Kierkegaard: 3 Stages of Life (Path to the True Self)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas. Today they will be looking into the works of Soren Kierkegaard and his ideas around the 3 Stages of Life.
Kierkegaard believed all individuals were on a path to discovering their true self, however in order to achieve this they needed to pass through 3 stages, The Aesthetic, The Ethical and The Religious. This Existential approach to life allows everyone to create their own subjective truth, and once the individual has passed through the 3 stages they are complete and they are their true selves.
Watch as George and John discuss this further, looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - Existentialism eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QQBXY3
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QQBXY3
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QQBXY3
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QQBXY3
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QQBXY3
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QQBXY3
For an overview and introduction to Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology paperback set, available worldwide on Amazon:
Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
Check out the Philosophy Vibe merchandise store: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
0:00 - Introduction
0:51 - The Aesthetic Stage
1:47 - The Ethical Stage
2:40 - The Religious Stage
6:09 - The three stages in everday life
6:53 - Problems with the three stage theory
#kierkegaard #existentialism #philosophy
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - Existentialism eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QQBXY3
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QQBXY3
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QQBXY3
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QQBXY3
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QQBXY3
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QQBXY3
For an overview & intro to Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology paperback set, available worldwide on Amazon:
Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
This is a misunderstanding of Kierkegaard. There is no evolution from one stage to another. A person can CHOOSE any one of the three shapes of spirit or modes of existence. In fact, Kierkegaard is primarily attacking Hegel and his understanding of evolution and integration of faith and reason, individual and community, etc.
This video literally made my day. No fancy terms involved, everything explained in the most simplest manner.
Thank you so glad you enjoyed!
“Most simple” or “simplest”
“most simplest” is a double positive and therefore redundant.
Don’t get too excited, the video is wrong.
I love the skepticism of the guy in the purple shirt. In most philosophy videos it's just one train of thought that veers into comforting reassurance. It's great to have the option of rejecting and reconsidering the theories at hand. Plus the dialogue is perfectly deadpan. On both sides.
-Lauren
Thank you for this comment :) very happy this content is being well received and you are enjoying the format.
8:20 _"Okay so in a way this becomes objective"_
A universal subjectivity is not the same as an objectivity, it is an intersubjectivity.
I've just found out about this channel and was surprised that for the first time in my life I find some people talking about philosophical topics in depth with 2 or more arguments from both sides and not just a one-sided argument or taking a biased turn; I really appreciate this work. How can someone contact you guys? (Email etc.)
Thank you so much, we're happy you like the content :), you can reach us via email philosophyvibe@gmail.com
I asked a so called philosophy expert I finished the book but would like to know if it's right Zarathustra is walking down the mountain In part 4 and stopped at the ugliest man and read it backwards and forward a few times so are the people he's meeting on the way down character traits or religion's and is he saying go beyond God or be your own God
@@scottkraft1062 I would argue that it is both. Since the Ubermench is someone who goes beyond god BY becoming their own God. That's my take.
I can definitely relate this to myself
i love the work guys, thanks you
A pleasure, thanks for watching.
happy 100k!❤🎉
Great, simplified work of Kierkegaard, thanks a lot.
Regarding the objection raised at the last; Kierkegaard's saying the truth is subjective however the method to reach to truth could be objective as he formulated through three stages. The problem with the hedonistic approach to reach the truth is that they are not aware of such need and live without noticing it. That's why it cannot be considered as one of the subjective ways to the path of the truth.
Thank you, and great point!
I’m 23 years old and I feel like I’m at the third stage. Sometimes I don’t get enough sleep thinking about my mortality. I’ve been getting more and morr into religion and have told my parents about it. They say that is common for really grown people and that they find strange for someone my age to be thinking so much about the subject. Personally, it can sometimes be overwhelming.
I’m still 18. I’ve only just applied to university and feel like I am on stage 3. I am no longer interested in having sex as soon as possible (still a virgin) and no longer interested in partying or getting drunk (have never done either). I’ve been consistently involved in understanding the ethics surrounding abortion since I’ve been 15 and try to limit the wrongs I do (although I still fail very often due to weakness). I travelled deep into a nihilistic mindset early this year. The notion of moral nihilism haunted me and the idea that we are simply flesh bags of blood left my without sleep for many nights. The scale of the universe made everything feel meaningless. This was until I studied the philosophical arguments surrounding the existence of our Creator. I understood that theism is a rational position to hold, in spite of what certain philosophically inept new atheists may say. Although I have not reverted to any religion, (originally followed Sikhism) I understand that my sole purpose in life is to establish a relationship with the true God. I may never develop strong reasons to become a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Sikh etc, but I will always have faith in the one God of the Universe.
