[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

Name
Spoiler?[]
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File[]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


>The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relations relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself
was this guy just trolling?
>>
>>24747146
it's just a hegel pastiche
>The I is.... PURE NEGATIVITY
Hegel thought that the defining characteristics of universals was "negativity" based on the observation that a universal is "not" any of the things that it is supposed to represent. hegel thinks that since universals are negative, consciousness must be some kind active negativity because hegel thinks that consciousness is the universalizing thing. so the self is the universalizing thing but not any one universal and hence itself negative. the self is "pure negativity" i.e. it is unlimited by not being any one particular thing. this is also why Aristotle and Hegel think that the reasoning faculty of the soul is immortal, because the self is pure negativity it doesn't matter in what body it is and it identifies itself as the same self as everyone else's self.
>>
>>24747550
No it isn’t Hegel it’s Fichte. It’s practically a word for word quote from part 3 of the Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre. Fichte was Kierkegaard’s favorite idealist for obvious reasons.
>>
>>24747146
>Anyone with just a fragment of common sense will perceive that it would be ludicrously confusing to attribute to me everything the poetized personalities say. Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, I have expressly urged once and for all that anyone who wants to quote something from the pseudonyms will not attribute the quotation to me (see my postscript to Concluding Postscript). It is easy to see that anyone wanting to have a literary lark merely needs to take some quotations higgledy-piggledy from "The Seducer," then from johannes Climacus, then from me, etc., print them together as if they were all my words, show how they contradict each other, and create a very chaotic impression, as if the author were a kind of lunatic. Hurrah! That can be done. In my opinion anyone who exploits the poetic in me by quoting the writings in a confusing way is more or less either a charlatan or a literary toper.
>>
>>24747146
Camus was super mad at this guy because he betrayed the absurdist metaphysical revolution o algo
>>
>>24747550
>patische
>>>24747734
>Fichte was Kierkegaard's favorite

