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

Re: [Kierkegaardian] Re: what

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.