@@dad7547 cool
@@dad7547 Want to talk about what philosophical arguments you read and what the one God of the Universe is to you?
@@dad7547 - Kierkegaard’s philosophy on the three stages, was not that they were discrete and separate from each other. Similar to the stages of grieving, the stages overlap. So that at any phase in your life experience, and for your level of consciousness,
a certain stage would be the more predominant. To reply the counter argument made in the YT clip, Heidegger asserts "existence precedes essence".
nice video, you did a great job of explaining 👍
Thank you glad you enjoyed.
I love this channel
Thank you!!!!
Awesome video Great work 😊
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed.
Great channel
Thank you very much.
thank you
You're welcome
The second guy's voice is so funny 😂😂
-it was incorporated into Marvin the Paranoid Android
It would be better to think of Kierkegaard's three spheres - the aesthetic, ethical, and religious, not so much as stages but as analogous to three Russian dolls, the smallest being the aesthetic one, the middle one the ethical, and the largest the religious. At any stage in life, a person can always switch from one sphere to another, but living with religious (Christian) commitment, just like the largest Russian doll, eclipses or trumps the other spheres. Living only in the aesthetic sphere undermines commitment and can only lead to nihilism or the leveling of meaningful differences. The ethical sphere offers a more constant life but this is subject to revision and leveling due to public (bourgeois) expectations, which also undermines commitment. The religious (Christian) sphere motivates commitment not only to religious truth but also enables more meaningful differences to be made in the practices embedded in the ethical and aesthetic spheres.
This channel provides a very thorough analysis of the subject. Could you also make a video on Kierkegaard's "Absolute Paradox"?
Thank you! And yes we'll look into it :)
Love your channel, thank you for sharing knowledge. 🙏💙
A pleasure, thank you for watching :)
Thank you gentlemen, always such fine work. Shine On. :)
Thank you :) So happy to see you're enjoying the videos.
Finally a philosophical video with easy to understand language. Thank you!
A pleasure, thank you for watching.
So I agree with this philosophy - I can hold these truths to be self evident as we witness this evolution often in others and ourselves. One aspect that is a bit off for us is that the process is non linear here. In life we go through many stages and all three of these stages are always present and used in different ways and has nothing to do with age and maturity but with realization with time and what the person has been through. It all depends on how you se these moments in your life and your perspective. What do you think of this take? Do you think there are children who are already at the ethical/religion stage and elders still trapped in hedonism?
Remember he is a Christian existentialist this can also be applied to relationships 3 stages the sexual the ethical the religious whatever that can be and he had a girlfriend as a muse and believed in stages and process relationships and a lot of this is expressed in jordan peterson ideas on men's approach to relationships and aftermath but as invidual I think those that are stuck in the aesthetic stage become problems within Freudian psychology of the super ego which is a mix of their IDs that conflicts with your ego the idea of negating the aesthetic into the ethical is criticized as that's what I did was went right into the ethical they don't seem to like it then reversing into the aesthetic to track their ID to create a super ego that's criminal in nature but not a criminal offense that defies your ultimate ego and authenticity as a person that's existentialism in a nutshell it's dirty I even got a master bachelor degree for it
Great video!. Just an open question regarding the last argument in the video. Could it be better to use the term empiricism instead of subjectivity?. Maybe hes saying that you must take the leap of faith to have access to the experience that leads to somekind of religiosity, and its only subjective to the extent that every experience is subjective. Could we say the second stage it's more rationalistic and the third its purely emprical from the epistemologycal point of view, and that is why the leap its necessary in his view? Thanx. Lovin' the channel!
Your channel is my favorite way to dive deeper on philosophical subjects. I enjoy the back and forth. Keep them coming!
Thank you :)
Like it🤗
Thank you.
i feel like you could still apply this without necessarily having a defined religion. it reminds me of a theme you find in a lot of carl jungs work which is the true self, the part of you that knows exactly what you need to be fulfilled, although it may be obscured by various traumas and neuroses. maybe faith could be interpreted as an absolute trust in this true self, despite all rational evidence saying that you are defined by your traumas and neuroses. take a leap of faith in believing that your true self will shine through despite all the setbacks we experience.
