Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: what

Expand Messages
  • roncriss
    Mr. Glendor, I don t know about Jana, but I am willing to discuss anything here. You might make a post that we can respond to. Until then here is some food for
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Glendor,

      I don't know about Jana, but I am willing to discuss anything here.
      You might make a post that we can respond to. Until then here is some
      food for thought. Kierkegaard suggested that there were basically
      three stages of Christian life. Most Christians fail to rise above.
      Here is a short article on the subject from Anthony Storm's
      commentary:

      The Stages

      Kierkegaard posited three stages of life, or spheres of existence:
      the esthetic, the ethical, and the religious. While he favored the
      term "stages" earlier in his writings, we are not to conceive of them
      necessarily as periods of life that one proceeds through in sequence,
      but rather as paradigms of existence. Moreover, many individuals
      might not traverse a certain stage, for example, the religious. The
      esthetic sphere is primarily that of self-gratification. The esthete
      enjoys art, literature, and music. Even the Bible can be appreciated
      esthetically and Christ portrayed as a tragic hero. The ethical
      sphere of existence applies to those who sense the claims of duty to
      God, country, or mankind in general. The religious sphere is divided
      into Religiousness A and B. Religiousness A applies to the individual
      who feels a sense of guilt before God. It is a religiousness of
      immanence. Religiousness B is transcendental in nature. It may be
      summed up by St. Paul's phrase: "In Christ". It consists of a radical
      conversion to Christ in the qualitative leap of faith. Kierkegaard
      also mentions intermediate stages, each of which he calls a
      confinium, or boundary. Irony lies between the esthetic and the
      ethical, and humor lies between the ethical and the religious.

      "There are three existence spheres: the esthetic, the ethical, the
      religious. The metaphysical is abstraction, and there is no human who
      exists metaphysically. The metaphysical, the ontological, is, but it
      does not exist, for when it exists it does so in the esthetic, in the
      ethical, in the religious, and when it is, it is the abstraction from
      a prius [prior thing] to the esthetic, the ethical, the religious.
      The ethical sphere is only a transition sphere, and therefore its
      highest expression is repentance as a negative action. The esthetic
      sphere is the sphere of immediacy, the ethical the sphere of
      requirement (and this requirement is so infinite that the individual
      always goes bankrupt), the religious the sphere of fulfillment, but,
      please note, not a fulfillment such as when one fills an alms box or
      a sack of gold, for repentance has specifically created a boundless
      space, and as a consequence the religious contradiction:
      simultaneously to be out on 70,000 fathoms of water and yet be
      joyful. Just as the ethical sphere is a passageway—which one
      nevertheless does not pass through once and for all—just as
      repentance is its expression, so repentance is the most dialectical"
      (Stages On Life's Way, p. 476f.).
      D. F. Swenson, as quoted by W. Lowrie, defines Religiousness A and B.

      For more on the stages see Stages On Life's Way and Concluding
      Unscientific Postscript.

      (from: http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org/ )

      To my mind very few Christian (including myself) ever get to stage 3,
      and many who do fall from that lofty perch. Comments?

      ~Ron~




      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "righteous_fury2002
      <lord_glendor@h...>" <lord_glendor@h...> wrote:
      > is someone going to discuss something, or what?
    • cielo
      i think it would be better if discussions will be made in manner understandable to the common people. i would challenge anybody here who can translate
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        i think it would be better if discussions will be made in manner understandable to the common people. i would challenge anybody here who can translate kierkegaard in a very simple language :) he's hard to understand per se and ill be grateful if there will be someone who can simpilfy things.. also i think discussions cannot just be limited to kierkegaard alone.....anybody who wants to give a crash course on kant??
        or maybe we can discuss what interests us in kierkegaard or to philosophy to begin with....
        that's all folks thanks and have a good day...
        roncriss <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Mr. Glendor,

        I don't know about Jana, but I am willing to discuss anything here.
        You might make a post that we can respond to. Until then here is some
        food for thought. Kierkegaard suggested that there were basically
        three stages of Christian life. Most Christians fail to rise above.
        Here is a short article on the subject from Anthony Storm's
        commentary:

        The Stages

        Kierkegaard posited three stages of life, or spheres of existence:
        the esthetic, the ethical, and the religious. While he favored the
        term "stages" earlier in his writings, we are not to conceive of them
        necessarily as periods of life that one proceeds through in sequence,
        but rather as paradigms of existence. Moreover, many individuals
        might not traverse a certain stage, for example, the religious. The
        esthetic sphere is primarily that of self-gratification. The esthete
        enjoys art, literature, and music. Even the Bible can be appreciated
        esthetically and Christ portrayed as a tragic hero. The ethical
        sphere of existence applies to those who sense the claims of duty to
        God, country, or mankind in general. The religious sphere is divided
        into Religiousness A and B. Religiousness A applies to the individual
        who feels a sense of guilt before God. It is a religiousness of
        immanence. Religiousness B is transcendental in nature. It may be
        summed up by St. Paul's phrase: "In Christ". It consists of a radical
        conversion to Christ in the qualitative leap of faith. Kierkegaard
        also mentions intermediate stages, each of which he calls a
        confinium, or boundary. Irony lies between the esthetic and the
        ethical, and humor lies between the ethical and the religious.

        "There are three existence spheres: the esthetic, the ethical, the
        religious. The metaphysical is abstraction, and there is no human who
        exists metaphysically. The metaphysical, the ontological, is, but it
        does not exist, for when it exists it does so in the esthetic, in the
        ethical, in the religious, and when it is, it is the abstraction from
        a prius [prior thing] to the esthetic, the ethical, the religious.
        The ethical sphere is only a transition sphere, and therefore its
        highest expression is repentance as a negative action. The esthetic
        sphere is the sphere of immediacy, the ethical the sphere of
        requirement (and this requirement is so infinite that the individual
        always goes bankrupt), the religious the sphere of fulfillment, but,
        please note, not a fulfillment such as when one fills an alms box or
        a sack of gold, for repentance has specifically created a boundless
        space, and as a consequence the religious contradiction:
        simultaneously to be out on 70,000 fathoms of water and yet be
        joyful. Just as the ethical sphere is a passageway�which one
        nevertheless does not pass through once and for all�just as
        repentance is its expression, so repentance is the most dialectical"
        (Stages On Life's Way, p. 476f.).
        D. F. Swenson, as quoted by W. Lowrie, defines Religiousness A and B.

        For more on the stages see Stages On Life's Way and Concluding
        Unscientific Postscript.

        (from: http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org/ )

        To my mind very few Christian (including myself) ever get to stage 3,
        and many who do fall from that lofty perch. Comments?

        ~Ron~




        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "righteous_fury2002
        <lord_glendor@h...>" <lord_glendor@h...> wrote:
        > is someone going to discuss something, or what?


        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        kierkegaardians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark Tindall
        ... Unscientific Postscript. ... A great site! ... It would seem to me that there are plenty in the realm of Christendom but perhaps Soren also has a narrow
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 8, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          roncriss wrote:

          > For more on the stages see Stages On Life's Way and >Concluding
          Unscientific Postscript.
          > (from: http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org/ )

          A great site!


          > To my mind very few Christian (including myself) ever get to
          > stage 3, and many who do fall from that lofty perch. Comments?

          It would seem to me that there are plenty in the realm of Christendom but
          perhaps Soren also has a narrow view of Christian.

          Is 'Attack on Christendom' available on line in English anywhere?


          Mark
        • Mark Tindall
          ... can translate kierkegaard in a very simple language :) he s hard to understand per se and ill be grateful if there will be someone who can simpilfy
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            cielo wrote:

            > i think it would be better if discussions will be made in manner
            >understandable to the common people. i would challenge >anybody here who
            can translate kierkegaard in a very simple >language :) he's hard to
            understand per se and ill be grateful if >there will be someone who can
            simpilfy things..

            I find him very difficult to understand in some books and open to varying
            interpretations. His indirect communication is sometimes totally obscure.


            >also i think discussions cannot just be limited to kierkegaard
            >alone.....anybody who wants to give a crash course on kant??

            I gained a distinction in my work on Kant's categories but I don't think I
            know much about it at all. The Germans don't understand him so how is an
            Aussie supposed to glean the meaning from an English translation?#$&^^$!!


            > or maybe we can discuss what interests us in kierkegaard or to
            > philosophy to begin with....

            Meaning. Trying to integrate one's Christianity and be an Individual. The
            limits of rationality and the substance of faith. Coping with dread /
            despair / angst.

            Kierkegaard is such a fascinating character. His life is as captivating as
            his best works.


