/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1511986]

what is /lit/'s opinion on kierkegaard?

[Anonymous No.1511991]

Kierkegaard fag here.
I actually appreciate his philosophy and views a lot. A very refreshing alternative to hegal.

[Anonymous No.1511998]

>>1511991
i will like to hear a comparation betwean hegel and kirkegaard

[Anonymous No.1512001]

I plan on reading some of his work soon, but I've been listening to some related stuff from iTunes U. The whole teleological suspension of the ethical thing rubs me the wrong way, though. It's too easy a justification.

[Anonymous No.1512002]

>>1512001
>It's too easy a justification.

explain

[Anonymous No.1512003]

>>1511998
Eventually?

[Anonymous No.1512005]

>>1512002
"I might have done the wrong thing, but it was in the service of God."

That just doesn't seem to hold water in 2011. That being said, I know absolutely nothing about Kierkegaard's philosophy save for what I've gleaned from a few podcasts, so this might be a huge misinterpretation.

[Anonymous No.1512007]

>>1512002
The end justifies the means.

[Anonymous No.1512008]

>>1511998
Hegel's all like "hey man, maybe we can work shit out with dialectics"

And Kierkegaard was all like "FUCK NO I DON'T LIKE THIS BOX BUT I RELATE TO THE BOX BECAUSE I RELATE TO THE BOX, THUS ITS MY BOX FOREVER INCOMPLETE IN NEED OF GOD"

Wittgenstein all be like "that shit's deep."

[Anonymous No.1512009]

>>1512003
i dunno

[Anonymous No.1512011]

>>1512008
tl;dr Kierkegaard/Wittgenstein: I DON'T LIKE THIS BOX

[Anonymous No.1512014]

>>1512007
>>1512005
misunderstanding

misunderstanding everywhere

[Anonymous No.1512015]

>>1512014
Elucidation.

Elucidation nowhere.

[Anonymous No.1512053]

occasional bump

[Anonymous No.1512062]

Søren Kierkegaard is Friedrich Nietzsche without the facial hair, but Søren is the ON

[Anonymous No.1512068]

>>1512062
>ON

[noko No.1512075]

not gonna lie, everytime I try reading him my eyes just sort of glaze over and everything sounds greek to me. I want to read him and get a better understanding of his philosophy but its so damn incomprehensible to me.

Tried reading the wiki on him thinking it might be a dummy downed version of his views and that didn't help either, if anything made it worse.

I've read some quotes from him that I liked but thats about the best I can do ;_;


"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"

[Anonymous No.1512077]

Kierkgegaard is not Nietzche.

Teleological suspension of the ethical is a really complicated idea. Don't be fooled into thinking its religious mania. I had to write my PhD on Kierkegaard's leap of faith and suspension of the ethical.

Also, I would love to go into Hegal and Kierkegaard, but not on here. Too long to write, but maybe we can chat and develop a conversation and debate on MSN [e-mail] add me and we can talk >>1511991

[Anonymous No.1512081]

>>1512075
tru to read him like it was poetry

[Anonymous No.1512088]

>>1512081
*try

[Anonymous No.1512091]

>>1512068
ORIGINAL NIHILIST

[Anonymous No.1512092]

>>1512091

[Anonymous No.1512093]

>>1512077
How about talking about his here instead? This place could really benefit from commentary from somebody actually in the field of philosophy. Also, what do you mean by teleological suspension of the ethical? Is it related to the existentialist idea that while pleasure may be the goal of ethics, it's not the origin or structure, which is determined by meaning?

[Anonymous No.1512098]

have you ever bumped a thread in a pale moon

[Anonymous No.1512112]

come on, this thread was getting awesome

[Anonymous No.1512113]

>>1512093
The teleological suspension of the ethical is like the story of Abraham and his son. God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, which is typically a no-no, but Abraham was going to do it because it was the commandment of God.

[Anonymous No.1512537]

>>1512113 - poster is not the philosophy guy
>>1512093 - well to outline the idea of the teleological suspension it would look like our friend's crude description of the story of Abraham in Kierkegaard's Fear and trembling (in the middle east...not really, but I can never help myself when I hear the title).

However, our friend has failed to mention how "stages on life's way" come into it. Kierkegaard's ideas on this suspension are inextricably tied up with the notion of spheres of existence that determine our personal and group moralities.