I don’t know much about this guy but I found a book and just started reading it and I came across a quote that sound familiar to me. I decided to look him up to see more of his work.
Do you guys do Twitter?
btw, I really enjoy your contents from Japan!
Thank you, so glad you’re enjoying it. We are not really active on Twitter, just TH-cam.
Hello from New Zealand -really enjoyed this too.
Due to lock down I'm trying to watch everything on YT -but now after watching this...
🙏🏽
I'm 22 and already on my 3rd stage
It is debated if Kierkegaard meant that truth itself is subjective or that truth needs to be experienced subjectively. If he meant that truth itself is subjective than I agree with the criticism offered in the video. He has undermined his three objective stages of selfhood.
All truth is subject to Gods Truth, which along with "Self", Kierkegaard referred to both as Christ...
Which is by far the most important, true, and logical ideology to have when contemplating existence.
It is a whole thing including, whole thing scramble............ subjectivity is a subject to change.....
Almost there..............
how many video do you guys have ? i want to watch all of them?
So far we have 50 videos released, and then we have a bunch of extracts of those videos released as well. Hope you enjoy :)
Concluding there is no higher power can be considered a leap of faith too IMO.
So it's a kind of synretism ?
SK did not deny that there were objective realities. He compared the universal and the absolute.
I finally understood Kierkegaard's concept of the three stages of life thank you ❤
My nondenominational assertion concerning this topic. Being religious engages how you respond to prefixes. Prefixes such as supra-, meta-, and trans-. Either these are the dupery of neural circuitry or they point to.
👍👍👍
Another great conversation and presentation of the ideas of 'special' K. I don't want to be too hard on K because he came up with a revolutionary idea that made people think and kicked off Existentialism, which is the best thing that ever came out of continental philosophy. So lets give him some credit. BUT, stop and think how much logic has just been presented and built into justifying an argument that comes to an conclusion that's is admittedly absurd, or in other words not logical. We might as well convince people to believe in leprechauns or Hitler or the almighty power of butterscotch. Hear me loud and clear - I do not need a supreme personal deity to grant me a purpose for existence or a set of moral principles or to feel kinship with my fellow creatures or to feel a harmony with the universe. The axiom upon which this whole train wreck of an argument is based on is that we need such a needless hypothesis. So the axiom is wrong and the logic is absurd. Nice try big K. In fact anyone who follows rules because they were commanded to at risk of burning for eternity in hell, well, you might want to question the authenticity of that persons actions. Atheists are far far more ethical because they voluntarily choose to behave as civilize empathic human beings. If I thought my purpose was to worship some asshole god that allows children to starve to death in war zones I would really have existential anxiety coming out of my ass. Religion, of this sort at least, is outdated and N was right, god is dead, we out grew the need for that old story.
Sorry special K.
All of the good in this paragraph went out the window when you tried to use the overused 'God is bad because he lets children starve' argument. That line of logic has been debunked more times than I can count.
What about believing in something greater than yourself, would that be considered the religious? Even if its not a God per say.
I mean, what does "greater then yourself" mean if not some kind of Godly entity?
@@2tehnik 1. a simulation. or a grand machine like a superdeterministic universe
2. an alien civilization to whom we are mere toys
3. or just a great artistic picture, the universe, whatever its nature or whatever mysteries it hides
@@upublic 3 sounds potentially religious but the first two don't imo
@@2tehnik indeed, just greater than yourself (all 3). You can get humbling "feelies" for experiences significantly dissimilar to classic religions/god. Sure some similarities can always be found, (even for crazy opposite things like the "atheistic" totalitarian regimes which were vvvery religious. or Ayn's "objectivists" in the present haha), but it's always also possible to find people filled with awe without having a mystic bone inside them (Carl Sagan for instance)
Yes... but in reality everyone is basically religious except for those who are made free by the Truth, in which Kierkegaard referred to as Christ... Kierkegaard also referred to Christ as the Self. Believing in another self (or god or idol) above and before Christ would be sin...
Even "atheism" is a religion, it's basically taking pagan theology and translating it into sci-fi and getting people to believe that the mainstream pseudoscientific worldview exists and is the fact of reality, which it is not and is nothing more than pseudoscience... Heliocentrism is basically pagan Sun/Baal worship.
