Why didn't he just settle down with the love of his life instead of living in self-imposed despair?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Why didn't he just settle down with the love of his life instead of living in self-imposed despair?
Anon he did settle down with his one true love.
>In her (Regine Olsen) final years, childhood friend Raphael Meyer said that:
"She had a simple youthful longing to see her Fritz again, and yet she repeated with sincere conviction Kierkegaard’s words to her: 'You see, Regine, in eternity there is no marriage; there, both Schlegel and I will happily be together with you."
Life is a waterfall
We're one in the river
And one again after the fall
What kind of cuckoldry is this?
No one is married in heaven. There is no sex in heaven. God will ressurrect our bodies, but we won't use them.
>them
If you're opting for 'duplicity' aiw then perhaps it would be more correct to conclude-- won't be used BY them. That sex has become a sophisticated mode of masturbation, or recreation, is what it is, I guess. That a desanctification of Life is what it costs is a pity, however.
One of God's little mysteries I guess, a bodily resurrection into a state of being that has no use for bodies. The hard problem of grafting Platonic philosophy to Judaic revelation.
That's fair. But it isn't so far-fetched to presume that perhaps (we) 'use our bodies' incorrectly. Spiritually, mentally, something definitely feels off; that some great lie has swollen to such an extent that it's become almost imperceptible.
The Christian answer is that sex in the perfect state of Eden prior to the fall was rational. Erection and ejaculation were simple rational movements, like lifting an arm up and down. The asendancy of the vegetative soul in sex to make it an emotional-appetitive act is a product of the fall. Being restored to bodily perfection after the resurrection means the ascendency of the eternal rational soul, the loss of all vegetative appetites of sex, and the restoration of rational sex, which being for a reproductive end, ceases to be in heaven. We can have the philosopher's Platonic de-sensualised intellectual heaven of rational souls and keep the Christian-Judaic revealed heaven of a real physical resurrection of our bodies by de-sensualising the body. Hence Christianity exists in the here and now to promote the alienation of the body from the self, to transform it into a Platonic eunuch, who failing to become the etheral ghost of Phaedrus's ascent, compromises to becoming a castrato.
Ok, but at the same I take such pleasure in just looking around, attempting to understand things, walking, running, sitting down, reading, which, to me, really is a special mode of time-travel. Through all of this I feel a deep connection to my active brain and sensing body-- obviously.
>castrato
Your perspective overstates the sexual; in fact, views it as the body's quintessential 'use'-- a view thoroughly coincident with modern times, I get it, and its interpretive 'objectivity' (of ancient times).
But Murder, Sexual License, Display, Work-- are these THE true uses of the body? In more than one sense, Yes. But my inner Occam's Razor must insist that IF the body's resurrected, then there MUST be some serious, practical use for it either unaccounted for, or not taken seriously in 2024. No one grateful even to be here, alive, wants to die, anon-- because that means immediate loss of the body, etc.
You can read D. H. Lawrence to understand the nature and use of the body, against Christian Platonism that denies the body and would resurrect a eunuch. Platonism had no doubts that the vegetative soul was the soul of the body, and hence was not eternal like the disembodiable rational soul, and would not take its place amongst the stars.
Sex is the highest organic expression of the body, every other bodily expression is techne and therefore artifice. To be densensualised and resurrected a eunuch, or worse to have been made one first in Eden, is to either reduce us to disembodied rational souls, or to instrumentalise us as tools to perform art/techne, incapable of organic self-expression of our bodily selves.
Ok, I get that you're not necessarily arguing from whatever your own 'stance' regarding these 'issues' may be, but simply opposing a certain theologic, call it a generalized Christian Platonism, with D.H. Lawrence, a writer whom (perhaps unfortunately) I have in fact read: Women in Love, The Rainbow, Sons and Lovers, Chatterley, and one other the name of which escapes me. (Recently, I even have considered picking up The Plumed Serpent, but primarily because I hear it's bananas). That you would contrast, then, the curiously outmoded with the naive obsolete (Lawrence) suggests that you are 'shitposting,' in which case I would have (you) know that you deal with one who sincerely appreciates the quality of effort, if minimal, you place, or have placed, upon it.
Techne btw concerns the increase of ANY bodily capacity whatsoever.
Lawrence makes the critique of Christianity's desexed bodily resurrection directly in The Rainbow:
>Alas, that so soon the drama is over; that life is ended at thirty-three; that the half of the year of the soul is cold and historiless! Alas, that a risen Christ has no place with us! Alas, that the memory of the passion of Sorrow and Death and the Grave holds triumph over the pale fact of Resurrection!