See, a terrorist would find it very hard to justify his manic position through Kierkegaard's philosophy. Kierkegaard doesn't really say morality = nothing if God determines it so huuuurrrrrr.
No. That would be a gross misreading. He actually wants us to realise that, through a spiritual growth, the burden of a secular moranlity, a Greek-type model, is too hard to bear. Once we develop into the higher stages of moral and spirtual awareness, we suspend the ideas of material morality for the sake of a higher, less known conceptual model. We become Knights of Faith, as the Old Boy puts it. It's really deontological principles taken to their universal/spiritual extreme.

Any questions? Let me know. I can suggest reading material etc. Interesting topic, but as I said I am BRIEFLY discussing this. I originally said we could chat on MSN because I'm a writer and my work load is huge. I will contribute when I can as long as the thread is alive.

[Anonymous No.1512563]

>>1512113 In terms of pleasure related to the goals and constructs of morality and ethics, I would have to say pleasure has little to do with the teleological suspension.

It is not so much a theoretical model for morality, like Kant's catagorical imperative or Mill's utilitarianism, but rather its more of a guide to spiritual awareness. We actually discard material notions of morality and ethicals and embrace something altogether higher, something that cannot be put into words, nor debated.

But there is the underlying idea throughout Kierkegaard's work that this transformotion is a painful process.

[Anonymous No.1512688]

>>1512077
>my PhD
>Hegal with an 'a'

/facepalm

[Anonymous No.1512862]

good morning bump

[Anonymous No.1512947]

>>1512688
Only just learnt to spell Nietzche too - I hope to God I've got that right...

[Anonymous No.1512998]

haha, professional philosophy right here

[Anonymous No.1513001]

>>1511998
Hegel came up with a dialectic. In this dialectic he states that throughout history, different civilizations have influenced one another, and evolved, through an almost Darwinian series of events. According to Hegel, this series of events led to Hegel's civilization, which he believed was the most advanced form of civilization. Hegel saw freedom and philosophy as mutually dependent, as well as the ideal.

Kierkegaard devised a dialectic in response to Hegel's claim that "philosophy is du hurp!". He developed three modes of existence: the aesthetic, the ethic, and the religious.

The aesthetic mode deals with a very hedonistic approach to life. The individual moves away from society in a daemonic fashion (much like the Romantics) and pursues the pleasures of life. Eventually, this leads to loneliness and despair.
For Kierkegaard, the ethical mode (emphasis on community, eventual, and disclosure) is sought be the aesthete when he wants to "settle down" (for the path of the aesthete is a lonely one).

The religious mode of existence is basically the same as the aesthetic mode. However, it differs based on the individuals relationship with God (hence Kierkegaard following the Lutheran religion).
Basically, Kierkegaard believed an individual goes through these modes of living. The trick is living in all three at the same time.

[Anonymous No.1513002]

>>1512062
Right......because Nietzsche was a Christian.

[Anonymous No.1513005]

>>1513001
that's how we do.

[Anonymous No.1513008]

>>1513005
Camus! Nice to see you in this thread.

[Anonymous No.1513024]

>>1513001
Well done, sir!

[Anonymous No.1513027]

>>1513001
>genuis

[Anonymous No.1513028]

>>1513001
omgz i love harry pottor!

[Anonymous No.1513275]

>>1513002
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard criticized the same things about Christians like Hegel. They say practically the same against the christian institution. Nietzsche had nothing against the kind of Christianity that Kierkegaard talks about.

[Anonymous No.1513653]

>>1513001
modes of existence is wrong. Specifically spheres, because they cross one into another. There are also mini-spheres within the sheres that work as inbetweens.

I am being pedantic, but the use of the word "modes" is a poor reflection on Kierkegaard's concept of human development.

[Anonymous No.1513666]

>>1513275
No, you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.1513982]

>>1513001
>>1513001
then hele wrote about masses and civilization and kirkegaard about the individual?

[Anonymous No.1514005]

>>1513982
not quite but keep trying!
>>1513653
you can have your spheres.

[Anonymous No.1514011]

>>1513666
You, sir, are the devil.

[Anonymous No.1514022]

>>1513982
Kierkegaard didn't want to marry Regine Olsen. So he spent the rest of his life explaining why he broke off their engagement. This is the root of his philosophy: he didn't know when to shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.1514029]

>mfw people are taking the stages/spheres and teleological suspension of the ethical as if they were ideas directly attributable to Kierkegaard, and not concepts placed within the broader machine of his pseudonymous project

Guys, guys. Slow down a minute here.

