why is kierkegaard considered a genius on this forum?

[David Quinn]

Hades,

DQ: All science is a variation of the theme of studying dung-beetles. Even the grandest theorizing by cosmologists is infinitely small and infinitely unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

H: Apples and oranges. Sounds like you are creating a hierarchy of value, and are placing scientific-thought somewhere on the bottom

Not at the bottom, but somewhere in the middle - better than taking drugs, or mugging people, or joining a religion, but not as good uncovering ultimate truth and becoming wise.

Studying dung-beetles is better than being a dung-beetle.

...whats the point of this arbitrary mental construct of yours?

To point people's minds to the reality and importance of the wisdom which transcends science.

What makes something worthy of examination and inspection in your point of view, if not science, then what and why?

The nature of Reality, the nature of mind, philosophical logic, human egotism, the ins and outs of spiritual life, etc.

Science has a place, but it's not as important as these things.

DQ: Science is process of immersing oneself in the trees and losing sight of the forest. It is a useful vehicle for those who want their minds distracted from fundamental issues, and many people are quick to take advantage of it.

H: What do you think are the fundamental issues?

The nature of Reality, the nature of mind, philosophical logic, human egotism, the ins and outs of spiritual life, etc.

DQ: To my mind, his greatest expression of genius was his uncompromising nature and his willingness to squarely face the suffering which underlies becoming truthful and wise in this world. Most gurus concentrate on the perceived happy aspects of spirituality - the tranquility, inner peace, greater control, etc - but very few of them ever touch upon the terrifying and painful aspects. For good reason, they don't want to scare their followers away! It wouldn't be good for business.

H: That sounds just a bit circular, his greatest expression of genius was his willingness to face the suffering which underlies becoming wise [a genius]....

I'm trying to find out what he said or did that warrants such a rank. For example, if I asked what makes Michelangelo Buonarroti a fantastic sculptor? One could answer: well he sculpted X Y and Z...and they were fantastic by our standards.

Do you understand what I mean?
Don't tell me hes a great sculptor because he had the courage to face the suffering which underlies becoming a sculptor...

So now, if you want, you could give me some examples of him being wise, like examples of him "squarely facing the suffering which underlies becoming wise"....

Have a look at the link that Kevin and Cory provided. Every word on those pages is an expression of Kierkegaard's genius.

-

[Matt Gregory]

He might have done. In the following translation, the line is, "Great purity seems sullied".

The wise student hears the Tao and practices it
diligently.
The average student hears of the Tao and gives it
thought now and again.
The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.
If there were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is.

Hence it is said: The bright path seems dim;
Going forward seems like retreat;
The easy way seems hard;
The highest Virtue seems empty;
Great Purity seems sullied;
A wealth of Virtue seems inadequate;
The strength of Virtue seems frail:
Real Virtue seems unreal;
The perfect square has no corners;
Great talents ripen late;
The highest notes are hard to hear;
The greatest form has no shape;
The Tao is hidden and without name.
The Tao alone nourishes and brings everything to
fullfilment.

The meaning is very similar.

-

Actually, I think #35 suits Kierkegaard perfectly:

All men will come to him who keeps to the one,
For there lie rest and happiness and peace.

Passersby may stop for music and good food,
But a description of the Tao
Seems without substance or flavor.
It cannot be seen, it cannot be heard,
And yet it cannot be exhausted.

He spent his life writing about God, but no one can detect what on earth he was talking about. All they can do to fill up space is to dig up a bunch of gossip about him.

I guess there really isn't much left to write about Kierkegaard, though. He already wrote it all, and then some.

[Faust]

But the problem with Kierkegaard was that he DID believe in irrational faith. He knew there was no proof for the existence of God, but he was still irrational in the sense that he had this Christian faith. And this faith is for egotistic purposes.

[Matt Gregory]

If that's what you think then you need to learn how to read more carefully. A LOT more carefully.

[Faust]

If that's what you think then you need to learn how to read more carefully. A LOT more carefully.

? I've already read carefully and that's what I saw. Give me some quotes that would refute this.

[Matt Gregory]

There's quite a bit of his material here:

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ard00.html

[Faust]

There's quite a bit of his material here:

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ard00.html

i've already been through that, but that doesn't directly denounce his irrational belief in god. We don't know that he believed in the Christian god or not, for me I think he did, because he was serious about it. Now if you want to think that this 'god' was just 'ultimate reality' sure but he didn't think it like that. These are the basic things that I've gotten from Kierkegaard but knew already.

0. everyone's alone in the universe
1. the animal side of man
2. due to this animal side many people are dishonest and manipulate each other.
3. its important to be honest about your animal side, and as such humanize it.
4. 'faith' is nothing but believing in yourself at all times, which satisfies ego purposes and security purposes.
5. others dont have 'faith' because they don't believe in themselves - quite valid statement.
6. when kierkegaard 'gave' faith to others they just used it as piecemeal but never really adopted it in themselves for the rest of their life.

yes kierkegaard's suffering was caused of his honesty clashing with the dishonesty of others. as a result he needed 'faith' or 'overcoming' you could say of this unfortunate state of events in order not to be victimized and get something meaningful out of it.

[Matt Gregory]

You're not even close. That sounds like something you read in a woman's magazine or something.

[Faust]

You're not even close. That sounds like something you read in a woman's magazine or something.

nonsense. Please tell me where I'm wrong and what it actually is, please. Because that's what it is and you don't want to admit it.

[Matt Gregory]

I just think you're vastly underestimating a great man.

[Simon]

Faust13,

i've already been through that, but that doesn't directly denounce his irrational belief in god. We don't know that he believed in the Christian god or not, for me I think he did, because he was serious about it.

