Kierkegaard was a homo

[Anonymous No.2359609]

ITT: We hate on Kierkegaard.

>mfw I'm Kierkeshit
>mfw I believe you need to have unjustified and absurd faith
>mfw nothing can exist or have meaning outside oneself and one's faith, effectively.

[Anonymous No.2359618]

>mfw I'm kierkegaard and troll people as hard from the grave as I did when I was alive
>mfw I'm kierkegaard and chinks learn Danish, a most useless language, just to read me
>mfw I'm kierkegaard and I have a research institute dedicated to me

[Anonymous No.2359623]

>>2359618
>>2359609
>mfw it's the same face

[Anonymous No.2359645]

>mfw I'm Kierkegaard whose hair is more fabulous than all of yours.

[Anonymous No.2359663]

2deep4u + umad

[Anonymous No.2359671]

>trolling Kierkegaard

Can i know why?

[Anonymous No.2359674]

>>2359645
I took a picture of him to the hairdresser once, true story.

[Anonymous No.2359675]

[Anonymous No.2359696]

just finished fear and trembling. don't think "teleological suspension of the ethical" is a good justification for abraham's actions but its a nice tool that i'll use in other areas. that's what you don't get. so what if you don't buy his conclusions on faith or anything else? he is one of the greatest destroyers in philosophy, you can learn so many techniques to hammer away at totalizing systems (like Hegel's, as he often does). by doing so you carve out your own freedom by creating cracks in systems that purport to fit you in nicely somewhere.

[Anonymous No.2359732]

>mfw I'm kierkegaard
>mfw the girl I left hooks up with another man within a month
>mfw the rest of my existence is spent in depression

[Anonymous No.2359739]

>>2359732

lol is that actually him?

[Anonymous No.2359742]

>>2359739
That's August Strindberg for God's sake

[Anonymous No.2359751]

>>2359645
>mfw I'm Kierkegaard, and I'm the star of a vampire romance novel.

[Anonymous No.2359759]

>>2359609

mfw Murka-friend can't understand freedom as something one struggles with

[Anonymous No.2359760]

>mfw kerkegaurd

[Anonymous No.2359766]

Wasn't Kierk the embodiment of betaness?

[Anonymous No.2359768]

>>2359766
I never thought of it that way, but.....

Yes

[Anonymous No.2359774]

>>2359766
I've never thought of it this way entry-level pleb.

[Anonymous No.2359777]

>>2359766

No. he broke off the engagement. Fuck that bitch.

very alpha

[Anonymous No.2359779]

>>2359777
All his philosophy was pretty much based on his drama after rejecting her

She found another guy to fuck

He was forever alone

[Anonymous No.2359781]

>>2359779

psychological reductivism = can't admit 2deep4u

[Anonymous No.2359783]

>>2359779
Come to /lit/ for your favorite complex philosophies reduced to memes!

[Anonymous No.2359784]

>>2359766
Killing your god is pretty alpha imo.
Though he never did, so yes.

[Anonymous No.2359789]

Yes, I also blame him for ruining the reputation of my surname which is almost the same as his. And for getting people to continually ask me whether I am related to him.

>mfw I'm kierkegaard and chinks learn Danish, a most useless language, just to read me

Not that useless. Very similar to Norwegian and Swedish, so one can read those with some proficiency as well if one learns Danish.

Hate him mostly for being such a bad philosopher.

[Anonymous No.2359793]

>>2359783

this is why we need a /phi/ board. For those who think 4chan is the place to discuss complex philosophies.

commence the petitioning of the moot!

[Anonymous No.2359802]

>>2359793
As much as I would like to see that happen,
I don't think it would be much better than here.

[Anonymous No.2359805]

>>2359789

>Not that useless. Very similar to Norwegian and Swedish, so one can read those with some proficiency as well if one learns Danish.


Awesome. Then you can go question your existence in all of scandinavia

[Anonymous No.2359814]

>>2359793
>>2359783
>>2359781
same person

[Anonymous No.2359824]

>>2359781
You have to dig deeper, DEEPER

[Anonymous No.2359834]

>>2359802

who says it has to be good? it could serve as a decoy for the pretentious

[Anonymous No.2359842]

>>2359834
>implying there wouldn't be idiots going >>>/phi/ all the time

[Anonymous No.2359851]

>>2359842
He's implying that that would be a good thing, leaving /lit/ idiot-free, which I don't see happening.

[Anonymous No.2359856]

>Implying kierkegaard isn't the greatest existentialist AND theological philosopher of all times.

oh /lit/, you're so silly.

[Anonymous No.2359860]

>>2359789
Do you also think Nietzsche was a bad philosopher? What is wrong with their leanings?

[Anonymous No.2359870]

>>2359860
Yes.

As a friend put it to me yesterday, their thinking/writing is too fluffy.