[Anonymous No.1514036]

I have Either/Or sitting on my shelf. Haven't read it yet (except the first chapter of aphorisms). I think thisbook might not be the best way to get into his philosopher, am I right?

[Anonymous No.1514039]

>>1514022
Works of Love, the Upbuilding Discourses, the Present Age and Philosophical Fragments/Concluding Unscientific Postscript are not explicable by his break-up with Regine. Sounds like someone only read Fear and Trembling, Repetition and Either/Or.

[Anonymous No.1514048]

>>1514036
Either/Or is a perfectly good place to begin with Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.1514053]

>>1514039
guilty.

[Anonymous No.1514054]

WHY IS MR. T IN A PICTURE WITH KIERKEGAARD

[Anonymous No.1514183]

>>1514022
philosphy doesnt give two shits about the psychology behind the philosoph. The philosophy must be judged on its own merit.

you sir are a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.1514205]

>>1514054
Because the drawing was teleported here from 1999 when Mr. T references were cool.

[Anonymous No.1514221]

>>1514183
>implying we are not supposed to *think* about what the *thinkers* we are *thinking* about were *thinking* about while considering their *thoughts*

* -things you don't do

[Anonymous No.1514257]

>>1514205
Why the fuck would Mr T have been cool in 1999?
Did I miss an alternate reality? Who's the president?

[Anonymous No.1514266]

>>1514205
sorry Mr T and Mr T references have always been, are now, and will always be cool

[Anonymous No.1514272]

>>1514005
i also understand that hegel though that life was a system but kirkegaard though that life was passion

are there other diferences that i should aware of?

[Anonymous No.1514323]

>>1513275

Actually bro, that is not true. Nietzche thought Christianity was inherently worthless. Kierkegaard's brand, the Church's brand, the Bible's brand. He disliked especially the hypocrites - the apostate Church, but he also disagreed with the pure, ascetic, original Christianity that Kierkegaard espoused.

[Anonymous No.1514413]

>>1514266
Ok. I get it. But who's this president?

[Anonymous No.1514480]

>>1514323
I really wish Nietzsche had a chance to read Kierkegaard. Dostoevsky apparently made a big impact on him, and Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky had a lot in common.

[Anonymous No.1514513]

>>1514413
rufus jones

[Anonymous No.1514541]

I fucking LOVE kierkegaard. Sartre gets way to much credit for existentialism when all he really did was flesh it out a bit more and make it popular. Kierkegaard is also very lulzy because even though he was a christfag and a moralfag he still trolled the living shit out of hegel

[Anonymous No.1514565]

>>1514541
>problem hegelfags?

kier confirmed for god tier

[Anonymous No.1514599]

>>1514565
This, for example, is part of the critique that kierkegaard gave of one of hegel's books
>If Hegel had written the whole of his logic and then said, in the preface or some other place, that it was merely an experiment in thought in which he had even begged the question in many places, then he would certainly have been the greatest thinker who had ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic.

Kierkegaard would also write books that were a line by line trashing of books by Hegel (made more epic by the fact that kierkegaard was also a humorist)

In essence, Kierkegaard invented the theory of lulz because he believed that everything was meaningless until you find something to give it meaning (lulz) and that the only thing that matters in this world is getting satisfaction from doing what you believe (doing it for the lulz)
Godtier indeed

[Anonymous No.1514613]

>>1514323
nietzche was kinda pretentious becaus nihilism really believes that 'because it's commonly accepted/part of society, it's inherently dumb.' being contradictory for the sake of it and then establishing that as the new norm does not make you into some kind of 'superman'

[Anonymous No.1514638]

>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599
>>1514599

[Anonymous No.1514645]

>>1514638
herp doubles makes it awesome der

...but seriously, it actually is awesome

[Anonymous No.1514650]

>>1514613
1/10

[Anonymous No.1514672]

Hegelianism vs existentialism as explained by Evangelion

Hegel/Seele is all like "fuck individuality, let's all join as one for the benefit of mankind. the Synthesis is SO cash" and then Shinji is like "I'm a total bitch and all that matter is that people care about me because I pilot Eva (bad faith)" and then shinji's like "Wow, I'm a loser peice of shit faggot (anxiety/angst/despair/dread); but if I man the fuck up and accept that, then I can be a good person who does his best to be and Individual and not so much of a faggot, because Instrumentality(hegelianism) licks a hairy asshole"

[Anonymous No.1514706]

>>1514672
>evangelion

[Anonymous No.1514708]

bumb

[Anonymous No.1514775]

You have to view Kierkegaard's writings through the context of what pen name he was using. He basically wrote as characters with different views. Irony was a huge part of his method. He wrote his doctoral thesis on Socratic irony. The people that have said he invented lulz are more or less right.

