/lit/ - Literature

>>5117800
That has everything to do what this post was about >>5117777
And even then, a student who goes to graduate school for math is still a mathematician even if he doesn't graduate, but this is totally beside the point. You're either retarded or trolling. Most likely the former.

>>4566371

Just curious about /lit/'s opinion of the following philosophers. Just post what you think of them.

Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Schopenhauer
Fitche
Kant
Descartes
Sartre
Cioran
Heidegger

>>4061533
What do you mean by that?
Kierkegaard created human characters in different stages in life. While the characters are stuck in his writings, we can transcend the aesthetic stage, after having felt the anxiety it entrails. Like Dostoevsky perhaps ends up saying, even the ethical person, whose actions are all 'right', isn't right before God. Even the ethical person is in the wrong before God, so he must jump into the abyss, having faith in the paradox that God became man. Not religion, not rituals, as some people in C&P are, like Raskols mother and Sonja. Rituals are just more wordly actions, faith is endless and irrational etc etc.

In all these paradoxes, I find it hard to see that Kierkegaard (or Dostoevsky) truly advocated one view over another. They may lean towards Christianity, but they do not tell us to do so, they just show us that it might be the only way out of eternal angst. Trying to 'preach' Christianity, which Dostoevsky doesn't in my oponion, would be detrimental to the Christian message (protestant speaking here).

>>4061560
Read it in Danish, a new translation.

Are you proud of choosing to love only what is extraordinary, what is rare? If it were best to love only those who are extraordinary then God would be puzzled, because to him there is no extraordinary. This claim of loving only that which is extraordinary, then, raises a question, not against love and not against the extraordinary, but against that love which loves only that which is extraordinary. Perfection in the object of love is not perfection in the love. Romantic love is a desire for the extraordinary object, the beloved. Friendship is a desire for the extraordinary object, the friend. Only love of the neighbor is the desire for love. Therefore, authentic love is proved by this, that its object lacks any of those qualifications that differ in people, which means that this love is recognizable only by love.

Are you proud of choosing to love only what is extraordinary, what is rare? If it were best to love only those who are extraordinary then God would be puzzled, because to him there is no extraordinary. This claim of loving only that which is extraordinary, then, raises a question, not against love and not against the extraordinary, but against that love which loves only that which is extraordinary. Perfection in the object of love is not perfection in the love. Romantic love is a desire for the extraordinary, the beloved. Friendship is a desire for the extraordinary, the friend. Only love of the neighbor is the desire for love. Therefore, authentic love is proved by this, that its object lacks any of those qualifications that differ in people, which means that this love is recognizable only by it being love.

>A man enters upon his life, hoping that all will go well for him and with good wishes for others. He steps out into the world’s multiplicity, like one that comes from the country into the great noisy city, into the multiplicity where men engrossed in affairs hurry past one another, where each looks out for what belongs to him in the vast "back and forth," where everything is in passing, where it is as though at each instant one saw what he had learned borne out in practice, and in the same instant saw it refuted, without any cessation in the unrest of work, in multiplicity -- that all too vast a school of experience. For here one can experience everything possible, or that everything is possible, even what the inexperienced man would least believe, that the Good sits highest at the dinner table and crime next highest, or crime highest and the Good next highest -- in good company with each other. So this man stands there. He has in himself a susceptibility for the disease of double-mindedness. His feeling is purely immediate, his knowledge only strengthened through contemplation, his will not mature. Swiftly, alas, swiftly he is infected -- one more victim. This is nothing new, but an old story. As it has happened to him, so it has happened with the double-minded ones who have gone before him -- this in passing he now gives as his own excuse, for he has received the consecration of excuses.

>>3910988
>>3910996
>>3911005
>>3911022
>>3911025
>>3911029
I thought someone would mention this when you said
>how dumb are you?
but it wasn't even that you commented on.

Kierkegaard most likely did not look like picture above. I'm sorry if i ruin him for you, even the new danish editions got that face on them with some artistic dribbles on them.

You can pretend he looked like that if it comforts you though, I think he would have liked that.

Imo, i like him with sunglasses

PS. danefag reporting in
>not reading kierkegaard in its original early-modern danish

>>3881920
>The present age is essentially sensible, reflective, dispassionate, eruptive in its fleeting enthusiasms and prudently indolent in its relaxation. If we had figures for the consumption of prudence from generation to generation as we do for the consumption of spirits, we would be amazed to see what vast quantities are consumed nowadays, what amounts of reflection and deliberation and consideration even a small private family gets through despite its ample income, what amounts even children and young people consume; for just as the children’s crusade typifies the Middle Ages, so child intelligence typifies the present age. Is there anyone who makes even just one tremendous blunder any more? Nowadays not even a suicide does away with himself in desperation, but considers this step so long and so sensibly that he is strangled by good sense, casting doubt on whether he may really be called a suicide, seeing that it was mainly consideration that took his life. A premeditated suicide he was not – rather, a suicide by premeditation. It would be the hardest of tasks to be a prosecuting counsel in a time like this, since the whole generation has legal competence and its skill, its good sense, its virtuosity consist in letting matters reach a verdict and a decision without ever acting.

#rekt

>Is it an excellence in your love that it can love only the extraordinary, the rare? If it were love’s merit to love the extraordinary, then God would be — if I dare say so — perplexed, for to Him the extraordinary does not exist at all. The merit of being able to love only the extraordinary is therefore more like an accusation, not against the extraordinary nor against love, but against the love which can love only the extraordinary. Perfection in the object is not perfection in the love. Erotic love is determined by the object; friendship is determined by the object; only love of one’s neighbor is determined by love. Therefore genuine love is recognizable by this, that its object is without any of the more definite qualifications of difference, which means that this love is recognizable only by love.

