why is kierkegaard considered a genius on this forum?

[hades]

Can someone explain?


Thanks.

[Cory Duchesne]

I think one of the main reasons is that Kierkegaard rejected the view shared by the likes of Hegel, Marx and Engels, that the development of human thought is objective and that history and all phenomenon can be [entirely] known scientifically. Scientific positivism I think is what both Kierkegaard and Nietzche were unenthusiastic about. Both of K and Nietzsche had great respect of Chinese sages, and eastern philosophy, and their philosophies seem to borrow and support much of eastern thinking. Kierkegaard's attitude toward the aesthetic was also uniquely acute and had a special sort of concern that was resonant with eastern sages. He was sincere about his (attempted) renounciation sensuality, he was one of the few western philosophers who really seemed serious about it.

But I understand your confusion about Kierkegaard, on the surface he doesnt appear to have much relation to eastern philosophy. But in a great deal more words, he seems to be pointing to a similar truth as the one pushed by eastern thinking.

Here is a critique of Kierkegaard's character by some socialist guy. I'm sure there is a bit of truth to it. My opinion is that K, despite he produced some very good works, couldnt quite get over himself and had some big flaws. This article is pretty amusing and stimulating (although the writer of this article I'm sure has great flaws himself, and is only seeing one side of the story)

A closer look at Kierkegaard

[Cory Duchesne]

Also Kierkegaard's "anti-flow", against the grain mentality supports this forums values, not to mention his view of woman and his opinion in regards to the importance of suffering and doing what is not the most comforting. Finally, he stressed individuality over the herd to a very high degree.

[Tim]

From Cory's article:

When he was 28 years old, because of some personal affliction (possibly venereal disease) Kierkegaard forced himself to spurn the affections of the most popular woman in Copenhagen—18-year-old Regine Olsen, whom he dearly loved—without explaining to her why.

Kierkegaard was an ethical man. If a man gets hisself a VD, he needs to not hook up with a woman. He don't need to tell her why, he just needs to leave her alone. If he hadn't been with whores, he would've had hisself a fine woman.

[hades]

I'm still not really convinced, can anyone elaborate more.

And Cory Duchesne, what does his opinion of women have to do with being a genius, and what exactly was it?

Wasn't he a christian who subscribed to the Abrahamic god belief?

[Cory Duchesne]

Kierkegaard’s reaction to the decay and moral bankruptcy of official “cultivated” society was to attack the very foundation of the Enlightenment that had produced it—reason. Reason was the cornerstone of it all—of science, of knowledge, of medicine, of the Church, and of philosophy.

Real knowledge or understanding, Kierkegaard argued, was acquired individually, emotionally and immediately through lucid experiences. Kierkegaard strongly believed, first of all, that the whole idea of Christendom was therefore mistaken. God has no relationship to human society in the abstract, Kierkegaard thought. God has relationships only with individuals, and the individual experience of God—one of terror and awe—is of an intimately personal and mystical nature.

And

Kierkegaard regarded all of the Enlightenment conceptions of scientific objectivity as total nonsense. “Absolutely no benefit can be derived from involving oneself with the natural sciences,” Kierkegaard wrote. “One stands there defenseless, with no control over anything. The researcher immediately begins to distract one with his details: Now one is to go to Australia, now to the moon; now into an underground cave; now, by Satan, up the arse—to look for an intestinal worm; now the telescope must be used; now the microscope: Who in the devil can endure it?” (p. 468)

Any conversations one might hope to have with Quinn and Solway, would probably yield conclusions that look nothing like the depiction of Kierkegaard's above.


But I will add: I think another big factor that contributed to the marriage between elements of Kierkegaard and QRS philosophy was the factor of disgust for bourgeois society:

From the article above:

Kierkegaard’s life was indeed tragic, and it is easy to see how his story strikes a chord with many today who are likewise disgusted by the circumstances of modern life

Quinn, Solway and others found a kindred spirit in Kierkegaard, so they took what they liked from him, and ignored the rest.

[Cory Duchesne]

Wasn't he a christian who subscribed to the Abrahamic god belief?

I do hope Quinn or Solway show up on this thread and give their take. Hades questions are similar to my own. I've been wondering on a similar vein since I came on this forum.

I know that I've heard Quinn and Solway use the word God quite a bit.....but their idea of God is quite a deviation from Abrahamic God belief (if I understand the abrahamic god belief correctly). I've in the past supsected that Quinn and Solway naively assumed that Kierkegaard understood God in the same way that they do.

Or, like I said earlier, they just took what they liked from K, and ignored or (even unconsciously denied) the rest.

[Cory Duchesne]

And Cory Duchesne, what does his opinion of women have to do with being a genius, and what exactly was it?