[Anonymous No.2359885]

>>2359870
Both you and your friend are plebs who cannot into Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.2359900]

Kierkegaard is so important in our theological debate i think, since we need to accept that to have faith, you have to leap into the absurd. This CANNOT be argued against, but if the theists accept this, that they cannot reason for their faith, they will be rejected by the academic society. But they will at least be tolerated, which they shouldn't be now, intelligent design et cetera.
Kierkegaard would call intelligent design blasphemous, not evolutionary scientists.

[Anonymous No.2359946]

>During most of his life Wittgenstein took great interest in Kierkegaard. It could well be that this interest goes back to his youth in Vienna when he donated a sum of money to Theodor Haecker who through his translations and own writings introduced Kierkegaard to an Austrian audience. At any rate his friend Norman Malcolm much later reports that Wittgenstein held Kierkegaard in esteem and referred to him "with something of awe in his expression as a 'really religious' man". According to another friend, O'Drury, he even called Kierkegaard "a saint" and "by far the most profound thinker of the last century". Malcolm also tells us that Wittgenstein had read THE CONCLUDING UNSCIENTIFIC POSTSCRIPT but found it "too deep" for him.
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2359953]

what does ITT mean?

[Anonymous No.2359970]

>>2359953
"I'm [a] Tremendous Tosser"

[Anonymous No.2359971]

>>2359953
Internet Technology Theatre.

[Anonymous No.2359991]

>>2359953
In this trend, like "in this trend of hating of Kierkegaard, I'll state the following"

[Anonymous No.2359994]

>>2359953
I think that...

[Anonymous No.2360000]

>>2359953
"It's true that"

[Anonymous No.2360007]

>>2359953
"I talk to", as in "I talk to those who think that..."

[Anonymous No.2360013]

>>2359953
It's a deformed "InTo iT"

[Anonymous No.2360037]

I love Kierkegaard personally.

[Anonymous No.2360048]

>>2359675

[Anonymous No.2360049]

>>2359953
I too think...

[Anonymous No.2360051]

Iesus, Teneo Te
Jesus, I have you. When you feel like you have backed someone into an intellectual corner.

[Anonymous No.2360058]

>>2359856
Behind Nietzsche or Heidegger.
2/10, bro.

[Anonymous No.2360062]

>>2360037
How readable/accessible is that book? I'm not well acquainted with philosophy but it caught my eye while I was browsing through Amazon the other day. If you reassure me well enough I'll buy it on Monday.

[Anonymous No.2360065]

>>2360058
>Heidegger
Poor man's Kierkegaard and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.2360129]

>>2360062
Very accessible. Kierkegaard just sort of talks about things. His approachability is probably a big part of why he's so widely liked.

>A despairing man is in despair over something. So it seems for an instant, but only for an instant; that same instant the true despair manifests itself, or despair manifests itself in its true character. For in the fact that he despaired of something, he really despaired of himself, and now would be rid of himself. Thus when the ambitious man whose watchword was "Either Caesar or nothing" does not become Caesar, he is in despair thereat. But this signifies something else, namely, that precisely because he did not become Caesar he now cannot endure to be himself. So properly he is not in despair over the fact that he did not become Caesar, but he is in despair over himself for the fact that he did not become Caesar...In a profounder sense it is not the fact that he did not become Caesar which is intolerable to him, but the self which did not become Caesar is the thing that is intolerable; or, more correctly, what is intolerable to him is that he cannot get rid of himself. If he had become Caesar he would have been rid of himself in desperation, but now that he did not become Caesar he cannot in desperation get rid of himself. Essentially he is equally in despair in either case, for he does not possess himself, he is not himself. By becoming Caesar he would not after all have become himself but have got rid of himself, and by not becoming Caesar he falls into despair over the fact that he cannot get rid of himself. Hence it is a superficial view (which presumably has never seen a person in despair, not even one’s own self) when it is said of a man in despair, "He is consuming himself." For precisely this it is he despairs of, and to his torment it is precisely this he cannot do, since by despair fire has entered into something that cannot burn, or cannot burn up, that is, into the self.

[Anonymous No.2360159]

>>2360129
>A despairing man is in despair over something. For in the fact that he despaired of something, he really despaired of himself, and now would be rid of himself. When the ambitious man whose watchword was "Either Caesar or nothing" does not become Caesar, it is not the fact that he did not become Caesar which is intolerable to him, but that he cannot get rid of himself and become Caesar. Hence it is a superficial view to say "He is consuming himself," for precisely this it is he despairs of.

ftfk

Much better.

[mathfag No.2360166]

i can't find a pdf of either/or anywhere, and the closest decent bookshop is about eight hours by car.