>But why? Why shall I not rise with my body whole and perfect, shining with strong life? Why, when Mary says: Rabboni, shall I not take her in my arms and kiss her and hold her to my breast? Why is the risen body deadly, and abhorrent with wounds?
>The Resurrection is to life, not to death. Shall I not see those who have risen again walk here among men perfect in body and spirit, whole and glad in the flesh, living in the flesh, loving in the flesh, begetting children in the flesh, arrived at last to wholeness, perfect without scar or blemish, healthy without fear of ill health? Is this not the period of manhood and of joy and fulfilment, after the Resurrection? Who shall be shadowed by Death and the Cross, being risen, and who shall fear the mystic, perfect flesh that belongs to heaven?
>Can I not, then, walk this earth in gladness, being risen from sorrow? Can I not eat with my brother happily, and with joy kiss my beloved, after my resurrection, celebrate my marriage in the flesh with feastings, go about my business eagerly, in the joy of my fellows? Is heaven impatient for me, and bitter against this earth, that I should hurry off, or that I should linger pale and untouched? Is the flesh which was crucified become as poison to the crowds in the street, or is it as a strong gladness and hope to them, as the first flower blossoming out of the earth’s humus?
You reducing sexuality to techne is the mistake of you alienating yourself from your body, as if your body was an instrument of your rational soul to use and improve, as external an instrument as a hammer or paint brush in your hand. Your body is you organically, it is not a technical instrument with an assortment of uses to the disembodied you that is external and artifical to the "real you" of the disembodied rational soul. Denial of the body is denial and alienation of the self, to become the stunted eunch man of Platonism and Christian Platonism.
My own (actual) position is not reductive, but I must insist that a litany of technologies beginning with (say) Botox and concluding with Viagra are unquestionably techne in the sense that they increase what is perceived as sexual desirability on the one hand, outright sexual desire on the other, each beyond former 'natural' limitations, each in the frank service of what is unquestionably 'modern' sexuality. A vast series of rhetorical questions on DHL's part cannot alter the fact that the 'healthy sexuality' it would appear he advocates (in deference to a eunuchization of the body which is in fact merely a weak interpretation on his part) can exist in the age of the Pill and microscopic IUD's. Sex has become slovenly, lazy, recreational, non-heroic, irresponsible, ridiculously artificial, --that species of nothing that becomes 'everything' to those who aren't 'getting any'. I mean to characterize the world (we) live in. The irony of Lawrence's position is that his modern advocates thought they were 'furthering' sexuality when in fact they utterly destroyed it, or at least his 'vision' of it. The Church Fathers and DHL are dead; they are therefore not permitted to change; in the interim what's changed completely is human sexuality. Thanks, techne.
There must be something else (we're missing). This is my only point.
Underlying all that is still the problem of sexual expression. The modern techne issues of sexuality you present didn't exist for Lawrence or Kierkegaard, nor for Porphyry or St. Paul, yet they all had to grapple with the proper position of sex and the body to our selves. And those issues are still there, underneath all those techne issues (really more relevant to women and the pill than for men).
(We) live in an age where sexual expression has been left to the sovereignty of the individual; what's most interesting about modern times is the irony as to just how involved the community is (despite this vaunted 'freedom of choice') in aspects ranging from televised cheerleading to society-altering legal proceedings (and decisions) based on solely this. And this characterizes, or strongly influences, how Sexuality (inclusive of sexual expression) is seen in macro-terms, or in general. Once, Sex, was the 'font of Life' in general, of Family in particular; but the days of its relative importance, of its being bound up in life-altering ritual and contract are far behind us. Positively? Thankfully? This doesn't mean that 'sexual expression' has lost an iota of its sovereign power over 'the human imagination,' however. The movement AWAY from heterosexual generation (perceived as an evil by Romantic poets beginning, in England, with Blake btw) once viewed as holy-- not just religiously, but also legally-- has resulted in the political characterization- or identification- of many on the basis of what are essentially their masturbatory preferences. But since the late 50's early 60's 'sexual expression' (now viewed almost exclusively in its character of entertainment, or recreation) has become just this: masturbation; and this 'program' was completely initiated in the 'heterosexual community'! If heterosexuals could jerk off freely, and without hazard or consequence, why couldn't anyone regardless of sexual 'orientation'? That's a question no one answers fairly, perhaps because it can't be. What's happening now in Vatican City is very interesting. Where will it lead? My guess is decisively away from 'sexual expression' as having ever been a 'problem' in the first place, and towards 'something else' that cryptically (at this point) is. What a world
This is just life-denying BS. Maybe Neechay had a point about Christianity...
