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

what

Expand Messages
  • righteous_fury2002 <lord_glendor@hotmail
    is someone going to discuss something, or what?
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      is someone going to discuss something, or what?
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.