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

Re: [Kierkegaardian] Re: what

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Jan 8, 2003
      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 2 of 12 , Jan 8, 2003
        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 3 of 12 , Jan 9, 2003
          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 4 of 12 , Jan 9, 2003
            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 5 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
              --- 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 6 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                --- 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 7 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                  --- 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 8 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                    --- 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 9 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                      --- 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.
                    »
                    «