What you’re saying above seems a bit illogical. You claim that you don’t know whether or not Kierkegaard believed in the Christian God or not, but you do know that he was serious about the Christian God.

What do you mean he was serious about the Christian God?

0. everyone's alone in the universe
1. the animal side of man
2. due to this animal side many people are dishonest and manipulate each other.
3. its important to be honest about your animal side, and as such humanize it.
4. 'faith' is nothing but believing in yourself at all times, which satisfies ego purposes and security purposes.
5. others dont have 'faith' because they don't believe in themselves - quite valid statement.
6. when kierkegaard 'gave' faith to others they just used it as piecemeal but never really adopted it in themselves for the rest of their life.

yes kierkegaard's suffering was caused of his honesty clashing with the dishonesty of others. as a result he needed 'faith' or 'overcoming' you could say of this unfortunate state of events in order not to be victimized and get something meaningful out of it.

Matt asked you to cite examples to prove why you believe Kierkegaard believed in a traditional Christian God, and the only thing you cited was an interpretation of Kierkegaard that made no mention of why Kierkegaard might have believed in God. What you did show was that you thought Kierkegaard’s notion of faith had nothing to do with the traditional notion of God. Which seems to be evidence more in Matt’s favor than yours.

[Faust]

I just think you're vastly underestimating a great man.

I'm not underestimating him, I credit him for unravelling the human condition. But if he thinks that altruism exists he's sorely mistaken, because there's no such thing and his 'faith' is but an overcoming of this suffering when he gives 'altruism' in order not to be victimized and retain his ego.

[Philosophaster]

Perhaps Kevin Solway will one day be proven to have had a fetish for leather and little dogs.

This is the first time that David has written anything that made me laugh out loud. Well played, sir.

[DHodges]

Well, I never cared for Kierkegaard, although admittedly I haven't read him in a very long time and have mostly a vague impression.

Mainly, he had that "leap of faith" (or leap to faith, if you prefer). What he seemed to say there was yes, he understood Christianity was irrational, but he was going to go ahead and believe in it anyway. I have no respect for that at all. In the end, it came down to believing because he wanted to believe, and if rationality got in the way, then rationality be damned.

[Kevin Solway]

he had that "leap of faith"

I like to think that Kierkegaard thought that plunging oneself into the Infinite and "dying to the world" wasn't humanly rational - but was in fact perfectly rational.

So the only "faith" is in reason itself.

However, I grant that he doesn't make it easy to interpret him this way. He has a tendency to be overly poetic and sentimental.

[LooF]

i wish he was not christian!

[DHodges]

However, I grant that he doesn't make it easy to interpret him this way. He has a tendency to be overly poetic and sentimental.

I don't think it makes sense to be poetic and sentimental about reason. One should be rational and reasonable about reason.

If you're going to be poetic and sentimental, why not be poetic and sentimental about... Regine?

[Matt Gregory]

I think he just liked to fluff up his writing. I like it, I think it makes it easier to read. I think his worst flaw was his attachment to Christianity, even if it was an elevated variety. But I think his analyses of Bible passages is absolutely fascinating.

[Jamesh]

I don't like how despite all his aspirational quotes, he was not prepared to admit publicly that he didn't believe in the Christian God - his whole life was built around Christianity, yet he believed far more in enlightenment rather than Christianity.

Perhaps he retained Christianity as the focus because he wanted to change the weak unthinking mentality of Christians who refused or were not allowed to read philosophy - with Christ shit all through his works, perhaps he thought his philosophical stuff would be more acceptable to them.

[Faust]

Faust13,

i've already been through that, but that doesn't directly denounce his irrational belief in god. We don't know that he believed in the Christian god or not, for me I think he did, because he was serious about it.

What you’re saying above seems a bit illogical. You claim that you don’t know whether or not Kierkegaard believed in the Christian God or not, but you do know that he was serious about the Christian God.

What do you mean he was serious about the Christian God?

0. everyone's alone in the universe
1. the animal side of man
2. due to this animal side many people are dishonest and manipulate each other.
3. its important to be honest about your animal side, and as such humanize it.
4. 'faith' is nothing but believing in yourself at all times, which satisfies ego purposes and security purposes.
5. others dont have 'faith' because they don't believe in themselves - quite valid statement.
6. when kierkegaard 'gave' faith to others they just used it as piecemeal but never really adopted it in themselves for the rest of their life.

yes kierkegaard's suffering was caused of his honesty clashing with the dishonesty of others. as a result he needed 'faith' or 'overcoming' you could say of this unfortunate state of events in order not to be victimized and get something meaningful out of it.

Matt asked you to cite examples to prove why you believe Kierkegaard believed in a traditional Christian God, and the only thing you cited was an interpretation of Kierkegaard that made no mention of why Kierkegaard might have believed in God. What you did show was that you thought Kierkegaard’s notion of faith had nothing to do with the traditional notion of God. Which seems to be evidence more in Matt’s favor than yours.

you're missing the point. I don't need to cite examples, Kierkegaard was irrational about believing in god simply because there was nothing else to him. The whole matter comes down to him being egotistical about his 'altruism' that's all it is.

[Faust]

he had that "leap of faith"

I like to think that Kierkegaard thought that plunging oneself into the Infinite and "dying to the world" wasn't humanly rational - but was in fact perfectly rational.

So the only "faith" is in reason itself.

However, I grant that he doesn't make it easy to interpret him this way. He has a tendency to be overly poetic and sentimental.

The 'infinite' kevin, is nothing but infinite ego, infinite self-empathy, infinite self-respect, sure that's going to change alot of things with you and the people around you, but it's nothing holy.

How can something not be humanly rational but perfectly rational? He was very irrational kevin, and that's due to ego.