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be that Kierkegaard is satirizing this silly method of thinking in the OP quote. Be it Hegel or Fichte.
>>
The more I read Kierkegaard the more I understand why Bert Russell didn't reference him even once in his history of western philosophy.
>>24747778
>o algo
Fuck off back to your shithole.
>>
>>24748294
>Bert Russell didn't reference him even once in his history of western philosophy.
probably because Russell was an atheist and didn't like Kierkegaard tossing God into Philosophy and the notion of Theosis as teleology for man (Knight of Faith).
Also, I'm pretty sure he would consider Russell a "great leveler" in his attempt to Logical Positivism metaphysical reduction project (which Gödel destroyed anyway).
As for the reflection stuff, Kierkegaard was doing proto-Phenomenology and describing that our Being is in constant flux as Becoming; we're always reflecting and even image you see in the mirror is constantly changing as you look at it. This leads to Existentialism as we are in a cycle where our Essence and Existence constantly interplay with each other: our natures affects our decisions but our decisions change our natures.
At least that's what I got from it.
>>
>>24747778
>absurdist
what if you were smart enough to make sense of everything?
>>
>>24748294
Imagine caring about Russell's take on philosophy
>>
>>24748360
Nobody is
>>
>>24748359
russell wasn't a logical positivist or a reductionist ffs
>>
>>24748673
how do you know?
how will you know?
>>
>>24749008
oh my bad. so was Russell himself trying to reduce metaphysics down to logic? what's that called?
sometimes I fuck up the specific nominalistic nomenclature.
>>
>>24747816
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be that Kierkegaard is satirizing this silly method of thinking in the OP quote. Be it Hegel or Fichte.
No it is not satire, the sentence is meaningful, I just told you it's a near-quote from the Grundlage. Fichte's conception of man as split or divided between himself and God was congenial to Kierkegaard even if he obviously criticizes him.
>what is this gibberish? Must be le satire lol
It's impossible to understand Kierkegaard without the idealists. This means most people who read Kierkegaard do not understand him.
>>
>>24749136
>Russell himself trying to reduce metaphysics down to logic
and if so, reducing reality to axioms/logical quanta; then why not the Logos?
What's Russell's beef with God?
All true things relate to God, God was a man, thus man can relate to all things that are true.
How is this syllogism lost to someone of Russell's intellect...? Was it pride or some sort of animus? Desire for anthropomorphic apotheosis?
I'm baffled why he would make such a huge categorical error as such for such a smart man.
Shame.
>>
File: feelsgodman.png (396 KB, 645x793)
396 KB
396 KB PNG
>>24749338
『 Such is the burden of I. 』
t. anon
>>
>>24749338
>>24749343
>All true things relate to God, God was a man, thus man can relate to all things that are true.
basic bitch /phil/ guys... c'mon
were you all playing retarded on purpose?
like God weren't intelligible then aosdfknajdn f;kjndgif bnw;i then that unintelligable crap
>>
>>24749310
Kierkegaard didn't write the OP sentence though, Anti-Climacus did.
>>
>>24749393
Touché, my point still stands. This sentence is notorious and every faggot says the same thing, "he's le making fun of Hegel lol" even though it is from Fichte and it's not making fun of anything it's central to the book.
>>
>>24749310
See >>24747763. Sickness Unto Death is under a pseudonym *because* it's not simply Kierkegaard's own set of views. Only the works he published under his own name, like the Upbuilding Discourses and such guarantee his own stances. He goes over all this in The Point of View of My Work as an Author, which almost no one reads.
>>
>>24749400
>it's by Kierkegaard, but it does not directly represent his own views and is written under a pseudonym
>therefore it is not by Kierkegaard, can't be attributed to Kierkegaard, and nothing it says has anything to do with Kierkegaard's thinking
A desperate pseud move. The quote is from Fichte, it's not gibberish, it's not parody (or not mere parody anyway) and it is central to the text. You don't know what it means because you lack the necessary background to read Kierkegaard. Now you're trying to save face by getting into a side argument about nothing. Seethe away.
>>
>>24749410
I literally quoted Kierkegaard at >>24747763 saying as much, and instead of reading that and correcting accordingly, you decided that Sickness Unto Death represents Kierkegaard's own views because you haven't read enough Kierkegaard to understand his use of pseudonyms portraying different perspectives towards faith. It's weird to be called a pseud for being more familiar with Kierkegaard than you are, but that sounds frankly like shooting from the hip to cover your lack of familiarity up with. Again, read The Point of View of My Work as an Author, where he came out to the reading public to explain what his pseudononymous books were trying to do, which was not to spell out his own viewpoints.
>>
>>24748294
I would have respected Russell a bit more if he didn't engage in trite leftist politics at the end of his life. If he was such a science believer he ought to have known things like apartheid is healthy for society.

That being said I think his philosophy isn't very "deep" and is rather the size of a puddle in complexity.
>>
>>24749338
Likely religious trauma
>>
File: Hume.jpg (21 KB, 400x300)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>24749440
likely the nihilistic ontological effects Henry VIII had on the souls of future Englishmen (or their suspended disbelief of such metaphysical substance/"nonsense"...)
>>
>>24749599
>Englishmen
>Hume
Opps, mean to say British.
You guys truly are the best actors though. I think that's why you guys had the most archetypal monarchs.
It has something to do with acting...
>>
File: images-1.jpg (21 KB, 338x273)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
He was trying to discursively define recursive arithmetic before common knowledge of mathematics capable of expressing it as a symbolic algebraic equation.

