like The Concept of Anxiety, can be a chore to read in comparison and not as compelling if you aren't looking for his theology.

>> No.14659415

>>14659355
Either/Or is the starting point and foundation for all his subsequent works

>> No.14659615

>>14658613
What a horrible article to base your views on.

>> No.14659783

>>14658597
jesus fucking christ. if you are going to go in with the mindset of
>his stuff looks cool but the religious stuff looks icky, there's probably still value in it regardless of that.
then just don't bother reading. fuck off back to reading LessWrong or whatever the fuck you people do in the meantime. like pears to swines
>>14658613
>Important to this reading, though, is that Kierkegaard himself, as a Christian writer, isn’t a Christian. He doesn’t consider himself a believer, instead he is a poet of the religious.
lmao
>He is one of the three main anti-philosophers, along with Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, for a reason
lmao
>You can drop the Christianity and maintain the overall critique of authenticity in it’s contemporary form.
lmao
this guy is a cuck. i understand the value of misreadings, but this guy is just straight up retarded. how do you reconcile the infinite with atheism? dumb ass nigger.
>>14659118
if you had read Kierkegaard then it is mostly just one long ad hominem. the key fucking insight of kierkegaard is that the measure of a philosophy is what is lived. to attack this retard for having shit opinions about him is completely within the spirit of kierkegaard. fucking retard. complete idiot. unless you are making this thread in jest as some sort of elaborate hijinks, in that case, well done, you've completely understood his works.

>> No.14659789

>>14659389
but it isn't theology - it is a very primitive psychology taking form.

>> No.14659865

>>14659783
>He is one of the three main anti-philosophers, along with Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, for a reason
There's nothing wrong with this, it's actually one of the right things about the article.

>> No.14659902

>>14659865
this is to miss the brilliance of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche - to recognize the importance of the form of the argument as an important part of philosophy. aesthetics as argument. to read that as not-philosophy is to fail to read them productively. thrasymachus as a philosopher. the sophist as philosopher. or to put it in other terms. logos is slow. lies are useful. if philosophy does not take that into account, it will fail to find what it is friend to

>> No.14660034

>>14659220
>I don't expect much from christians bound by dogma.
Fool.

>> No.14660079

>>14658597
I like almost everything he has to say other then the Jesus shit.

>> No.14660109

>>14660034
While you're listening to 2h of useless doctrine in the mass, I'm on my temple, the library, educating myself.

>> No.14660726

>>14660109
>someone unironically posted this and holds this opinion sincerely
Hahahahaha

>> No.14660756

>>14658613
>medium
Into the trash can it goes

>> No.14661022
File: 110 KB, 750x1000, D203A6F3-7DE4-41A8-9405-425727E50CD1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14661022

>I only read atheists

>> No.14661241

He is a Catholic, not a Christian.

>> No.14661279

>>14658597
he's the only dusty goofball i've ever read on the shithole of a board.

>> No.14661605

>>14658597
a terrible bait op

>> No.14662328

>>14661605
Actually great bait considering the response