I am very happy to have found your podcast. Kierkegaard is a fascinating thinker for me; overall I find his to the questions that trouble him a very useful and non-sterile one, but it is rather unfortunate to me that everything must, with him, end up in God. For example, he realises one cannot deny one's freedom by saying that everything is God's will, because to do so would be really to deny the factual enduring situation that one free (to choose, that is), no matter how much we might claim the opposite. (Which one can only do by 'taking the 'truth' as something exterior that we simply memorise' and then assume must apply to ourselves - as the commentator below has so elegantly done with her reference to the scientific claim that 'a moment lasts precisely a third of a second'.) Kierkegaard's sense of integrity means that he must acknowledge this nature of his present situation - but then insists on continuing by saying that this possibility of freedom is 'God's will to which one must subscribe' - failing to see that whether it is God's will or not makes no difference and one can only refer to it as 'God's will' by, in fact, assuming as truth the notion that there is a God who has willed it to be so. Thus, to the degree that he fails to allow himself to consider the possibility for what he calls 'God's will' without it being the will of God or anybody, he himself fails to be entirely 'earnest' by his own definition. (But really, it is probably a good thing for himself that he retained this degree of dis-earnestness, since to relinquish it might have been to relinquish his sanity.) People who are interested in Kierkegaard and his thinking might find it rather interesting to see how Nanavira, another thinker of quite a different kind, talks about him. Although his writings do not directly concern with the study Kierkegaard, they quite often make reference to him and seem to have grasped what Kierkegaard was talking about rather better than most (in my opinion) - For instance, this on the paradox of Kierkegaard's attitude to being a Christian: www.nanavira.org/index.php/letters/post-sotapatti/1962/52-l-13-25-may-1962#13-b and this entertaining letter extensively referring to Kierkegaard's opposition to what the author calls 'objective speculative philosophy': www.nanavira.org/index.php/letters/post-sotapatti/1963/110-l-42-22-march-1963 (You will find that Nanavira, like Kierkegaard, cannot be read without referring to his faith, though his faith is in quite a different doctrine, but I would encourage you to give him a chance nonetheless and don't disregard what he says on account of that). And sure why not, I've already made a novel length comment so I might as well add one more link to Nanavira which, though it doesn't mention Kierkegaard, is relevant to a lot of what is said here: www.nanavira.org/index.php/letters/post-sotapatti/1964/120-l-33-13-february-1964#33-1
My friend, I read a little from the first link and I have to say that while I admire Nanavira's conviction, I profoundly disagree with his assessment. He certainly convinces me of one thing: Thomas Merton, of whom I'm a fan in many respects, was wrong. As much philosophical overlap Buddhism and Christianity share, they are fundamentally incompatible worldviews. Kierkegaard is an incredible thinker, but barely scratches the surface in terma of the best Christian thought has to offer. Christianity has a rich intellectual and contemplative history. Although if Christianity weren't true, I may well be a desistic Buddhist (if that's a thing?) I don't have time to go into details, but it is Christ in His suffering in life and death who offers what the Buddha cannot. He is the Alpha and Omega, as well as the centerpoint of all human history. Apart from Him, there is no existence. Don't let the distorted western expression of the ancient faith fool you. Look into the writings of the dessert fathers. Look into Paul Kingsnorth, the great contemporary British writer and former Zen practitioner. Find Christ and true salvation
"Curing" this anxiety with faith would be like deciding to be blind in a world of monsters, instead of getting used to them and leaning to accept their horrific appearance.
🎁SØREN KIERKEGAARD MERCHANDISE🎁 Unisex t-shirts with an exclusive illustration: ‘Stages on Love’s Way, Søren Kierkegaard’ 💲SIGN UP WITH YOUR EMAIL FOR A £5 DISCOUNT💲 Pick a colour and order straight to your door 👇👇👇 www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/merchandise
I’m sure you can appreciate the divisiveness of politics, and I can understand that the “storming the capital” comment was a joke, but I would wonder if you would intend to alienate someone from exploring these deeper subjects because of it. If it’s fine, it’s fine, it’s your show. If you wouldn’t, be aware that it can
I understand why you would see it as alienating, but there is a lot of room for analyzing the impact of political cynicism and individualistic ideologies and the relation to this particular wave of fascism and right wing populism in the west, I believe there's value in speaking about it, although I would certainly advocate for a deeper analysis more than for only passing comments
If Kierkegaard’s entire philosophy is presupposed on the existence of god and the biblical stories of Adam and Eve, then what happens if one does not prescribe to those beliefs …does the philosophy experience the proverbial ‘fall’.
well, idk, that is definitely his model, but the concepts of finite and infinite which underlay them are a bit more fundamental. And the essence of the broader arguments are compelling, even if you aren’t of his particular religious affiliation. Not that his philosophy is necessarily correct of course, but it really doesn’t fall apart outside of the narrow view of the particular christian branch of Kierkagard, it more hinges on the very concept of faith itself. Which is why he is discussed more broadly as a philosopher in addition to more narrowly as a theologian. And he influenced many outside of the strictly christian with his thoughts. From psychology to existentialism.
I am very happy to have found your podcast. Kierkegaard is a fascinating thinker for me; overall I find his to the questions that trouble him a very useful and non-sterile one, but it is rather unfortunate to me that everything must, with him, end up in God.