Why don't you explore some of this compilation strewn together by Quinn and Solway.

And if you want to know what his opinion on woman has to do with being a genius, I think you have to know how genius is defined by the moderators, and you need to get to know the moderators a bit more by following some of their conversations or even having a direct exchange with them.

[Tim]

Cory, the truth that can be spoken is not the whole truth. Like Richard said, the Zionists are suppressing the truth about stereotypes to feminize society. Kierkgaard and Weininger both saw the same truths about women and race as Quinn, Richard, and Solway, and that is why they are promoting their works. Women are beautiful and valuable, but they must be contained. Shakespeare wrote of this in "The Taming of the Shrew."

[Tim]

I do hope Quinn or Solway show up on this thread and give their take.

"Mommy! Save me!" part 2

(and part 1 here)

[David Quinn]

Hades wrote:

why is kierkegaard considered a genius on this forum?

This is like asking, "Why is the sun considered a bright, shining object?"

Kierkegaard's genius shines out in every word he utters. Incredible intelligence coupled with acute observational powers and great wit, informed by a deep and transparent comprehension of the Infinite.

Wasn't he a christian who subscribed to the Abrahamic god belief?

Not at all. He was only a Christian in the sense that he was a follower of the path that Jesus spoke about, but that has little to do with religion of Christianity. He was to Christianity what Einstein was to kindergarten or what Mozart was to tinkering tunelessly on the piano.

And Cory Duchesne, what does his opinion of women have to do with being a genius, and what exactly was it?

As the link that Cory gave reveals, Kierkegaard's views on women are very similar to my own views, and others on this forum. The ability to reject woman and see beyond her requires great intellectual courage, which is a necessary requirement for genius.

If a person is unable to reject woman and see beyond her, it is a sign that he has no potential for genius at all. It indicates that his is the mentality of a midget.

-

[Greg Shantz]

That is a horrible article which even aside from all the attempts to portray Kierkegaard as a failed mediocre person contains many factual errors. For example:

Regine later married the successful philosopher Fritz Schlegel

The man she married was not a philosopher but a civil servant. The is a philosopher with the name Schlegel, but this is not the same person.

Also:

because of some personal affliction (possibly venereal disease)

I read Garff's biography recently and I don't remember this being suggested. He theorized that Kierkegaard's father may have had a venereal disease based on Stages on Life's Way, but not Kierkegaard himself, if memory serves.

That article is foggy.

The mediocre (Garff, the author ot that article) judge great geniuses by mediocre standards and find them lacking. Should we care?

[David Quinn]

Tom Carter, the author of the article, wrote:

When he was 28 years old, because of some personal affliction (possibly venereal disease) Kierkegaard forced himself to spurn the affections of the most popular woman in Copenhagen—18-year-old Regine Olsen, whom he dearly loved—without explaining to her why.

"Possibly venereal disease". Ah, that's a new one. I haven't head that one before. We can add it to the list:

- Kierkegaard rejected marriage and decided to continue being a philosopher because of a venereal disease.

- Nietzsche thunk loftily and then went mad because of a venereal disease.

- Weininger's views were the result of his being a homosexual.

Everything has to be sex-related nowadays, otherwise it doesn't register in the modern mind. Where it will end, I wonder? Perhaps Kevin Solway will one day be proven to have had a fetish for leather and little dogs.

Kierkegaard’s reaction to the decay and moral bankruptcy of official “cultivated” society was to attack the very foundation of the Enlightenment that had produced it—reason. Reason was the cornerstone of it all—of science, of knowledge, of medicine, of the Church, and of philosophy.

Real knowledge or understanding, Kierkegaard argued, was acquired individually, emotionally and immediately through lucid experiences. Kierkegaard strongly believed, first of all, that the whole idea of Christendom was therefore mistaken. God has no relationship to human society in the abstract, Kierkegaard thought. God has relationships only with individuals, and the individual experience of God—one of terror and awe—is of an intimately personal and mystical nature.

Kierkegaard never attacked reason. He only attacked the way it was used by Hegel and western society generally. He attacked the idea of approaching Truth by seeking objective (i.e. scientific ) truths, or by formulating abstract logical systems of thought. He correctly saw that such approaches serve to take one away from Truth, which can only be found in one's inward subjective relationship to the Universe.

Kierkegaard regarded all of the Enlightenment conceptions of scientific objectivity as total nonsense. “Absolutely no benefit can be derived from involving oneself with the natural sciences,” Kierkegaard wrote. “One stands there defenseless, with no control over anything. The researcher immediately begins to distract one with his details: Now one is to go to Australia, now to the moon; now into an underground cave; now, by Satan, up the arse—to look for an intestinal worm; now the telescope must be used; now the microscope: Who in the devil can endure it?”