Why are philosophers so prone to cuckoldry? Are there any philosophers that weren't cuckolds?
Hegel married and had a child, I think.
In his forties, yes.
Both Schelling and Novalis attempted to marry thirteen year olds.
>'You see, Regine, in eternity there is no marriage; there, both Schlegel and I will happily be together with you."
He was a over-sugared coffee addicted spaz.
He was from what I remember reading. All these philosophy dudes were adhd spazzes, but they didn’t have access to adderall or coke, so that was the next best thing.
Neurotic self sabotage
Or
Genius and fate
>evades love and responsibility his whole life
>writes about love and responsibility his whole life
So? I avoid Black folk as much as i can, but i could still write a multi-volume treatise on them if i so desired
Writing was his true love and mistress.
He was born outside the universally human.
He couldn't or didn't want to assume the role of father/ head of the house and all of what this entails.
To be fair, like in all honesty he probably would have been a pretty shit husband and father. His instincts on the subject were probably not at all incorrect
"But it is the crowd which has power, influence, reputation, and
domination - this is the distinction of life from life, which tyrannically overlooks the single
individual as the weak and powerless one, in a temporal-worldly way overlooks the
eternal truth: the single individual."
Thank you for setting me free from the collective, Kierkegaard, my hero.
He knew that one can either serve the truth or serve women. No middle ground here.
She was really cute for those days too, what a moron
Intelligent people realize the futility of all that.
>muh marriage
>muh love of life
>””the one””
All fake, are you a 15 year old girl?
It's all real. Sorry you're bitter because you haven't found it.
If he realized it was all illusory, then why was he permanently unhappy after letting her go..? Or are you just self-inserting in Kierkegaard because of a recent rejection, anon?
He was too ethereal for his idea of marriage, too ironic. All the hiding, the masks, the layers, wrapped up in a lingering fear of being cursed. Never taking on outer responsibility and having the means to be sustained in idleness. But, imo, also the (correct imo) view that marriage would hinder his ability to 'produce', which he saw as his divine task. I highly doubt he'd have written the same works had he married, and he did too, which is why he lacked the faith to marry. The misery and despair a necessary precursor - he was outwardly happiest at the end of his life when he was writing his paper and attacking the state church, something he did with authenticity and concreteness. Yet, he died not long after.
Is there any doubt he was married to writing, erotically attached to writing? I don't think calling him ethereal grasps his nature. His eros and sex was striking pen to paper.
From his death bed: "Was there anything he still wanted to have said? 'No; yes, remember me to everyone. I was much attached to them all, and tell them that my life is a great, and to others unknown and incomprehensible, suffering; it all looked like pride and vanity, but it wasn't. I'm no better than others. I've said that and never anything else. I had my thorn in the flesh, and therefore did not marry and could not take on an official position'"
"How much in your life has turned out just right! 'Yes. That's why I'm very happy, and very sad that I cannot share this happiness with anyone.'"
There's several details in his life which I find very haunting because to literally anyone but himself the solution was so obvious. He rented large apartments with many rooms and kept them all brilliantly lit, even though they were empty. I think, for most of his life, his nature was irony, and living his life through his attachment to writing. All the pseudonyms, the 'I was merely pretending' conclusions, the playful wit.
>He rented large apartments with many rooms and kept them all brilliantly lit, even though they were empty.
That's rockstar behaviour. Get major record deal, immediately rent mansion then live in one room of it and keep it the same as your old shitty apartment.
sigma grindset (christian mode)
Autismo
Autism+religious OCD+genius+neuroticism=Kierkegaard
this
Holy Autism
He was unironically just stupid.
He don't fell in the normalgay meme
Because he had to be literally me.
He probably saw she was too sexually desirable for him, and didn't want that perception to supplant the pure idealization which commonly gets assigned to women one's in love with. Christcucks have this weird view of lust, and attempt to demonize it and shame people who experience it.
Who knows, but I am convinced it has to do with Kierkegaard's religious convictions.
>weird view of lust
What's your non-weird 'view of lust,' anon?
I see lust as deeply inspiring and peace-bringing. It's the fuel of pleasure, art, human interaction, and life itself. It shouldn't ever be restricted or made taboo, in all its forms (including lust over whatever odd shit you may imagine, for it's only an idea).
>lust
>peace-bringing
Whew lad...wish I could say the same.
He could have married some other woman if he wanted to. They were all silly little arranged introductions to teenage maidens back then with a marriage decided after a few meetings. It's not some great irrevocable romantic loss as you're imagining it. He was married to writing, not to woman.