If you really want the real man and his real thoughts, I'd say read his journals, or his Christian writings.

[Anonymous No.1514807]

>>1514775
Unfortunately I've only really skimmed thru those. 'Concept of Dread' was more my speed

[Anonymous No.1514855]

[Anonymous No.1514964]

this thread is epic, i suggest archive

[Anonymous No.1515030]

bumped for archive

[Anonymous No.1515031]

[Anonymous No.1515038]

[Anonymous No.1515088]

>>1515038
nah, still does not reach the legend

[Anonymous No.1515139]

[Anonymous No.1515178]

­

[Anonymous No.1515833]

goodmorning bump

[Anonymous No.1516167]

[Anonymous No.1516273]

rise from your grave

[Anonymous No.1516419]

I want to dispel some ideas about Hegel that are being tossed around in this thread.

One poster described Hegel's dialectics as a form of evolution, or the influence of cultures on each other, as if cultures were to breed. This might be an entirely accurate viewpoint, but its not what Hegel thought history and culture were. One of the best ways to explain Hegel's bat shit wacko teleology and theory of history is to look at the title of of one of his essays (which I'm unable to find as a convenient pdf or html for you all, sorry)

History as the Self-Realization of Spirit

This sentence sums up Hegel. History is Spirit continually refreshing itself through time. He means this in an Idealist sense, which is odd as Ideals are usually unchanging (In the classical Platonic idealist sense). Hegel would still say that Spirit is unchanging, but that at any given moment we only see a fraction of The Human Spirit, namely the present and what we know of the past.

This is not a view of how things can truly change, or mutate, in the evolutionary sense. An evolutionary sense of history would admit that history and cultures could break down and destroy themselves. Or that certain cultures are better suited to certain enviornments. It would also admit that history is not finished, that its still being written.

Hegel, being Christian, would never believe the possibility of different outcomes, of enviornmental or temporal adaptation, or that History did not have a deffinitive outcome. Hegel certainly believed in the Christian eschatology and the second coming of Christ.

OH GOD POST TO LONG

[Anonymous No.1516425]

>>1516419
CONTINUED

While Hegel wrote History as the Self-Realization of Spirit, Napoleon was conquering Europe. Napoleon is what Hegel called a World Historical Figure, that is in Hegel's day Napoleon represented the epitome of humanity, spirituality and knowledge. If he didn't represent those things, he would not have been conquering Europe. On the other side, Hegel saw Asians and Blacks as subhuman. They were being eradicated by the Self-Realization of Spirit (History). This is the European narrative of progress; racial superiority, technological superiority and spiritual superiority. When ever you see post-modern thinkers talking about the end of history, or the end of grand narratives they are referring to Hegel's theory of history, and the many people he influenced (especially Marx, but also democratic writers like Rousseau).

Hegel's idea of the dialectic is not how we often think of dialectics today. Usually, dialectics describe 2 entities in opposition that must either compromise or stay in opposition. Hegel saw dialectics as certain, that certain things would oppose each other and eventually create a synthesis (or concrete as he called it). This was not a possibility of synthesis, but an inevitability.

tl;dr Hegel was an insane racist.

[Anonymous No.1516466]

i love the guy's philosophy; he saved my christianity

in very short;
kierkegaard's either/or was his synthesis... he opposed hegel's 'absolute' by claiming faith to be more absolute.

see: fear and trembling

(i might be wrong, im sort of autodidactic with philosophy and have a pretty limited knowledge of hegel)

kierkegaard still has a certain place in my heart, but im coming to love wittgenstein as well

[Anonymous No.1516804]

JESUS CHRIST!!! this thread is still going for over 24 hours?

Can somebody pleased archive this shit!