Belief in the absurd to achieve one's 'true self'... So that's how charismatic evangelists do it!
I never truly understood what Kierkegaard meant by “leap of faith” i mean.. i guess thats why it is a “leap of faith” but what i really didn’t understand was Kierkegaards rejection of any religious dogma… i think that religious dogma is the way to get to God, to find existential purpose. What Kierkegaard sounds like to me is to lock yourself in a room and just pray, without any preconceived notion of any sort of god; just make up our own god(s) in our head… this kinda sounds a bit like schizophrenia
It's a lot more complicated then just this, though. For one, Kierkegaard uses pseudonyms as characters to interact with each other. These characters don't just disagree with those in different stages, but those in the same as well. Putting a stamp on the aesthetic is particularly difficult, because he has lots of arguing characters (see 'The Banquet' in Stages of Life's Way). Outside of his purely religious works, it's difficult to tell just what Kierkegaard thought.
Johannes de Silentio (fictional author of Fear and Trembling) mentions both a 'divine' transcendence of the ethical and a 'demonic'. The leap is not always a good thing, but because either leap is based on the particular, not the universal, no specific rules can be used to define when the leap is divine and not demonic. De Silentio argues that we can tell that Abraham's particular leap is divine, but does not argue an overarching litmus test on the matter.
Also, Kierkegaard's chief fictional writer for the ethical, Judge Wilhelm, argues that the aesthetic is neutral whereas not only true good but also true evil can be found in the ethical stage. It seems to me this indicates that the ethical is not to be understand as a moral thing. It can be better or worse than what the aesthetic is, depending on if the rules set by society are good or bad. If my memory serves me right, Wilhelm makes little effort to explain differentiation between the good and the evil (which matches his self-affirming character quite well).
So being in the ethical or even taking the leap not only can be better than the aesthetic, it can also be much worse.
Kierkegaard is right there is no objectivity in faith, but he’s also wrong in the sense that is also subjectivity in faith, or truth is subjective. I would argue, that’s something presupposes and transcend both the object and subject, in regard to faith.
The 3 ages and the 3 ages in the ages it's in hegel we don't even need this one this is serious history of philosophy processes that supervene on each other are all isolated
arguing that Kierkegaard's philosophy is paradoxical is just further arguing his point. as Kierkegaard argued that faith and everything else is paradoxical.
I don't see any contradiction with something being both subjective and objective. If, say, we taste a strawberry, this experience of a strawberry is entirely unique and contained to our experience in the moment, and yet at the same time the experience of eating a strawberry will be similar for anyone in the world.
Both the subjective perspective and the objective perspective exist and are irreducible to each other. I think what Kierkegaard is really saying is that while the general form and structure of the 3 stages can be categorized, it is the immediate subjective experience which brings truth to this rational structure. We cannot live in rational concept alone, devoid of existential meaning.
(Though I do believe Kierkegaard was polemic enough to reject objectivity entirely, I see it as merely aesthetic, ironically enough. The greater synthesis would be to acknowledge both subjective/objective realities, but Kierkegaard wrote in opposition to the objective philosophy of the time).
I guess I agree, I'm only 29 though and I've already reached the last stage
Number 3: religion
Where there are three or more, they are without God.
Where there is one, "I AM" there with you.
Lift a Stone and you will find me, split a piece of Wood and you will find "ME".
TBH. Sounds like an "atheist" wrote this just to shit on understandings based upon the truth.
Kierkegaard was all for the Christian faith... This video basically just completely twists what Kierkegaard stood for... Anyone who reads and understands his writings would know that... Christ was the Truth Kierkegaard referred to...
Kierkegaard pointed out how absurd it was to blindly follow the crowd. And how important it is to be alone with God, with no other teacher accept God through the Truth.
There's no arguing Kierkegaard's position. He was quite clear in his writings. Only way anyone would try to argue Kierkegaard's writings is if they had a preconceived bias, who are part of the crowd.
You are absolutely right brother! To me, it looks like Philosophy Vibe only answers to cheap adulation. Otherwise, they would have had to answer your good argumentation. they probably want to maintain a tacky tension between atheism and faith...the main thing is thumbs up... clicks. Kierkegaard always argues from the perspective of a born-again Christian, as we say today. Here there is no mat flight for atheists or naturalists: Are you ready to take the leap of faith: yes or no? and nothing in between. Greetings from a 66 years old german scientist who has studied guys like Kierkegaard and Pascal in detail (my soulmates).
