Understanding Kierkegaard

[tbieter]

My son sent me this video this morning because he knows I love Kierkegaard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtlwWMJILBA

Last semester, he took a philosophy class, I think cause he knows how much I enjoy philosophy now and was curious perhaps. Whatever the reason, I secretly wished that I could take a class as well...someday maybe.

I asked him if the class was hard (he got a b)...he said, 'sort of, yeah."

Anyway, I thought I would share the video and my reply so that we could maybe get a discussion going about K or some snide remarks about my understanding....lol. I would welcome both!

Thanks for the video, J.

I don't know what this guy is talking about...he read a much different K than I did. No wonder K got so pissed off at people. People just didn't get him. Trust me when I say K was not talking about Christianity so much as he was using Christianity in order to make a point...to show people something they have never considered before. If he was advocating Christianity as it is the highest goal a person could achieve, he would have strive to live that life. He didn't.

In fact, the woman he loved, who he was engaged to, he dumped...even though he remained in love with her. Her father even came to beg K to reconsider, as the shame K brought to her was too much. A distraught K could not do it even though he loved her...no one really knows why...instead he left for Germany and attended school where he wrote about his despair.

When his love was old , having married another man, she spoke of how she loved k. They had something powerful, but for whatever reason, the Christian thing to do... is not something k could do . Some believe his writings are an explanation to regine (his girl).

Whatever the reasons, to think K thought that Christianity was the ultimate highest "good" that one can achieve, is to miss the point. In fact, his books are funny as hell in sarcasm against Christianity. You actually laugh out loud he is so funny/ironic sometimes. K thought Christians missed the point, the only 'knight of faith' was someone who did what they thought was right no matter what society said...and there was no way they could make themselves understood, which makes it all the more isolating and rare.

He knew this from his subjective understanding and it is very clear to me this guy making the video didn't get it. I get k, because I am so like him it's not even funny. I think you would get him too. If you ever get a chance to read "fear and trembling' in the future (perhaps when I am dead you'll remember I said this and want to know more about your mom) you won't be sorry.

I read it in Disneyland, with Leslie. We'd be standing in line and I would crack up and tell her, "you gotta listen to this...!" And then I would read her a page. lol poor Leslie didn't get it...lol...I tried to explain but she still didn't get it. Oh well.

Anyway, the whole day going from ride to ride I was reading while we walked, stood in line, walked...etc. At the end of the day, we sat at the chicken place by the castle and I finished the book while the fireworks were going off. It was surreal. It was the first time I ever felt understood. Seriously amazing!

I hope one day that happens to you in whatever form it takes. I hope it is your wife....but even if it's a dumb book...lol...it still will make you feel well...understood, if that makes sense.

Love you,

Mom

An excellent video. I wonder what K says about the experience of mood.
Mood prevents the atheist from receptivity to K's thought. There is a valuable discussion of the importance of mood to perception and understanding in The Philosophy of Boredom which I recently read.
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Boredo ... BTYXP3AGGN

[Melchior]

Who the fuck gives a damn about Kierkegard? Why did you post this shit?

Um...because this is a philosophy forum and K was a philosopher? Perhaps you'd rather swap recipes and do each other's hair?

LOL! ..sure this is a philosophy forum, and you know ..philosophy = "love of wisdom".
So what wisdom are there to be found in Kirkegaard ...NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right!

[Arising_uk]

...
So what wisdom are there to be found in Kirkegaard ...NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is if you're a depressed Christian.

[artisticsolution]

...
So what wisdom are there to be found in Kirkegaard ...NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is if you're a depressed Christian.

Lol...thanks arising. ...didn't know I was depressed or a Christian.

[Obvious Leo]

...
So what wisdom are there to be found in Kirkegaard ...NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is if you're a depressed Christian.

Very perceptive.

As a non-believer I simply find Kierkegaard, boring but not noticeably more so than any other philosopher of religion.

[tbieter]

...
So what wisdom are there to be found in Kirkegaard ...NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is if you're a depressed Christian.

Very perceptive.

As a non-believer I simply find Kierkegaard, boring but not noticeably more so than any other philosopher of religion.

According to The Philosophy of Boredom, which I recently read, your mood (of the non-believer) prevents you from being receptive to things that are religious. I quote from page 111:

"A mood makes some experiences possible, others impossible. It conditions how the world - and therefore all objects and events- appears to us." See viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15762
My mentor teaches that the philosopher strives to be open to all things in reality. Every philosopher should strive to be open to things religious.

“The following are some of the features that distinguish emotion from moods. An emotion is a response to a specific stimulus that can be internal, like a belief or a memory. It is also generally agreed that emotions have intentional content, which is to say that they are about something, often the stimulus itself. Moods, on the other hand, are typically not about anything, and at least some of the time do not appear to be caused by a specific stimulus. Emotions also have a relatively brief duration—on the order of seconds or minutes—whereas moods last much longer. Most theories agree about these features of the emotions. Other features will be discussed in the course of this article. There is much less agreement, however, about most of these other features that the emotions may (or may not) have.” http://www.iep.utm.edu/emotion/

Here are the most important paragraphs on mood in the book:

“It is surely uncontroversial to claim that all cognition is conditioned by its context or situation, but a situation also requires a mood in order to be understood as a certain kind of situation. A situation may turn out to be dangerous only if the observer is attuned in such a way that the danger can emerge. Underlying all cognition are interests, and these interests must, in the final analysis, be understood in the light of moods. Perhaps it is most correct to say that we have cognition of a situation by virtue of the mood through which the situation is given to us. A mood is not merely a strictly subjective determination nor is it strictly objective. It is in the actual polarity that exists between humans and their surroundings. It is basically via a mood that we relate to our surroundings.

Being attuned is not merely an ontological determination of man, for it also makes up an epistemic condition for how objects can convey meaning in various sorts of ways. A mood makes some experiences possible, others impossible. It conditions how the world - and therefore also all objects and events - appears to us.”
from “On Attunement,” in A Philosophy of Boredom, Lars Svendsen, p. 111

[tbieter]

The great scholar Etienne Gilson made the same point on mood and impossibility relative to appreciating beauty. And, following Gilson, I criticized the philosopher Zizek regarding his reception and interpretation of the movie, The Sound of Music. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4909&p=114284&hilit ... on#p114284

[tbieter]

The great scholar Etienne Gilson made the same point on mood and impossibility relative to appreciating beauty. And, following Gilson, I criticized the philosopher Zizek regarding his reception and interpretation of the movie, The Sound of Music. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4909&p=114284&hilit ... on#p114284

Darwin also lost his aesthetic sensibility due to his scientific mood:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8588&hilit=robert+frost

[artisticsolution]

The great scholar Etienne Gilson made the same point on mood and impossibility relative to appreciating beauty. And, following Gilson, I criticized the philosopher Zizek regarding his reception and interpretation of the movie, The Sound of Music. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4909&p=114284&hilit ... on#p114284

Darwin also lost his aesthetic sensibility due to his scientific mood:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8588&hilit=robert+frost

Wow...I hope that never happens to me!

I didn't raise my children to be religious. I don't know if that was a good thing or a bad thing...I guess both in some ways.

Last year , i took my son and his girlfriend to the airport, for their 5 week vacation to hawaii, japan, and China.

When I got home my husband said, "So, were they excited? "

I said, " Do those two ever get excited about anything? "

He replied, "I think I might have seen one of them smile yesterday, but I'm not sure."

[Jaded Sage]

Fear and trembling was great. I love the part about the mountain and how he says all sectarians know the hardest life to live is that of the individual.