>>1514599
minor edit. While Kierkegaard did indeed troll the shit out of hegel, he did not write line by line books that thrashed Hegel. I was mixing this up with John Locke, who did that to one of his pro-monarchist contemporaries (Kierkegaard, Locke, and St Augustine were the three philosophers that I had to study intimately for my philosophy coursse)

>>1514672
this is not merely fanwank conjecture, either. many of the episodes are named after existential concepts (ie. The Sickness Unto Death) and during one of the mindfuck scenes, shinji consciousness tells himself that he can't relive all of his good experiences like some kind of rosary, which is a very exact description of how Sartre described 'Bad Faith'

[Anonymous No.1516808]

>>1516804
Patriarcha by Robert Filmer... you idiot... shit this thread is full of ignorance

[Anonymous No.1516813]

this has actually been one of the better threads in a while

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1516818]

butthurt betafag spends his life apologising for his betafaggotry

[Anonymous No.1516856]

Kierkegaard would've been proud.

[Anonymous No.1516864]

>>1516818

[Anonymous No.1516867]

Didn't read any of the thread. Can someone recommend which of his works to read first?

[Anonymous No.1516876]

>>1516867
either/or was mentioned as a good introduction

[Anonymous No.1516885]

>>1516867
I started on Fear and Trembling.
It's also where I ended.
Kierkegaard rages on christian poserfags

[Anonymous No.1516890]

>>1516818
>>1516856
>>1516885

[Anonymous No.1516896]

>>1516425

Semi-good posts, except that I didn't like your conclusion, and the fact that you write

>Hegel's theory of history, and the many people he influenced (especially Marx, but also democratic writers like Rousseau).

I think you might be trolling. Hegel was only about 9 yrs old when Rousseau died, so I think his influence on the great JJ is to be overlooked.

Also, to whoever said that Hegel is all about the world Spirit, this is only half the truth. The center of the Phenomenology of the spirit, the dialectics of recognition (or the master- slave dialectics) is not just a question of the world spirit, though it is indeed an aspect. But moreso is it a method, however idealistic, of aprroching truth, in both our individual recognition of our selves, the social negatiation between individuals, and the course of history. The aim of (post-Kantian, and mainly german) idealism, is not to gain knowledge of truth, but to gain ever more insight -> infinnity. As one of the overlooked representatives of german idealism explained it with an analogy, truth is like the root of 2, where we can uncover the nature of the number forever, without ever gaining true knowledge of the whole.

[Anonymous No.1516912]

Out dated, there is no "God" post industrial revolution, just profit margins.

[Anonymous No.1516918]

>>1516912
austrian much?

[Anonymous No.1516921]

>>1516918
The Game

[Anonymous No.1516941]

>>1516921

[Anonymous No.1517214]

[Anonymous No.1517223]

kierkegaard was a whore. a dirty, filthy whore.

[Anonymous No.1517244]

[Anonymous No.1517284]

>>1517223
troll harder nigger

[Anonymous No.1517333]

Archive this tread, pl0x!

[Anonymous No.1517427]

>>1517284
>implying i'm trolling
he wrote Fear and Trembling about his obsession with seducing bitches in college.

Kierkegaard was alpha bro

[Anonymous No.1517455]

>>1517427
psht
Kierkegaard was a total beta bitch, bitch.

[Anonymous No.1517490]

>>1517455
not sure if trolling,

also

archive this shit

[Anonymous No.1517494]

>>1517284
Yo, dog, cool the racial slurs.
Ya dig, homeboy?

[Anonymous No.1517510]

>>1517490
come on now think about it: would you fuck Kierkegaard?

[Anonymous No.1517540]

>>1517510
SO.RUDE.

[Anonymous No.1517551]

>>1517540
You mad, brother?

[None !FCANCERdAo No.1517560]

samefag
samefag everywhere

[Anonymous No.1517705]

>>1517560
namefag
namefag everywhere

[Anonymous No.1517725]

Kierkegaardian Christians are the only acceptable form of Christian.

[Anonymous No.1517728]

>>1516896
Well I stand corrected about the Rousseau-Hegel Connection. To be fair, I'm no expert on Rousseau and other democratic revolutionary thinkers. What I grasped my philosophy course in which we discussed Hegel was that his ideas on Dialectics proved useful to both socialism and democracy.

[Anonymous No.1517735]

>>1516804
>JESUS CHRIST!!! this thread is still going for over 24 hours?
>Can somebody pleased archive this shit!

You have no clue how /lit/ works do you? Its a slow enough board that it doesn't take much to keep a thread alive for a week.