            Mark
          • cielo
            also something remarkable about him..he s the forerunner of existentialism. i think unconsciously he didnt know he was setting a trend already. and a lot
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 9, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              also something remarkable about him..he's the forerunner of existentialism. i think unconsciously he didnt know he was setting a trend already. and a lot followed. he is a theist existentialist and his thoughts are what also gave way to the non-theistic ones... i am so absorbed with his melancholy... man why did he really broke that engagement????
              Mark Tindall <mbtin@...> wrote:cielo wrote:

              > i think it would be better if discussions will be made in manner
              >understandable to the common people. i would challenge >anybody here who
              can translate kierkegaard in a very simple >language :) he's hard to
              understand per se and ill be grateful if >there will be someone who can
              simpilfy things..

              I find him very difficult to understand in some books and open to varying
              interpretations. His indirect communication is sometimes totally obscure.


              >also i think discussions cannot just be limited to kierkegaard
              >alone.....anybody who wants to give a crash course on kant??

              I gained a distinction in my work on Kant's categories but I don't think I
              know much about it at all. The Germans don't understand him so how is an
              Aussie supposed to glean the meaning from an English translation?#$&^^$!!


              > or maybe we can discuss what interests us in kierkegaard or to
              > philosophy to begin with....

              Meaning. Trying to integrate one's Christianity and be an Individual. The
              limits of rationality and the substance of faith. Coping with dread /
              despair / angst.

              Kierkegaard is such a fascinating character. His life is as captivating as
              his best works.


              Mark


              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              kierkegaardians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mark Tindall
              ... With a name that means churchyard / cemetry what can you expect? ... Freud would say it was all to do with sex and guilt. Perhaps he would be right.
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 9, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                cielo wrote:

                >... i am so absorbed with his melancholy...

                With a name that means 'churchyard' / 'cemetry' what can you expect?


                > man why did he really broke that engagement????

                Freud would say it was all to do with sex and guilt. Perhaps he would be
                right. Kierkegaard came from a very long line of strict pious Lutheran
                ministers. He was 21 and Regina 14 when they met. He befriended her
                boyfriend Fritz in order to undermine him.


                Mark
              • roncriss
                ... understandable to the common people. i would challenge anybody here who can translate kierkegaard in a very simple language :) he s hard to understand per
                Message 7 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, cielo <annacoelum@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > i think it would be better if discussions will be made in manner
                  understandable to the common people. i would challenge anybody here
                  who can translate kierkegaard in a very simple language :) he's hard
                  to understand per se and ill be grateful if there will be someone who
                  can simpilfy things.. also i think discussions cannot just be limited
                  to kierkegaard alone.....anybody who wants to give a crash course on
                  kant??
                  > or maybe we can discuss what interests us in kierkegaard or to
                  philosophy to begin with....

                  Cielo,

                  Of course you can discuss anything here even remotely related to
                  Kierkegaard. There are no hard fast rules except being respectful and
                  polite.

                  Kierkegaard is one of those authors who I read and say to myself over
                  and over, "amazing and profound, but of course he is so right!". Then
                  I cannot even express what I have just read!

                  ~Ron~
                • roncriss
                  ... Christendom but ... Mark, Kierjegaard certainly had a very narrow view of Christendom. I believe he considered it that portion of Christianity which had
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Tindall" <mbtin@t...>
                    wrote:

                    > It would seem to me that there are plenty in the realm of
                    Christendom but
                    > perhaps Soren also has a narrow view of Christian.
                    >
                    > Is 'Attack on Christendom' available on line in English anywhere?

                    Mark,

                    Kierjegaard certainly had a very narrow view of Christendom. I
                    believe he considered it that portion of Christianity which had
                    compromised with the world. I found the following excerpt
                    from "Attack" which expresses some of his differences. I was rather
                    surprised to note his similarities with Leo Tolstoy and Tolstoyanism.
                    For example the emphasis on non-resistance and the recommendation of
                    the very un-Lutheran state of celibacy. Remember, Luther was the
                    fellow who got the nuns, monks and priests to break their vows of
                    celibacy. But, as SK rightly suggests, the preference for celibacy
                    was Scriptural. Jesus, John the Baptist, even St Paul, were all
                    celibates. Paul recommended celibacy as the highest state:

                    1 Corinthians 7
                    8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them
                    if they abide even as I.
                    9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to
                    marry than to burn.

