The most salient aspect apropos of this lecture is the marked juxtapositions between K's linguistic convolutions and Bert's almost alarmingly-rudimentary elucidations. It's one thing to distill the most essential elements of a work; it's a whole other thing however to effectuate an interpretation of one's own fancy. This incongruity impelled me to a night of utter despair.
Your remark is sheer class😂.. However, I find it often the case, that some very unqualified unspecific treatment of a rather haphazard interpretor elucidates at least parts of the meaning of an elaborate work of art much better than 70% of the dross that is churned out by semi-advanced people who want to APPEAR literate & scientifically sound on the subject.
According to Kierkegaard and Dr. Dreyfus “we can’t be blissfully happy until we have been in despair and been assured of it [ assured by who? Presumably by our higher self or God or both].” The question becomes then, can anyone else, even God, actually be able to believe for us that we are happy? I guess, in that case we are left to our higher self dwelling with God or another “the self in half itself or another” to be the one to tell us we are happy. “Then that creates us as a new being.”
"father and mother may abandon you, but God will never abandon you." I love Dreyfus. I think he misses that Kierkegaard is always talking about a living relation to Christ, which is very different from relating to a marriage partner, for example. And so Kierk. abandons Regina, which is an unethical thing to do in the eyes of the world. K .thinks he's doing the most ethical thing, despite what the world thinks.
I think Dreyfus' characterization of Christians as setting western culture in the direction of 'bliss addicts' is wrong. Christianity isn't merely about 'bliss'. Hello, crucifixion. Why are we eternally unsatisfied? why do humans endlessly go on murdering each other in wars? etc. Kierkegaard is pointing to our helplessness when he writes about despair: we go on doing those things we wish not to do, for example. We become aware that we WERE in despair, and merely arranging our lives in a futile attempt the manage and disguise and forget that, when we enter into a commitment...not to anything at all, but to a living God who shows us own awful situation. If one has never heard beethoven and Bach, but only pop music, they don't know that they're in despair. They don't know, until something far better has been heard by them.
The most salient aspect apropos of this lecture is the marked juxtapositions between K's linguistic convolutions and Bert's almost alarmingly-rudimentary elucidations. It's one thing to distill the most essential elements of a work; it's a whole other thing however to effectuate an interpretation of one's own fancy. This incongruity impelled me to a night of utter despair.
Your remark is sheer class😂.. However, I find it often the case, that some very unqualified unspecific treatment of a rather haphazard interpretor elucidates at least parts of the meaning of an elaborate work of art much better than 70% of the dross that is churned out by semi-advanced people who want to APPEAR literate & scientifically sound on the subject.
reaching into the future and positing the despair drawn from the past, and historically recreating all past in teh context of dispair.. is Dialectic
According to Kierkegaard and Dr. Dreyfus “we can’t be blissfully happy until we have been in despair and been assured of it [ assured by who? Presumably by our higher self or God or both].” The question becomes then, can anyone else, even God, actually be able to believe for us that we are happy? I guess, in that case we are left to our higher self dwelling with God or another “the self in half itself or another” to be the one to tell us we are happy. “Then that creates us as a new being.”
She was leaning on something of this world for satisfaction that could be taken away at any moment. How is that not despair?
"father and mother may abandon you, but God will never abandon you." I love Dreyfus. I think he misses that Kierkegaard is always talking about a living relation to Christ, which is very different from relating to a marriage partner, for example. And so Kierk. abandons Regina, which is an unethical thing to do in the eyes of the world. K .thinks he's doing the most ethical thing, despite what the world thinks.
Anyone know what movie he's talking about around the 11 min mark?
Good question, would like to know.
I'm guessing it's "Hiroshima, Mon Amour"
Hubert either doesn't get the larger context, or he is working to make students get that point.
I think Dreyfus' characterization of Christians as setting western culture in the direction of 'bliss addicts' is wrong. Christianity isn't merely about 'bliss'. Hello, crucifixion. Why are we eternally unsatisfied? why do humans endlessly go on murdering each other in wars? etc. Kierkegaard is pointing to our helplessness when he writes about despair: we go on doing those things we wish not to do, for example. We become aware that we WERE in despair, and merely arranging our lives in a futile attempt the manage and disguise and forget that, when we enter into a commitment...not to anything at all, but to a living God who shows us own awful situation. If one has never heard beethoven and Bach, but only pop music, they don't know that they're in despair. They don't know, until something far better has been heard by them.