[Anonymous No.1517738]

>>1517725
What about Tolstoyan Christians?

[Anonymous No.1517742]

>>1517738
Nope still crap.

[Anonymous No.1517764]

>>1517735
>>1517735
but this thread is legendary, thats why ir should be archived


ARCHIVE IT MOTHERFUCKERS!!

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1517796]

christians are okay as long as they understand that metaphysics is below ethics and don't worship natural law etc silliness.

[Anonymous No.1517876]

>>1517796
>ethics below metaphysics

..what?

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1517894]

>>1517876
it's the other way around. and no i don't think it's possible for someone to have a really really good ethical system while still committed to religious beliefs about the world (metaphysics), but it should be good enough.

however, the idea of an all powerful god who has the right to give death and life is a great reactionary force in the service of hierarchy and authoritarian barbarism, just fyi

[Anonymous No.1517929]

>>1517894
>blah blah incomprehensible banter
..oh..ok, dude.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1517948]

>>1517929
>can't comprehend basic ideas
>cry about it

[Anonymous No.1517973]

>>1517929
>>1517948

[Anonymous No.1518018]

>>1517948
>painful to read
>uses poor punctuation
>should have payed attention in grade school

but it's probably just 2deep4me.jpg

[Anonymous No.1518028]

A Kierkegaard thread, and no mention of Sartre? That is impressive.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1518045]

>>1518018
yea im not writing very well, because i am slightly drunk and sleepy. deal with it bro

[Anonymous No.1518058]

>>1518028
I didn't realize Sartre had anything to do with Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.1518068]

[Anonymous No.1518133]

[Anonymous No.1518171]

>>1518068
>>1518068
>>1518068
>>1518068
>>1518068

[Anonymous No.1518630]

goodmorning bump

[Anonymous No.1518825]

i occasionaly bump threads

[Anonymous No.1518855]

archive this thread already

bumpity

[Anonymous No.1518876]

>>1518855
seconded

[Anonymous No.1518913]

>>1518876
agreed

[Anonymous No.1519221]

>>1518028
that's because Sartre was a hypocrite who only made existentialism popular.
>Sartre claimed that you always have free will, so if you say I can't join the Resistance because I could be killed, then you are a loser. However, Sartre served the military only as a meteorologist and when he joined the resistance he pussed out by writing books (none of which were antinazi enough to be censored) instead of putting his life on the line.
>talked about the importance of not becoming your role in the crowd, yet supported comunism
>called everything he didn't like 'the bourgoisie' in much the same way that the nazi card is used. doubly ironic considering he was an upper class individual, and the bourgoisie where the people that philosophy was naturaly popular with
>was french

[Anonymous No.1519252]

One thing about existentialism I've always wondered:

Does existentialim believe that the universe is objectively real simmilar to the view of Ayn Randian Objectivists?

[Anonymous No.1519271]

>>1518855
Really? archive?
This thread is like listening to a conversation of college students after one too many glasses of franzia

[Anonymous No.1519599]

>>1519252

[Anonymous No.1519604]

>>1519271

[Anonymous No.1519628]

>>1519599
no, srsly

[Anonymous No.1519631]

Kierkegaard drove me to minimalistic despair, and I haven't crawled out of that hole yet.

A+++ would recommend

[Anonymous No.1519640]

>>1519271
We drink whiskey here, bro.

[Anonymous No.1519642]

Kierkegaard drove me to minimalistic despair, and I haven't crawled out of that hole yet.

A+++ would buy again

[Anonymous No.1519644]

>>1519271
fu, this is the best philosophical exposition there's been in some time.

[Anonymous No.1519646]

>>1519271
EFF U!
I was drinking pabst.
>mfw dissapointed in your assumption.

captcha - n**ger from (whut??)

[Anonymous No.1519653]

>>1519644
seriously? Really? Are you sure? Is /lit/ so bad that threads like this become relationally good?

[Anonymous No.1519655]

>>1519644
you're welcome.

[Anonymous No.1519667]

>>1519653
because tripfags drive away anyone who could actually contribute

'fabulous' is the most cancerous faggot to every grace the threads of /lit/

[Anonymous No.1519696]

>>1519653
put your meter away, pull up a chair
im getting something, cant contribute due to insufficient reading

P.s. please dont die thread

[Anonymous No.1519711]

Hey, guys, I'm new here. Is this a worthy thread, or is it useless? I thought it was fairly informative. Can you give me an honest response.