This is from Works of Love by Kierkegaard, Kjerlighedens Gjerninger in Danish, but where exactly is it? I would like to read the Danish version, but people rarely source the quotation, and seem to never quote it more precise than Works of Love.

>Perfection in the object is not perfection in the love.

>Hence it came about that the pagans judged self-slaughter so lightly, yea, even praised it, notwithstanding that for the spirit it is the most decisive sin, that to break out of existence in this way is rebellion against God. The pagan lacked the spirit’s definition of the self, therefore he expressed such a judgment of self-slaughter --and this the same pagan did who condemned with moral severity theft, unchastity, etc. He lacked the point of view for regarding self-slaughter, he lacked the God-relationship and the self. From a purely pagan point of view self-slaughter is a thing indifferent, a thing every man may do if he likes, because it concerns nobody else. If from a pagan point of view one were to warn against self-slaughter, it must be by a long detour, by showing that it was breach of duty to ward one’s fellow-men. The point in self-slaughter, that it is a crime against God, entirely escapes the pagan. One cannot say, therefore, that the self-slaughter was despair, which would be a thoughtless hysteron proteron; one must say that the fact that the pagan judged self-slaughter as he did was despair.

>one must say that the fact that the pagan judged self-slaughter as he did was despair.
the idea that a human life is of such low worth that if it ends itself it is an indifferent matter, that low judgment of life itself is despair; from the Christian point of view life is always worth living because one is related to God, and to end your life is an abomination.

Is it an excellence in your love that it can love only the extraordinary, the rare? If it were love’s merit to love the extraordinary, then God would be — if I dare say so — perplexed, for to Him the extraordinary does not exist at all. The merit of being able to love only the extraordinary is therefore more like an accusation, not against the extraordinary nor against love, but against the love which can love only the extraordinary. Perfection in the object is not perfection in the love. Erotic love is determined by the object; friendship is determined by the object; only love of one’s neighbor is determined by love. Therefore genuine love is recognizable by this, that its object is without any of the more definite qualifications of difference, which means that this love is recognizable only by love.

>she has nice hair
>and now its finna stank

>>3797759
>What philosopher are you blatantly ripping this off

this one

>Is it an excellence in your love that it can love only the extraordinary, the rare? If it were love’s merit to love the extraordinary, then God would be — if I dare say so — perplexed, for to Him the extraordinary does not exist at all. The merit of being able to love only the extraordinary is therefore more like an accusation, not against the extraordinary nor against love, but against the love which can love only the extraordinary. Perfection in the object is not perfection in the love. Erotic love is determined by the object; friendship is determined by the object; only love of one’s neighbor is determined by love. Therefore genuine love is recognizable by this, that its object is without any of the more definite qualifications of difference, which means that this love is recognizable only by love.

Christianity of course.


>Is it an excellence in your love that it can love only the extraordinary, the rare? If it were love’s merit to love the extraordinary, then God would be — if I dare say so — perplexed, for to Him the extraordinary does not exist at all. The merit of being able to love only the extraordinary is therefore more like an accusation, not against the extraordinary nor against love, but against the love which can love only the extraordinary. Perfection in the object is not perfection in the love. Erotic love is determined by the object; friendship is determined by the object; only love of one’s neighbor is determined by love. Therefore genuine love is recognizable by this, that its object is without any of the more definite qualifications of difference, which means that this love is recognizable only by love.

>Perfection in the object is not perfection in the love.

>Is it an excellence in your love that it can love only what is extraordinary, what is rare? If it were love’s merit to love the extraordinary then God would be perplexed, for to Him there is nothing that is extraordinary. The merit of being able to love only the extraordinary is an objection, not against that which is extraordinary and not against love, but against that love which can love only that which is extraordinary. Perfection in the object of love is not perfection in the love. Erotic love is determined by the object of love; friendship is determined by the object of love; only love of one’s neighbor is determined by love. Therefore genuine love is recognizable by this, that its object is without any qualifications of difference, which means that this love is recognizable only by love.

>>3725916
teleology is basically the most retarded thing everyone has ever thought of

>i can't understand kant or kierkegaard
>it must have been their religion that made me stupid

stay in despair, plebs

Before any sticks in the mud decide to criticize this, let's just have some fun. Let us have a tournament-style bracket to decide lit's favorite american author. To decide each matchup, the post with the most replies will win. As in the NCAA tournament, we have four "regions":

Pre-Civil War
Civil War to WWI
WWI-WWII
WWII-Present

http://betterbracketmaker.com/#!/561268954c715

>implying this is a new feel

Of all ridiculous things the most ridiculous seems to me, to be busy—to be a man who
is brisk about his food and his work. Therefore, whenever I see a fly settling, in the
decisive moment, on the nose of such a person of affairs; or if he is spattered with mud
from a carriage which drives past him in still greater haste; or the drawbridge opens up
before him; or a tile falls down and knocks him dead, then I laugh heartily. And who,
indeed, could help laughing? What, I wonder, do these busy folks get done? Are they not
to be classed with the woman who in her confusion about the house being on fire carried
out the firetongs? What things of greater account, do you suppose, will they rescue from
life's great conflagration?

>>3413675
which is also a valid way to exit nihilism