[Anonymous No.2360169]

If you're an atheist and you hate Kierkegaard, you clearly don't understand him. I'm not saying he should convert you, far from it. You should be able to use Kierkegaard's ideas to express existentialism to the religious. Religious people don't get existentialism. Just like they don't fully appreciate the insight of Nietzsche or Buddhism. Religious people are concerned with existential thoughts even though they don't admit it because they think they've surpassed it when really all they've done is cut a short cut through the maze wall. Whenever they do encounter Existentialism they dismiss it lazily usually by misinterpreting Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard doesn't agree with them and if they knew better they wouldn't agree with Kierkegaard. If they could be made to understand Kierkegaard then they would encounter Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus and have a more complete understanding of their being.

[Anonymous No.2360171]

>>2360166
Well, you're a dick and you deserve it.

[mathfag No.2360180]

>>2360171
i deserve not to be able to find either/or? why.

[Anonymous No.2360184]

>>2360180
Well, you're a dick

[mathfag No.2360202]

>>2360184
have i offended you in any way?

[Anonymous No.2360222]

>>2360166
You seem like a cool guy so here.
They didn't have it at my book store.
I love Either/Or

http://www.mediafire.com/?dlf94zkajsymzck

[Anonymous No.2360233]

>>2360169

This. I'm an atheist and appreciate existentialism greatly. Religionfags remain confused.

[mathfag No.2360247]

>>2360222
thank you very much!

[Anonymous No.2360257]

>>2359789

So you can learn two and a half languages (Norwegian and Danish might as well be one language, eff you nationalists) to speak to fewer people than there are in… Florida.

[Anonymous No.2360259]

>>2360257

Also: http://youtu.be/8_iixmqSBQw

[mathfag No.2360277]

>>2360257
but you know, florida isn't exactly the world's center of literature. and there's a whole lot of cool guys whom you can read if you know danish/norwegian/swedish.

it's almost never useless to learn a language.

[Anonymous No.2360287]

>>2360277
unless you learn esperanto

[Anonymous No.2360699]

>>2360257
Yes, when you put it that way, it sounds worse than it is. There may not be very many Scandinavians, but learning a foreign language is a very valuable thing. Besides, for a native speaker of English, these are among the easiest languages to learn (Norwegian being the easiest). Well, not counting constructed languages (like Esperanto).

Also, I forgot to add. One can speak with people from Greenland and Faroe Islands as well (most of them learn Danish). This is a rather large area on the map.

Then there is the literature one can read in its original language.

[Anonymous No.2360704]

Marry and you will regret it etc
Dude had issues

[Anonymous No.2360705]

>>2360287
You are wrong. It is very useful to learn Esperanto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperanto

And, the quality of people who can speak EO is really high. One can see this from the fact that EO Wikipedia is just as large (# of articles) as DA Wikipedia, even though DA has a lot more speakers. The highest estimate of how many can speak EO is about 2,000,000. That's less than half of speakers of DA and very likely very inflated.

[Anonymous No.2360717]

>>2360704
wow...

are you married or just bigot?

[Anonymous No.2360737]

>>2360717
are you entirely aware of what I'm talking about? There was a bit more to that quote than the first sentence.

[Anonymous No.2360752]

>>2360277

I'm not saying it's useless, I'm saying Scandinaviafag's reasons were kind of silly, because it isn't super useful. And Florida may not be, but English is.

I am all for learning small languages (hell, I read Ancient Greek and actually would like to learn Danish myself), but I don't pretend it's useful in a non–hobbyist/intellectual–stimulation sense.

[Anonymous No.2360757]

>>2360169

totally agree. wiki is interesting on this:

Influenced
Adorno · Auden · Barth · Becker · Bergson · Binswanger · Bonhoeffer · Borges · Brandes · Brunner · Buber · Camus · Croxall · de Beauvoir · Derrida · Dreyfus · Frankl · Gadamer · Heidegger · Hesse · Ibsen · Jaspers · Kafka · Marcel · Marcuse · May · Muggeridge · Percy · Rilke · Sartre · Shestov · Strindberg · Tillich · Unamuno · Updike · Urs von Balthasar · Welsh · Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.2362135]

But I dont hate him. He's one of my favorites.

[Anonymous No.2362156]

>mfw I was the first actual existentialist
>mfw I published a book in 1944 destroying all philosophical and religious thought that kept me back from intellectual freedom whilst Kierkegaard was still and would ever be struggling with his God
>mfw I was a zen master in disguise stating that things have no inherent value or meaning in themselves, only what I project on it, I being not some sort of tangible self but the "creative nothing".
>mfw Nietzsche said nothing about me because every time he tried he felt his own philosophy fall apart before the bullwark of my glorious egoism
>mfw I can't be touched, won't be touched, haven't been touched
>mfw the person who put the most effort in destroying me came no further than "he doesn't take in consideration the historical hurr" (not understanding existentialist thought departing from the experience of the self) and "he supported free trade/wasn't a communist and that's not nice."

