I was raised on Cartesian solipsism and later worked in the analytic tradition. I studied Kierkegaard in graduate school to ask questions that the analytical approach could not even entertain. I relate to the inwardness and the role of the self in the organization of experience.
I participate wholeheartedly in educational lectures. The multidimensional coincidental unification of self-conscious acceptance of a juxtaposition furthering the comprehension of logos extending from mythos inspires my breathing to cease and the beating of my heart to pause. I am Socrates while I, Euthyphro, anticipating each of our utterances while emitting the intention of our cognition. I run from me to escape the aggression of my interrogation. I am guilty of my accusation. Who is this Kierkegaard?
"he didnt have many friends which was probably due to the fact he had a tendency to tease and antagonise his fellow students with his superior intellect , he enjoyed soundly refuting their arguemnets making them look silly, unfortuanlyy since he wasnt the largest boy in his class his provocations had the consequence of him getting beat" idol
'' the concept of dread is the possibility of freedom ''Kierkegaard . SK understood the burden of free will and need to make the leap of faith into the harsh landscape of becoming a true christian practionier
You don't hear nearly as much as you would expect about Kierkegaard. In a way he is a half forgotten thinker. For a long time I have been searching for someone that could say something meaningful about Kierkegaard's idea of the Individual. I am hopeful and will be paying close attention.
No. Stop complaining about it. Be grateful( familiar with that concept?) that many people were involved in putting this together so that we could LEARN something important without charging for their scholarship. For shame(if you even understand THAT concept).😢
I'm still stuck on "Fear and Trembling". My first Kierkgaard book. Ooee - isn't that deep. I'm tempted to take shortcuts but I've learnt from experience that going to the source is the only sure way to get value. Second hand opinions are just that - second hand.
It seems to me that it is best to read Kierkegaard chronologically, but then all the way through to avoid misconceptions. Fear and Trembling is a rather later work.
Maybe, but I just grab what I can. When I accidentally come upon a book that has some value, I suck it dry. I'm a working class guy, nobody structured my reading, but after reading a certain amount of crap one develops a sense for what is good..
@@patricks1560 the most important part of Fear and Trembling is the chapter of ''The teleological suspension of the ethical ''. thus Abraham transcends the universal ethical man Socrates by being willing to obey God and offer up his own son which represents Abes future . thus Abe is without a past or future apprehends the eternal now .
@@KirurUwU Fear and Trembling is a very early work of Kierkegaard's, being published in 1843-the same year as Either/Or which established his first authorship.
was Socrates then even that smart or just sassy and driven by values? everyone likes to take things to a higher level but how wasnt he just some annoying person everyone got annoyed by? wasnt he just as much a bag of hot air as the others but won the arguemnts and then wasnt seen as such.
That is an opinion entertained by the scholarship. But even if this were the case, history has found Socrates noble because he seemed to have a commitment to a higher purpose than his peers. It is wisdom to pursue truth to one's ability rather than take advantage of others who, perhaps, have lesser ability than oneself. Whether this was in fact the case or not, the Socratic figure (which SK respected) seems to be worthy of the merit ascribed to it.
That's oddly enough what his opposition saw him as. The problem is that most of his talks is just him asking questions. What is justice, what's good for the soul, how we know things. In most of his dialogues he doesn't argue for any particular case or make many positive claims. He admits that he is annoying in the apology but he says that's a good thing. He claims to be the gadfly that makes the horse move. He pushes people to talk about the important things of life and to know oneself so that we may be happy in the ancient sense. To get a better idea what that kind of happiness is I recommend this lecture going over that question specifically. th-cam.com/video/DkSZ8DSqzws/w-d-xo.html
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D3 | Summer | ไม่อยากเหนื่อยวันเสาร์ ก็ต้องจัดเต็ม](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CbsHmoJXjvE/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much to Prof Jon Stewart and the University of Copenhagen! Really appreciate having access to this free quality content.
Ditto
Amazing quality
Was Socrates real? I am afraid he is a character like the Arlequino.
I was raised on Cartesian solipsism and later worked in the analytic tradition. I studied Kierkegaard in graduate school to ask questions that the analytical approach could not even entertain. I relate to the inwardness and the role of the self in the organization of experience.
Simple to follow and meaningful delivery, as philosophy should be for philosophers and non philosophers alike. Great lecture, sir ! (Oxford).
Thank You very much for your work mr. Steward!
Excellent lecture! Many thanks from Ireland.