Thanks, pals!

[Anonymous No.1519713]

gotta have faith bitches!

[Anonymous No.1519714]

>>1519711
Whoops: I forgot "?".
hehe

[Anonymous No.1519749]

bumping for interest.

[Anonymous No.1519752]

>>1519628

[Anonymous No.1519895]

Oh no's!

[Anonymous No.1520041]

bump-a-dump

[Anonymous No.1520043]

Fucking stop bumping this dead thread.

[Anonymous No.1520082]

Bump

U Mad?

[Anonymous No.1520087]

bump

[Anonymous No.1520089]

I bought this recently. I have no clue how readable it'll be, be here goes nothing.

[Anonymous No.1520116]

It's interesting that someone (much) earlier said to read Kierkegaard like poetry... I find him very quotable, but pretty incomprehensible on the whole. He has little pieces of insight, but his overall views seem very inconsistent.
The whole teleological suspension of the ethical, the way I read it, isn't so much a justification for wrongdoing, but a reaction to religion without sacrifice (with the Abraham example being kind of a weak analogy, since it ended up being generally understood as justification). He believed that faith didn't mean anything if it didn't require anything from you, not that you should claim God made you act badly.
I don't know, he just seems like a tragically fucked up individual, but his ponderings occasionally touch upon something that seems to go deeper

[Anonymous No.1520127]

>>1519252
existentialism is really difficult to compare to any other philosophy, because it's very fluid.
I suppose there could be some 'Randians' who try to adapt some of its concepts, but it seems like some of it would be mutually exclusive, mostly because I find most who adhere to her beliefs to be relatively self-ignorant, and the whole idea of an individual being in constant development and striving is contradictory

[Anonymous No.1520138]

>>1520127
In the sense that objectivism claims that this reality IS reality and you can't pussyfoot your way out of it.
Existentialism posits that we must accept reality and stop living in some sort of precontrived role
That's what I meant

[Anonymous No.1520147]

>>1520138
I may not have a full understanding of the basic ideas, then, but I don't see that there is a solid definition of reality that is central to existentialism. Just as different existentialists had different opinions about the existence or nonexistence of God, I believe they also had different understandings of what constitutes reality. But I may be wrong about that

[Anonymous No.1520185]

>>1520116
>Since my earliest childhood a barb of sorrow has lodged in my heart. As long as it stays I am ironic — if it is pulled out I shall die.
>People understand me so little that they do not even understand when I complain of being misunderstood.
>I have just now come from a party where I was its life and soul; witticisms streamed from my lips, everyone laughed and admired me, but I went away — yes, the dash should be as long as the radius of the earth's orbit ——————————— and wanted to shoot myself.

Seems pretty fucked up and angsty to me

[Anonymous No.1520248]

>>1520116

He seems inconsistent because he was writing under a different pen names. The different characters he wrote as had different views. He didn't publish much under his own name while he was alive.

[Anonymous No.1520265]

>>1520248
very true, but hardly the basis for something that can be identified as a philosophy

[Anonymous No.1520316]

>>1520248
what has to be taken into acount is that Kierkegaard trolled hegel relentlessly, and some of the pseudonyms he wrote under were parody of hegel

[Anonymous No.1520635]

bumping for pleasure.

[Anonymous No.1520643]

rumping for morality

[Anonymous No.1521040]

I don't know much about his philosophy besides the near Islamic level of transcendence attributed to God and his thoughts on boredom being the cause of all pointless human activity (which seemed to be pretty much everything.)

Anyways, OP, I love that picture. u got any background info on it?


>>1512008
>>1513001

>>this pic is for you guys...

[Anonymous No.1521058]

Can anyone recommend me some books on Hegel and dialectics?

[Anonymous No.1521072]

>>1521058
Isn't Hegel and the Dialectics some prog rock band?

There are plenty of books that look at Kant, Hegel and Fichte and the Hegelian Dialectic. I don't know one that's massively better than the others.

[Anonymous No.1521096]

>>1521072
okay, thanks

[Anonymous No.1521438]

>>1521040
>thanks, bro

[Anonymous No.1521466]

>>1521040
>>1521040
i just imagegoogle kirkegaard and lookid for lolzy pic

[Anonymous No.1521921]

one last bump

[Anonymous No.1522214]

one last, last bump