Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I still love Kierkegaard

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#81

Post by mr_toad »

paulpauper wrote: post #62
interfixus wrote: post #13

Kierkegaard annoys the crap out out of me, as almost all philosophers do. But I will say this for the guy: He had humour. A weird, understated, tangled one, but he had it. Mind you, it is so tied up with his native language and culture, it ought not travel well. And judging by whatever translations I have seen, it hasn't. His worldwide fame is still a mystery to me. And by the way, correct pronunciation is something…

why would a philosopher be annoying. confusing, certainly, but annoying?

Socrates was annoying enough to get himself poisoned.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#82

Post by flukus »

mmyyyy wrote: post #69
jmcqk6 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>God sacrificing his own Son, which is also Him, in place of all sacrifices. The twist is more complex than that. God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences…

As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Literally ALL basic tenets of Christianity are misunderstood and distorted. And while I acknowledge that part of the problem is the ignorance of some Christian leaders and ministers, it's definitely not the whole problem. Intellectual hon…

> As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology.

Can you come up with an explanation that is succinct and correct? All the christian apologetics I read end up saying virtually the same thing, they just pretend they aren't by saying the same thing in a 10,000 word treatise.

It's like every time I read about how $deity isn't a violation of cause and effect, it always ends up being some long winded special pleading.

> You claim this is the Christian view of the atonement. Where do you get this? Is it scriptural? Patristic?

Could you break down each part of the fairly short sentence and explain how it's wrong? Preferably without the quantum jesus that both is and is not god.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#83

Post by jabretti »

qntty wrote: post #38
interfixus wrote: post #13

Kierkegaard annoys the crap out out of me, as almost all philosophers do. But I will say this for the guy: He had humour. A weird, understated, tangled one, but he had it. Mind you, it is so tied up with his native language and culture, it ought not travel well. And judging by whatever translations I have seen, it hasn't. His worldwide fame is still a mystery to me. And by the way, correct pronunciation is something…

Can I ask which philosophers don't annoy you?

Not the OP but to me a non-annoying philosopher would be someone like Russell, Quine or Dennett.

A good philosopher takes the time to define terms, explain the problem clearly, explain other possible views on the matter in a fair and accurate way, then explain their own view as clearly as possible, and then ideally pre-emptively discuss several possible objections or misunderstandings. A good philosopher understands that the subject matter at hand is already very difficult, and therefore the philosopher has an obligation to be clear.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#84

Post by baldfat »

My son is named Soren after Kierkegaard. I was a Theology/Philosophy Major and there isn't a single theologian/philosopher that means as much to me.

I figure if I named my son after him he will have to read some of his writing and POSSIBLY gain some thoughts that lead to other thoughts that he will always hold dear.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#85

Post by baldfat »

interfixus wrote: post #13

Kierkegaard annoys the crap out out of me, as almost all philosophers do. But I will say this for the guy: He had humour. A weird, understated, tangled one, but he had it. Mind you, it is so tied up with his native language and culture, it ought not travel well. And judging by whatever translations I have seen, it hasn't. His worldwide fame is still a mystery to me. And by the way, correct pronunciation is something…

I loved Kierkegaard for his prayers and parables. As for me being a Theological student in grad school his "Practice in Christianity" was read in one sitting at the library, I just picked it off the shelf to see. I ended up buying the same exact library edition on EBay for my birthday. He isn't an easy read but the journey is worth it to understand what he was trying to get across. I always try to get people to read his later works.

His earlier books can drive a person crazy on one hand and his thoughts will never leave you on the other. Fear and Trembling is written from as a non-believer, Johannes DE SILENTIO, trying to understand God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. The conclusion after 160 pages? He still had no idea. That journey of thought through the book 20 years later still travels with me. I'm okay not understanding or having an opinion on everything. That unusual for Theologian students (Not professors). Faith doesn't always = understanding or a complete knowledge. Now is important and those around you are. (Also helps to think that way after my 15 year old sister passed away from brain cancer and my son at 12 from bone cancer)

Also the BIG one for me was the idea of the Demonic Despair where a person's identity was in the tragic absurdness of themselves when not whole. Once we understand that we alone are responsible for having an identity in our experiences and to something higher then us lead me to a conversation with my mom. My mom is now an Licensed Counselor and her final thesis was based on Soren's "Acts of Love."

