[ 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: 26 KB, 310x459, Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14687295 No.14687295 [Reply] [Original]

Books for this vibe?

"Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self?
The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in
the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its
own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the
relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite
and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and
necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between
two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self. " - Sören Kierkegaard - The Sickness Unto Death

>> No.14687714

>>14687295
I always feel stupid whenever I read that quote by him since I completely get lost after he mentions relation relating itself to its own self, and it just keeps getting worse until he gets to the synthesis part, after which I can understand him again.

>> No.14687853

>>14687714
He's making fun of Hegel. That opening paragraph is satire of Hegel's writing style. It's supposed to be stupidly hard to make sense of because Kierkegaard fucking hated Hegel.

>> No.14687858

>>14687853
Does he actually mean what he wrote though?

>> No.14687890

>>14687858
Yeah, he does. I think the "synthesis part" is the core of what he means there, he means the opening few lines but they're written in that confusing way deliberately as a joke.

>> No.14687896
File: 1.64 MB, 1920x1536, E61898BE-3C49-457D-998D-2FF0DF8D33A5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14687896

>>14687295
If you’re going to claim man is a spirit, then how does he possess this spirit distinctly from other life? At what point does animal become and by what means is this accomplished? Through consciousness? But is a dog not conscious of itself? Does a dog not look frantically across a jump, scampering back a fro, looking and wondering whether or not he should jump? Is the dog not aware of his own mortality and the potentiality for him to make his own mistake this leading to death? Does not a dog possess spirit? What of the tree? Does the tree desire to grow in darkness where it cannot flourish? It seems to grow only upwards and outwards, conscious of the fact that if it cannot reach sunlight, it will perish. And what of the rock? For the rock knows should it not withstand the howling winds, the blasting rains, the harsh cold and blistering heat, it will soon too wither away against the forces outside of itself. Do these things not all possess a desire consciousness enough to not wish to perish, to maintain themselves and to forever and steadfastly withstand the tests of time?

>> No.14688151

>>14687890
But even though it's confusing and hard to get, it still is possible to get and make sense, right?
Is Kierkegaard the implying that Hegel could have explained his views in a less complex way, but that he chose to be complex on purpose as to look smart?

>> No.14689197

>>14687896
the dog possesses a self which has a desire to survive, the dog's mind works on instinct not self-conscious decision. I guess you could say that the self of the dog works on its own with no awareness of itself.

>> No.14689209

>>14689197
furthermore, we don't have an awareness of the self, we have an awareness of our -thoughts-. This is totally different. The self is still a mystery to us, like we can't really change it as easily as we change our thoughts.

>> No.14689220

>>14687295
every proceeding philosopher just paraphrases hegel