[Anonymous No.2362206]

>>2360257
Culture isn't spread as thin in Europe as it is in America.

[Anonymous No.2362392]

Buddha was the first existentialist.

[Anonymous No.2362399]

>>2359696
Foucault does that without being bullshit.

Your move, Kierkefriend.

[Deep&Edgy !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 No.2362402]

>>2362156
oh boy this guy again

[Anonymous No.2362407]

>>2362156
It's funny because [NAME REDACTED] spent books trying to prove that people are primarily motivated by their own desires, and after that, she came to the conclusion that it's absolutely fine to be a complete asshole to everyone.

Meanwhile, Stirner just started from that assumption, and never reached anywhere near the heights of colossal douchiness that she did.

>>2362402
Why don't you like Stirner?

[Deep&Edgy !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 No.2362416]

>>2362407
I like Stirner. I just don't think he's the bees knees, although he is certainly worth a read. He writes poorly, he has all this post-hegelian bluster and he spends most of the book beating a horse he killed within the first quarter of it, or to be generous, half. I don't think he follows his thought through to the utmost on a number of areas.

[Anonymous No.2362430]

>>2362156
>>mfw I published a book in 1944 destroying all philosophical and religious thought that kept me back from intellectual freedom whilst Kierkegaard was still and would ever be struggling with his God
Kierkegaard's struggling with his God is identical at Stirner's struggling with the "nothing" that bases his cause. Kierkegaard's belief has nothing to do with christianity as we know it.

>>2359900
>Kierkegaard would call intelligent design blasphemous, not evolutionary scientists.
Bullshit. Have you even read him?

[Anonymous No.2362431]

>>2362392
The sophists were, silly.

Officially though, it's K

[Anonymous No.2362440]

>>2362430
ugh, sorry about the half part of the post. Misunderstood it the first time I read it.

[Anonymous No.2362442]

>>2362430
ugh, sorry about the second half part of the post. Misunderstood it the first time I read it.

[Anonymous No.2362711]

>>2362416

"That guy" here, and thanks for recognizing. I'm very interested in which ways you think he didn't follow through.

Also, I myself don't think Stirner is the be all and end all of philosophy, but I find him strangely, almost suspiciously ignored in most discussions (not just on this board, everywhere) so I try to summon him where appropriate.

I do agree with you on the lousy writing though, in the sense that he repeats himself a lot. But I can't help but think it's party a parody of the philosophical climate of his time. When he is at his best however, he is glorious.

[Anonymous No.2362713]

>>2362392
the first guy to wonder why he exists is the first existentialist. was that guy buddha?

[Anonymous No.2362717]

>>2362713

That's a rather wide interpretation of what existentialism is. In that case, it was probably Satan.

[Anonymous No.2362736]

>>2362717
Obviously.

[Anonymous No.2363233]

Hemmingway is an existentialist too, most people overlook it.

[Anonymous No.2364111]

>>2362711
>I find him strangely, almost suspiciously ignored in most discussions

Marx commenced probably the most successful intellectual beatdown on Stirner which left him practically erased from history.

[Anonymous No.2364119]

>>2364111
Libertarians seem to be re-embracing him. He's like Ayn Rand without the ethical egoism/free market capitalism, or something like that.

[Anonymous No.2364167]

>>2364111

http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html
http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html

Links provide a far more detailed look on Stirner's "disappearance".

[Anonymous No.2364181]

>>2364111
Marx does tend to do that. His critiques are fucking devastating.

[Anonymous No.2364253]

>>2362206

>mfw you haven't traveled widely in Europe or America

[Anonymous No.2364278]

>>2362711
Stirner is great but he is ultimately great in materialism. Kierkegaard deals in the same respects but to idealism.

Marx tried to critique Stirner. He shelved his critique cause he couldn't figure out fundamentally how Stirner could be wrong. None of them could really figure out how. The problem was that they were all Hegelian. Also, i fucking love how Stirner writes.

[Anonymous No.2365252]

>>2364111
Have you tried to read said critique by Marx? I've read rental contracts that were more interesting. The only reason it is accepted in some circles is so that people don't have to deal with Stirner themselves.

>>2364278
I wouldn't call Stirner a materialist. I think of him actually as more of a nondualist in the material/spiritual sense.

I have yet to get into Kierkegaard properly, but I've bought Fear & Trembling some time ago. Would that be a good place to start?

[Anonymous No.2365267]

>>2365252
>I've read rental contracts that were more interesting.
Rental contracts are always interesting since they involve a decent amount of my money going out every month. It doesn't get much more interesting than that.

[Anonymous No.2365273]

>>2365267
>implying it was my rental contract

[Anonymous No.2365276]

>>2365273
One way or another it'll involve your money. Otherwise, stop being weird.

[Anonymous No.2365295]

>>2365276
you just didn't get it... And I'm not even the guy you were responding to.