                    He was merely backing up Jesus' command:

                    Matthew 19:12
                    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's
                    womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
                    there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom
                    of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

                    I would suggest that SK got his opinion of sex from Scripture rather
                    than any Puritan influence.

                    Here is the excerpt from "Attack" I promised:


                    Soren Kierkegaard
                    Excerpt from Attack Upon "Christendom" (1854-1855)

                    [Translation by Walter Lowrie, as excerpted in Robert Bretall, ed., A
                    Kierkegaard Anthology (New York: Modern Library, 1946), pp. 455-458.]


                    THE WEDDING

                    True worship of God consists quite simply in doing God's will.

                    But this sort of worship was never to man's taste. That which in all
                    generations men have been busied about, that in which theological
                    learning originated, becomes many, many disciplines, widens out to
                    interminable prolixity, that upon which and for which thousands of
                    priests and professors live, that which is the content of history
                    of "Christendom," by the study of which those who are becoming
                    priests and professors are educated, is the contrivance of another
                    sort of divine worship, which consists in--having one's own will, but
                    doing it in such a way that the name of God, the invocation of God,
                    is brought into conjunction with it, whereby man thinks he is assured
                    against being ungodly--whereas, alas, precisely this is the most
                    aggravated sort of ungodliness.

                    An example. A man is incilined to want to support himself by killing
                    people. Now he sees from God's Word that this is not permissible,
                    that God's will is, "Thou shalt not kill." "All right," thinks
                    he, "but that sort of worship doesn't suit me, neither would I be an
                    ungodly man." What does he do then? He gets hold of a priest who in
                    God's name blesses the dagger. Yes, that's something different.

                    In God's Word, the single state is recommended. "But," says
                    man, "that sort of worship doesn't suit me, and I am certainly not an
                    ungodly man, either. Such an important step as marraige [which, be it
                    noted, God advises against, and that that not taking this "important
                    step" is the important thing] I surely ought not to take without
                    assuring myself of God's blessing. [Bravo!] That is what this man of
                    God, the priest, is for; he blesses this important step [the
                    importance of which consists in not doing it], and so it is well
                    pleasing to God"--and I have my will, and my will becomes worship,
                    and the priest has his will, he has ten dollars, not earned in the
                    humble way of brushing people's clothes or serving beer or brandy at
                    the bar; no, he was employed in God's ervice, and to earn ten dollars
                    in that way is--divine worship. (Bravissimo!)

                    What an abyss of nonsense and abomination! When something is
                    displeasing to God, does it become well pleasing by the fact that (to
                    make bad worse) a priest takes part who (to make bad worse) gets ten
                    dollars for declaring that it is well pleasing to God?

                    Let us stick to the subject of the wedding. In his Word God
                    recommends the single state. Now there is a couple who wants to get
                    arrried. This couple, of course, since they call themselves
                    Christians, ought to know well what Christianity is--but let that
                    pass. The lovers apply to--the priest; and the priest is bound by an
                    oath upon the New Testament which recommends the single state. If
                    then he is not a liar and a perjurer who in the basest manner earns
                    paltry dollars, he must act as follows. At the most he can say to
                    them with human sympathy for this human thing of being in love, "My
                    little children, I am the last man to whom you should apply; to apply
                    to me in such a contingency is as if one were to apply to the chief
                    of police to inquire how one should comport oneself when stealing. My
                    duty is to employ every means to restrain you. At the utmost I can
                    say with the Apostle (for they are not the words of the Master), yes,
                    if it comes to that, and you have not continency, then get
                    together, 'it is better to marry than to burn.' And I know very well
                    that you will shudder inwardly when I talk thus about what you think
                    the most beautiful thing in life; but I must do my duty. And for this
                    reason I said that I am the last man to whom you should apply." . . .

                    Christianly one must say that precisely the fact that the priest
                    takes part is the worst thing in the whole affair. If you want to
                    marry, week rather to be married by a blacksmith; then it might
                    perhaps (if one may speak thus) escape God's notice; but when a
                    priest takes par it cannot possible escape God's notice. . . .