Very understandable for non-philosophers :-) Awesome! 👍
Dear sound engineers please deliver some lessons on sound engineering to our beloved friends philosophers. Thank you!
Great content, thank you for sharing this.
Thank you again. Just checking back during another course on Existentialism.
I took this course. Very well done. Recommended.
good stuff!
highly recommend .
excellent
Wow ❤❤
A very clear and helpful introduction -thank you.
THANKS.
Very helpful :)
I participate wholeheartedly in educational lectures. The multidimensional coincidental unification of self-conscious acceptance of a juxtaposition furthering the comprehension of logos extending from mythos inspires my breathing to cease and the beating of my heart to pause. I am Socrates while I, Euthyphro, anticipating each of our utterances while emitting the intention of our cognition. I run from me to escape the aggression of my interrogation. I am guilty of my accusation. Who is this Kierkegaard?
"he didnt have many friends which was probably due to the fact he had a tendency to tease and antagonise his fellow students with his superior intellect , he enjoyed soundly refuting their arguemnets making them look silly, unfortuanlyy since he wasnt the largest boy in his class his provocations had the consequence of him getting beat"
idol
I remember a guy like that in school. He never got beat, but he was always ostracized.
'' the concept of dread is the possibility of freedom ''Kierkegaard . SK understood the burden of free will and need to make the leap of faith into the harsh landscape of becoming a true christian practionier
Interesting. Although he is American, he speaks English as if he was a Danish person. His words are sharp and short.
Assimilation
You don't hear nearly as much as you would expect about Kierkegaard. In a way he is a half forgotten thinker. For a long time I have been searching for someone that could say something meaningful about Kierkegaard's idea of the Individual. I am hopeful and will be paying close attention.
I studied S.K., in my youth and now in my old age I'm returning to him. He is a profound exponent of Christianity.
great lecture
fr nobody gonna talk about the audio?
No. Stop complaining about it. Be grateful( familiar with that concept?) that many people were involved in putting this together so that we could LEARN something important without charging for their scholarship. For shame(if you even understand THAT concept).😢
I'm still stuck on "Fear and Trembling". My first Kierkgaard book. Ooee - isn't that deep. I'm tempted to take shortcuts but I've learnt from experience that going to the source is the only sure way to get value. Second hand opinions are just that - second hand.
It seems to me that it is best to read Kierkegaard chronologically, but then all the way through to avoid misconceptions. Fear and Trembling is a rather later work.
Maybe, but I just grab what I can. When I accidentally come upon a book that has some value, I suck it dry. I'm a working class guy, nobody structured my reading, but after reading a certain amount of crap one develops a sense for what is good..
@@patricks1560 the most important part of Fear and Trembling is the chapter of ''The teleological suspension of the ethical ''. thus Abraham transcends the universal ethical man Socrates by being willing to obey God and offer up his own son which represents Abes future . thus Abe is without a past or future apprehends the eternal now .
@@KirurUwU Fear and Trembling is a very early work of Kierkegaard's, being published in 1843-the same year as Either/Or which established his first authorship.
@@RocketKirchner Socrates > Abe precisely because Abe made a bad choice
Open Culture brought me here
The way you say Kierkegaard is giving me anxiety.
Is the explanation of irony here really just sarcasm?
That's what I was thinking.
No, it is the actual definition of irony
Bad audio :)
Call Jesus blood
was Socrates then even that smart or just sassy and driven by values?
everyone likes to take things to a higher level but how wasnt he just some annoying person everyone got annoyed by?
wasnt he just as much a bag of hot air as the others but won the arguemnts and then wasnt seen as such.
well, they killed him for a reason.
+Matthew Zunder, LOL
That is an opinion entertained by the scholarship. But even if this were the case, history has found Socrates noble because he seemed to have a commitment to a higher purpose than his peers. It is wisdom to pursue truth to one's ability rather than take advantage of others who, perhaps, have lesser ability than oneself. Whether this was in fact the case or not, the Socratic figure (which SK respected) seems to be worthy of the merit ascribed to it.
That's oddly enough what his opposition saw him as. The problem is that most of his talks is just him asking questions. What is justice, what's good for the soul, how we know things. In most of his dialogues he doesn't argue for any particular case or make many positive claims. He admits that he is annoying in the apology but he says that's a good thing. He claims to be the gadfly that makes the horse move. He pushes people to talk about the important things of life and to know oneself so that we may be happy in the ancient sense.
To get a better idea what that kind of happiness is I recommend this lecture going over that question specifically.
th-cam.com/video/DkSZ8DSqzws/w-d-xo.html