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

Re: [Kierkegaardian] Re: what

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Jan 9, 2003
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 12 , Jan 9, 2003
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 12 , Jan 10, 2003
                View Source
                • 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.