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#87

Post by baldfat »

hprotagonist wrote: post #3
pmoriarty wrote: post #2

Reading Kierkegaard was one of the low points of my philosophy studies. K writes in such a rambling, self-indulgent, muddle-headed way. Every few hundred pages there might be a small gem, but for me it was not anywhere near worth digging through all the refuse for. As far as proto-existentialists go, give me Leopardi over Kierkegaard any day.

> K writes in such a rambling, self-indulgent, muddle-headed way. When he chose to, it was on purpose. He was wholly capable of writing clearly. Nesting levels of meta-text, intentionally adopting a different authorial voice as a metatextual gambit, etc. were all pretty new things when he was alive. They're trite or annoying now, but it's still important to know that he wasn't just being a whiny prat. They're signs t…

I blame the professor's reading material.

Read Soren K. when he was writing with his own name. I taught the Philosophy class on Kierkegaard every semester, because our Philosophy Chair hated him so much. We ended up being good friends and he now actually enjoys S.K. now.

S.K. is the most influential and impacting philosopher of the 20th Century (Arguably but I'm pretty sure I'm right). You might not like what you know of him but he took over almost all the theological/philosophy thought by storm 50 years after his death. Heck there were no English translations till the 1940s. He went from a forgotten Danish philosopher to the founder of Existentialism. Hegel never even knew he was alive let alone read his rebuke to his system of philosophy, but S.K. surpassed all of his contemporaries.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#88

Post by baldfat »

bambax wrote: post #4

> Kierkegaard’s greatest illustration of this is his retelling of the story of Abraham and Isaac in Fear and Trembling (1843). Abraham is often held up as a paradigm of faith because he trusted God so much he was prepared to sacrifice his only son on his command. Kierkegaard makes us realize that Abraham acted on faith not because he obeyed a difficult order but because lifting the knife over his son defied all moral…

Fear and Trembling was written under the name of Johannes DE SILENTIO. S.K. was writing under the view point of a non-believer trying to figure out God requesting Abraham to sacrifice his son. S.K. was a Christian and a Theologian and was trying to voice the opposition.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#89

Post by emmelaich »

jabretti wrote: post #83
qntty wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask which philosophers don't annoy you?

Not the OP but to me a non-annoying philosopher would be someone like Russell, Quine or Dennett. A good philosopher takes the time to define terms, explain the problem clearly, explain other possible views on the matter in a fair and accurate way, then explain their own view as clearly as possible, and then ideally pre-emptively discuss several possible objections or misunderstandings. A good philosopher understands…

Russell as philosopher may not be annoying but he's a smug prat when writing about contemporary politics and society.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#90

Post by jdale27 »

baldfat wrote: post #85
interfixus wrote: post #13

Kierkegaard annoys the crap out out of me, as almost all philosophers do. But I will say this for the guy: He had humour. A weird, understated, tangled one, but he had it. Mind you, it is so tied up with his native language and culture, it ought not travel well. And judging by whatever translations I have seen, it hasn't. His worldwide fame is still a mystery to me. And by the way, correct pronunciation is something…

I loved Kierkegaard for his prayers and parables. As for me being a Theological student in grad school his "Practice in Christianity" was read in one sitting at the library, I just picked it off the shelf to see. I ended up buying the same exact library edition on EBay for my birthday. He isn't an easy read but the journey is worth it to understand what he was trying to get across. I always try to get people to read…

Thanks for your comments. Does Kierkegaard by any chance suggest a way out of this “Demonic Despair”? A path to follow to find “an identity in our experiences and to something higher than us”?
Post reply on HN