                    What every religion in which there is any truth aims at, and what
                    Christianity aims at decisively, is a total transformation in a man,
                    to wrest from him through renunciation and self-denial all that, and
                    precisely that, to which he immediately clings, in which he
                    immediately has his life. This sort of religion, as "man" understands
                    it, is not what he wants. The upshot therefore is that from
                    generation to generation there lives--how equivocal!--a highly
                    respected class in the community, the priests. Their métier is to
                    invert the whole situation, so that what likes becomes religion, on
                    the condition, h owever, of invoking God's name and paying something
                    definite to the priests. The rest of the community, when one examines
                    the case more closely, are seen to be egotistically interested in
                    upholding the estimation in which the priests are held--for otherwise
                    the falsification cannot succeed.

                    To become a Christian in the New Testament sense is such a radical
                    change that, humanly speaking, one must say that it is the heaviest
                    trial to a family that one its members becomes a Christian. For in
                    such a Christian the God-relationship becomes so predominant that he
                    is not "lost" in the ordinary sense of the word; no, in a far deeper
                    sense than dying he is lost to everything that is called family. It
                    is of this Christ constantly speaks, both with reference to himself
                    when he says that to be his disciple is to be his mother, brother,
                    sister, that in no other sense has he a mother, a brother, a sister;
                    and also when he speaks continually about the collision of hating
                    father and mother, one's own child, etc. To become a Christian in the
                    New Testament sense is to loosen (in the sense in which the dentist
                    speaks of loosening the tooth from the gums), to loosen the
                    individual out of the cohesion to which he clings with the passion of
                    immediacy, and which clings to him with the same passion.

                    This sort of Christianity was never--no more now, precisely no more
                    than in the year 30--to man's taste, but was distasteful to him in
                    his inmost heart, mortally distasteful. Therefore the upshot is that
                    from generation to generation there lives a highly respected class in
                    the community whose métier is to transform Christianity into the
                    exact opposite.

                    The Christianity of the priests, by the aid of religion (which, alas,
                    is used precisely to bring about the opposite), is directed to
                    cemeting families more and more egotistically together, and to
                    arranging family festivities, beautiful, splendid family festivities,
                    e.g. infant baptism and confirmation, which festivities, compared for
                    example with excursions in the Deer Park and other family frolics,
                    have a peculiar enchantment for the fact that they are "also"
                    religious.

                    "Woe unto you," says Christ to the "lawyers" (the interpreters of
                    Scripture), "for ye took away the key of knowledge, ye entered not in
                    yourselves [i.e. into the kingdom of heven, cf. Matthew 23:13], and
                    them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52.)
                  • roncriss
                    ... varying ... obscure. Mark and Cielo, I would recommend SK s Diaries and his Upbuilding Discourses for his straight opinions. Anything he wrote under a
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Tindall" <mbtin@t...>
                      wrote:
                      > cielo wrote:
                      > I find him very difficult to understand in some books and open to
                      varying
                      > interpretations. His indirect communication is sometimes totally
                      obscure.

                      Mark and Cielo,

                      I would recommend SK's Diaries and his "Upbuilding Discourses" for
                      his straight opinions. Anything he wrote under a pseudonym cannot be
                      considered to be his own opinion. He wrote thos works in an effort
                      to, in effect, trick his audience into Christianity.

                      ~Ron~
                    • roncriss
                      ... existentialism. i think unconsciously he didnt know he was setting a trend already. and a lot followed. he is a theist existentialist and his thoughts are
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, cielo <annacoelum@y...> wrote:
                        >
                        > also something remarkable about him..he's the forerunner of
                        existentialism. i think unconsciously he didnt know he was setting a
                        trend already. and a lot followed. he is a theist existentialist and
                        his thoughts are what also gave way to the non-theistic ones... i am
                        so absorbed with his melancholy... man why did he really broke that
                        engagement????

                        Cielo,

                        I believe he broke that engagement for two reasons. First, he
                        thought that scripturally speaking, celibacy was the higher state:

                        1 Corinthians 7
                        8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to
                        stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they
                        should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

                        Secondly he saw suffering as a crucial aspect of the Christian life:

                        Romans 8:17
                        Now if we are children, then we are heirs–heirs of God and co­heirs
                        with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we
                        may also share in his glory.

                        ~Ron~
                      • roncriss
                        ... Kierkegaardian ... Welcome back Willy! ~Ron~
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown <wilbro99@y...>"
                          <wilbro99@y...> wrote:

                          > Hi Ron, I have found my way back and am ready to do the
                          Kierkegaardian
                          > again. I'll look through the last few posts and add a comment or so.
                          > ----willy

                          Welcome back Willy!

                          ~Ron~
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.