Is Kierkegaard worth reading if I'm not religious?
No. He was a very lazy thinker who wanted to affirm his religious views at all costs, but people ignore that because he also was a good writer. Kierkegaard deserves more shit. >YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE ETHICAL LIFE AND THE AESTHETIC LIFE >why? >YOU JUST HAVE TO >okay then I choose the aesthetic life >NOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! PICK AGAIN!!! >why? >I JUST SAID SO!!!
Sad and so wrong. Kierkegaard is a massive mountain and you must pass him to see things as they truly are. If you don’t see that you don’t have a grasp of philosophy. You don’t even need to a be a Christian to see it this way and his Christianity isn’t really the same as the one you presume to know
The book in your post will help you understand the level of nuance between religion and faith. There is an entire world of epistemology behind faith, the weight of which Kierkegaard explained better than many Christians will ever begin to appreciate. It reveals an entire invisible war that wages between an individual and the community he inhabits. Without reading something like this or having faith yourself to intuit these things, you will always be blind to this type of war.
Yes, absolutely, he’s like a proto-existentialist, or a Christian existentialist, a forerunner of the trends of modernism and postmodernism with regard to philosophy, culture, literature, and the arts, a big (and sometimes underrated, I think) influence on Heidegger, and by extension on existentialism at large, like other thinkers (more popular in the mainstream) like Camus and Sartre (even if they diverged from him in their atheism).
You don’t really have a full learning quest activated in your “soul”, your inner psyche, mind, consciousness, or whatever you want to call it, if you can’t read or learn from people with different mindsets and worldviews from you, in my humble opinion. It’s how you grow and become a more unique, individuated and erudite person. If you’re trying to become learned in the western context (of the western canon and all that), you’re inevitably going to bump up against Christianity.
No. He was a very lazy thinker who wanted to affirm his religious views at all costs, but people ignore that because he also was a good writer. Kierkegaard deserves more shit. >YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE ETHICAL LIFE AND THE AESTHETIC LIFE >why? >YOU JUST HAVE TO >okay then I choose the aesthetic life >NOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! PICK AGAIN!!! >why? >I JUST SAID SO!!!
His prose is great that's the only reason I enjoyed him. I couldn't make heads or tails of what he was trying to convey that wasn't stated more succinctly by other philosophers of religion like Rudolf Otto and Ramon Llull.
No. I read him when I'm a christian and now I'm an atheist and I didn't learn anything and he didn't have any affect on my attitude towards religion.
Yes. 100%. Unless you're a moron like .
My IQ is higher than everyone in this thread
Very improbable, moron. Besides, if you come to a fool's conclusions, you're a fool. And that's that.
What is your IQ?
Bigger than everyone’s in this thread
doubt it, mine is certainly bigger
False.
I scored 153 on an official test administered by a school board so I could be moved into a gifted programme. Beat that.
HA, this dude is only 153, everyone point and laugh at him!
Sad and so wrong. Kierkegaard is a massive mountain and you must pass him to see things as they truly are. If you don’t see that you don’t have a grasp of philosophy. You don’t even need to a be a Christian to see it this way and his Christianity isn’t really the same as the one you presume to know
Kierkegaard taught me autists are the master-race. We would have no culture or science without them.
Curiously enough autism is primarily a male thing which further convinces me women are really only good for one thing and that's shitting out babies
out of nowhere bringing gender discussion
why the obsession?
Not an obsession, more of an observation
>autists
Frontal lobe epileptics*
Absolutely.
The book in your post will help you understand the level of nuance between religion and faith. There is an entire world of epistemology behind faith, the weight of which Kierkegaard explained better than many Christians will ever begin to appreciate. It reveals an entire invisible war that wages between an individual and the community he inhabits. Without reading something like this or having faith yourself to intuit these things, you will always be blind to this type of war.
No
Yes, absolutely, he’s like a proto-existentialist, or a Christian existentialist, a forerunner of the trends of modernism and postmodernism with regard to philosophy, culture, literature, and the arts, a big (and sometimes underrated, I think) influence on Heidegger, and by extension on existentialism at large, like other thinkers (more popular in the mainstream) like Camus and Sartre (even if they diverged from him in their atheism).
You don’t really have a full learning quest activated in your “soul”, your inner psyche, mind, consciousness, or whatever you want to call it, if you can’t read or learn from people with different mindsets and worldviews from you, in my humble opinion. It’s how you grow and become a more unique, individuated and erudite person. If you’re trying to become learned in the western context (of the western canon and all that), you’re inevitably going to bump up against Christianity.
despite heidegger abandoning K's spirit/self synthesis, it's super obvious the H took massive inspiration from K for the Being-In chapter.
K: the self is a relation that relates to itself established in God
H: same thing but instead of God its Das Man
No. He was a very lazy thinker who wanted to affirm his religious views at all costs, but people ignore that because he also was a good writer. Kierkegaard deserves more shit.
>YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE ETHICAL LIFE AND THE AESTHETIC LIFE
>why?
>YOU JUST HAVE TO
>okay then I choose the aesthetic life
>NOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! PICK AGAIN!!!
>why?
>I JUST SAID SO!!!
His prose is great that's the only reason I enjoyed him. I couldn't make heads or tails of what he was trying to convey that wasn't stated more succinctly by other philosophers of religion like Rudolf Otto and Ramon Llull.
If you're not religious, then you'll lack the common sense to understand any text.
If you're not religious you should consider suicide. It makes everyone's job a helluva lot easier.
You are religious.
>reading philosophy to reaffirm your shitty shallow beliefs.
Yes obviously he's worth reading. I'd recommend Either/Or first though.
good recommendation
that cover triggers me