For example, he realises one cannot deny one's freedom by saying that everything is God's will, because to do so would be really to deny the factual enduring situation that one free (to choose, that is), no matter how much we might claim the opposite. (Which one can only do by 'taking the 'truth' as something exterior that we simply memorise' and then assume must apply to ourselves - as the commentator below has so elegantly done with her reference to the scientific claim that 'a moment lasts precisely a third of a second'.)
Kierkegaard's sense of integrity means that he must acknowledge this nature of his present situation - but then insists on continuing by saying that this possibility of freedom is 'God's will to which one must subscribe' - failing to see that whether it is God's will or not makes no difference and one can only refer to it as 'God's will' by, in fact, assuming as truth the notion that there is a God who has willed it to be so. Thus, to the degree that he fails to allow himself to consider the possibility for what he calls 'God's will' without it being the will of God or anybody, he himself fails to be entirely 'earnest' by his own definition. (But really, it is probably a good thing for himself that he retained this degree of dis-earnestness, since to relinquish it might have been to relinquish his sanity.)
People who are interested in Kierkegaard and his thinking might find it rather interesting to see how Nanavira, another thinker of quite a different kind, talks about him. Although his writings do not directly concern with the study Kierkegaard, they quite often make reference to him and seem to have grasped what Kierkegaard was talking about rather better than most (in my opinion) -
For instance, this on the paradox of Kierkegaard's attitude to being a Christian: www.nanavira.org/index.php/letters/post-sotapatti/1962/52-l-13-25-may-1962#13-b
and this entertaining letter extensively referring to Kierkegaard's opposition to what the author calls 'objective speculative philosophy': www.nanavira.org/index.php/letters/post-sotapatti/1963/110-l-42-22-march-1963
(You will find that Nanavira, like Kierkegaard, cannot be read without referring to his faith, though his faith is in quite a different doctrine, but I would encourage you to give him a chance nonetheless and don't disregard what he says on account of that).
And sure why not, I've already made a novel length comment so I might as well add one more link to Nanavira which, though it doesn't mention Kierkegaard, is relevant to a lot of what is said here: www.nanavira.org/index.php/letters/post-sotapatti/1964/120-l-33-13-february-1964#33-1
My friend, I read a little from the first link and I have to say that while I admire Nanavira's conviction, I profoundly disagree with his assessment. He certainly convinces me of one thing: Thomas Merton, of whom I'm a fan in many respects, was wrong. As much philosophical overlap Buddhism and Christianity share, they are fundamentally incompatible worldviews. Kierkegaard is an incredible thinker, but barely scratches the surface in terma of the best Christian thought has to offer. Christianity has a rich intellectual and contemplative history. Although if Christianity weren't true, I may well be a desistic Buddhist (if that's a thing?) I don't have time to go into details, but it is Christ in His suffering in life and death who offers what the Buddha cannot. He is the Alpha and Omega, as well as the centerpoint of all human history. Apart from Him, there is no existence. Don't let the distorted western expression of the ancient faith fool you. Look into the writings of the dessert fathers. Look into Paul Kingsnorth, the great contemporary British writer and former Zen practitioner. Find Christ and true salvation
Useful intro thanks - waiting for the ads to irrupt made me a bit anxious though.
"Curing" this anxiety with faith would be like deciding to be blind in a world of monsters, instead of getting used to them and leaning to accept their horrific appearance.
Ah…thus the absurd.
Thanks for the video there is very little commentary on Kierkegaards concept of anxiety.
You should add your podcast to Audible! That's where I listen to my podcasts. Thanks for helping me understand Kierkegaard a little better!
thanks for the summary! i feel i got enough from the text and don’t need to dive deeper.
body mind and spirit could we call it trinity?
Good stuff!
🎁SØREN KIERKEGAARD MERCHANDISE🎁
Unisex t-shirts with an exclusive illustration: ‘Stages on Love’s Way, Søren Kierkegaard’
💲SIGN UP WITH YOUR EMAIL FOR A £5 DISCOUNT💲
Pick a colour and order straight to your door 👇👇👇
www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/merchandise
I’m sure you can appreciate the divisiveness of politics, and I can understand that the “storming the capital” comment was a joke, but I would wonder if you would intend to alienate someone from exploring these deeper subjects because of it. If it’s fine, it’s fine, it’s your show. If you wouldn’t, be aware that it can
I understand why you would see it as alienating, but there is a lot of room for analyzing the impact of political cynicism and individualistic ideologies and the relation to this particular wave of fascism and right wing populism in the west, I believe there's value in speaking about it, although I would certainly advocate for a deeper analysis more than for only passing comments
If Kierkegaard’s entire philosophy is presupposed on the existence of god and the biblical stories of Adam and Eve, then what happens if one does not prescribe to those beliefs …does the philosophy experience the proverbial ‘fall’.
well, idk, that is definitely his model, but the concepts of finite and infinite which underlay them are a bit more fundamental. And the essence of the broader arguments are compelling, even if you aren’t of his particular religious affiliation.
Not that his philosophy is necessarily correct of course, but it really doesn’t fall apart outside of the narrow view of the particular christian branch of Kierkagard, it more hinges on the very concept of faith itself. Which is why he is discussed more broadly as a philosopher in addition to more narrowly as a theologian. And he influenced many outside of the strictly christian with his thoughts. From psychology to existentialism.
Philosophy makes things waaaaay to complicated, job security.
Wow... you definitely put some political and culture commentary in there...
Too difficult!
I concur