One iss I have with this is the refutation. Subjectivity is equivocated. Kierkegaard does not mean by subjectivity in the sense of the epiistemological subjectivists. Rather that truth appeals deeply to the individual, that you cannot capture the truth, but truth captures you. So you can have both.
Philosophers like Kierkegaard have always struck me as just projecting their own personal experiences onto these supposedly universal ideas that just have nothing backing them up whatsoever
I can see this and what I think is happening in the world and the people he is influenced by has him confused and not willing to be fully responsible for being self conscious about what it is and how he feels about him being alone with that one thought it doesn’t give you no room to grow but what I did learn was that he was in love with a young lady and got engaged but then broke it off because he felt that he would not be able to focus on god completely so they were both heart broken and the woman eventually married someone else knowing she had feelings for another man still and this man still loved her and knew he made a mistake after the break up, he felt that he didn’t really know why he chose to let her go cause if he knew god was possible of doing all things if he puts his head in the right place that he could have had the woman and still know god’s work. Because he knew she was married and made a mistake he shows accountability for the truth of being responsible for the engagement he once had now says that “It is naturally my will that my former fiancée, should inherited unconditionally what little I leave behind.” Anderson Leigh, Susan - On Kierkegaard Philosophers
What I see is change experiences can do that and I say that is important and that is what we want to see. He is not giving her this inheritance because of his guilt it is that he feels that he didn’t have to be married to make her a part of his natural law and the will to do as he pleases. There will be some confusion for people who have not lived to know whether or not something will work but they still focus on that one thing while we keep going knowing that it is more than what they share of themselves. Living to party, drink and trips is a wonderful thing but are you learning about the people you are around are you keeping it real with yourself cause god know the truth. This is how we can learn from a person’s own experiences about past thoughts. I have to read more but I don’t think that this guy was trying to intentionally do anything to hurt himself as well as others. That is my gut feeling and I could be wrong and don’t have a problem doing mor work when I learn something new about person that will change my mind or with continue to learn what he didn’t and that is to see you in people and people in you because the end goal is to be better human when we are living here on earth. He spent his life writing books about this love wanted but let go because he didn’t trust himself (god) all things are possible when you are doing something that makes you see self and not the invisible man it was him, this another reason he naturally wanted her to be the one to inherit …
Perhaps I am being cynical.
Step one: Experience the sensory interactions of the world.
Step two: Try to rationalise how the world is with how we think it should be.
Step three: Give up and hope a higher power is responsible for it.
I consider myself an atheist. I also subjectively feel something overwhelmingly inefable inside. A sensitivity to the suffering of this world. Great pity and compassion that leaves me isolated and reaching for something that I cannot find. I have a secret hope that God IS non existence and that our death is our eternal safety.
The earth gives us birth to all living things from ants to blue whales I made a few videos explaining enlightenment
Idk if Kierkegaard is famous for anything else but this video, especially the third stage/true self stuff, makes him sound ludicrous, one step above a guy on the street holding a Jesus Saves sign.
What anti climax. Ended with a challenging qurstion, unanswered. Click Bait.
If only you put the effort into philosophical accuracy rather than in silly cartoons.
The whole concept of True self is stupid. Zen teaches us to transcend the ego and to empty our cup. Then, go wash your bowl. Life does not have to be so complicated Kierkegaard. My nephew's true self is laying on the couch eating pizza and playing video games, hard stop. The only leap of faith, he makes is to get the last donut.
To me, it looks like Philosophy Vibe only answers to cheap adulation. Otherwise, they would have had to answer Nick FOG good argumentation (see below). they probably want to maintain a tacky tension between atheism and faith...the main thing is thumbs up... clicks. Kierkegaard always argues from the perspective of a born-again Christian, as we say today. Here there is no mat flight for atheists or naturalists: Are you ready to take the leap of faith: yes or no? and nothing in between. Greetings from a 66 years old german scientist who has studied guys like Kierkegaard and Pascal in detail (my soulmates).
If this ‘faith’ is not on Jesus, then it’s not faith in God.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:5
Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me. John 14:6
Romans 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Theologian 🤷♂️
The atheist is left in dispair