Step up to my level or step off, dog.
>>
>>24749428
>The Point of View of My Work as an Author
That's a pretty helpful book, thanks for mentioning it
Do you know if he goes into more details in his journals?
>>
>>24750708
Yes, he tends to draft a lot of the ideas out and mull over what he wants to do with them in a pretty straightforward way. The Hong translations usually include the most relevant journal entries, notes, letters, etc. for the given book.
>>
>>24749338
Russell was an extremely prideful man and also addled by vice. Despite his sorted personal life you can tell that he really does think he is a better person than the medieval saints, and he thinks this because he has the "courage to face the void." Athiesm can be a very emotional thing. On the one hand it helps remove guilt, and on the other it helps support pride because man becomes the measure of all things, while simply not being horrendous allows one to say "and I choose this not out of fear like all the lower men."
>>
>>24747146
>was this guy just trolling?
You're going to drown if you try buddhism.
>>
>>24747146
Trolling is a troll that trolls the troll
>>
>>24751286
Trolling is the post that relates the relation of the posting to the posting of the relation of the related posts.
>>
>>24751266
are buddhists pro troll?
>>
>>24750783
Thanks for such a reply anon.
As intelligent a philosopher, he ironically was unwise a man.
>he has the "courage to face the void."
You're supposed to Light ◉ up the Abyss
>>
>>24751365
I imagine trolling is between allthings and nothing so, they'd be down with being one with trolling (a zen shitposter)
>>
>>24751623
>one with trolling (a zen shitposter)
>>
>>24747146
its a joke, he's making fun of other philosophers of his time
>>
>>24751650
If it's clearly the case that he can't be simply identified with any of his pseudononymous characters, it doesn't follow that an argument in the mode of Idealism shouldn't be taken seriously. The different works are all different existential perspectives from which to understand the choice of faith, their strengths and limits.
>>
>>24751650
logic puzzle/filter/brainteaser
(imagine Kierkegaard is smarter than you imagine he is)
>>
good /kierk/ thread.
worth saving.
>>
File: (S=P)∧(S≠R).png (92 KB, 1106x704)
92 KB
92 KB PNG
>>24747146
>The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relations relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself
also this can be converted/"simplified" into Formal Logic
(S=P)∧(S≠R)
this is the Essence-Energy distinction that the Palamites follow theo-philosophically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamism
>>
>>24751893
This is why Dostoyevsky liked Kierkegaard so much was because he finally saw a Western Philosopher that had (re)discovered Orthodox Christian Metaphysics; he saw a familiar logic.
>>
>>24751919
I think it's a great tragedy that Nietzsche only barely got exposed to Dostoevsky, seeing him as someone like himself grappling with existence and the struggle to overcome ressentiment, but that Nietzsche only heard about Kierkegaard in passing. Such a shame. I would have loved to see Nietzsche write about SK if only it had been translated into French or German earlier, since he never learned Danish.
>>
>>24752125
He had the will to be ignorant with his freedom of metaphysical movement.
Christ got in the way of his godhood.
A saving throw would be if Nietzsche knew and he was a wearing a "great and terrifying mask" the whole time (doubtful but eh...?): the heel.
There are Fools-for-Christ.
I wonder if there are Villains-for-Christ...
>>
Unrelated to the main point of the thread but why does the author in Fear and Trembling get facts about Genesis 22 wrong? It's mentioned that Abraham and Isaac go on a three day journey "in silence" but it says they went with two servants and there's outright dialogue to them.
It's just a bizarrely forced falsehood that's repeated over and over in the beginning. What is the point?
>>
>>24753262
The attunements section? They're all intentional variations connected with the brief passages that follow. And, this'll sound stupid, but it's part of what he's doing, it's emphasized as a theme of that pseudononymous author, Johannes de SILENTIO.

Silentio, as a "character" also has trouble experiencing faith and seeing it in his peers. Take that as you will.
>>
>>24753317
It makes much more sense now, thanks. It being a sort of theme of the author that he's imposing on the story. It's odd that I connected the repeating of the "silence" and the author's name but at the time it seemed too silly that that would be the explanation.
>>
>>24751893
So it's just nonsense? It's a false statement simply put.
>>
>>24747146
To many words. It just means 'I am me'
>>
>>24753462
It says that without having to say I or me are demonstrably unitary or individual or conscious. Also it teases Hegel.
>>
>>24753440
No.
He's saying that you and your reflection are two separate observable things, despite them both being you.
Reflections are accidental.
I mean just think of yourself in time; you were a different guy you were yesterday; why aren't you going to the gym like you promised your past self you would?
>>
>>24754300
>He's saying that you and your reflection are two separate observable things, despite them both being you.
Then they don't get to be on the level of propositional logic that simply, they are categories "me". They can't be simple identities if they have differences by definition.

>I mean just think of yourself in time;
then model using time. these guys weren't around for set theory and did these dumb mental gymnastics that simply don't work logically. But so far, I don't see discussion of people modeling things using set theory and restrict themselves to these faulty abstractions.

Pseud talk all of it to me



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.