Totally agree with that. I've often wondered how anyone with intelligence could stand being a scientist. Look at him: he is mysteriously flung into the world without his say-so, sustained from one moment to the next by the miracle of his own consciousness, surrounded by the ever-changing richness of existence, blessed with an intelligence that can penetrate into any matter at all, and so what does he do for the rest of his life ....? He studies the life-cycle of a dung-beetle!

-

[hades]

Totally agree with that. I've often wondered how anyone with intelligence could stand being a scientist. Look at him: he is mysteriously flung into the world without his say-so, sustained from one moment to the next by the miracle of his own consciousness, surrounded by the ever-changing richness of existence, blessed with an intelligence that can penetrate into any matter at all, and so what does he do for the rest of his life ....? He studies the life-cycle of a dung-beetle!

Scientists do a lot more than study dung-beetles. And even bugs are part of our ever-changing rich existance. So why not study them?

I understand scientists, they have the same sort of wonder as philosophers, but their wonder and fascination is just directed upon different parts of reality.



And what truth did Kierk discover that makes him a genius? I'm sure it takes more than just attacking a system of western thought and rejecting an attractive 18 year old girl...

[Jamesh]

David loves him so much because David is totally in love with the concept of sageness. He thinks there is something glorious about being a sage. Kierkies stuff is written as an appeal to this emotion/desire.

[hades]

David loves him so much because David is totally in love with the concept of sageness. He thinks there is something glorious about being a sage. Kierkies stuff is written as an appeal to this emotion/desire.

So are sages better than gurus?

[Jamesh]

Words like "better" only really relate to the satisfaction of one's own ego. Nature has no such values.

But yes :) - I'm as false and ego bound as everyone else - to me sages are better than guru's, as sages refuse the attachment of followers. Any follower is a religious person. Refusing followers is a sign of an ego controlled more by rationality than emotions, and it is better for me if the ego's of others are controlled in such a fashion.

In a causal sense, if the ego's of others are more rationally controlled, then I will have less need for my nowness to be constantly inflicted by the idiotic emotions of others.

[Cory Duchesne]

I don't think, at least on some levels of conversationDaniel Dennet and Kierkegaard would have gotten along well.

The above link leads to a pretty funny article written by DD, of which, in my opinion, expresses a passion for that which Kierkegaard despised.

[David Quinn]

Hades,

DQ: Totally agree with that. I've often wondered how anyone with intelligence could stand being a scientist. Look at him: he is mysteriously flung into the world without his say-so, sustained from one moment to the next by the miracle of his own consciousness, surrounded by the ever-changing richness of existence, blessed with an intelligence that can penetrate into any matter at all, and so what does he do for the rest of his life ....? He studies the life-cycle of a dung-beetle!

H: Scientists do a lot more than study dung-beetles.

All science is a variation of the theme of studying dung-beetles. Even the grandest theorizing by cosmologists is infinitely small and infinitely unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

And even bugs are part of our ever-changing rich existance. So why not study them?

Why not indeed? I'm sure it is a perfectly respectable pastime. I just can't imagine anyone with intelligence actually doing it.

It's like settling down for a third-rate existence. An abandoning of the stars. A giving up of one's soul.

I understand scientists, they have the same sort of wonder as philosophers, but their wonder and fascination is just directed upon different parts of reality.

I think it is an escape from that wonder. Or the directing of it in such a way that it becomes distant and harmless. It is as though the wonder, and all that it implies, is far too powerful for them and they have to dilute it as much as possible, just to live and breathe.

Science is process of immersing oneself in the trees and losing sight of the forest. It is a useful vehicle for those who want their minds distracted from fundamental issues, and many people are quick to take advantage of it.

And what truth did Kierk discover that makes him a genius? I'm sure it takes more than just attacking a system of western thought and rejecting an attractive 18 year old girl...

To my mind, his greatest expression of genius was his uncompromising nature and his willingness to squarely face the suffering which underlies becoming truthful and wise in this world. Most gurus concentrate on the perceived happy aspects of spirituality - the tranquility, inner peace, greater control, etc - but very few of them ever touch upon the terrifying and painful aspects. For good reason, they don't want to scare their followers away! It wouldn't be good for business.

-

[Kevin Solway]

The above link leads to a pretty funny article written by DD, of which, in my opinion, expresses a passion for that
which Kierkegaard despised.

I think Kierkegaard was a very rational person, and I doubt that he would reject anything that could be reasoned to be true.

With regard to the other conversation, one of the things Kierkegaard is famous for is rejecting organized Christianity and offering an alternative, mystical type of Christianity. An altogether different interpretation of scripture.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

hades,

Wasn't he a christian who subscribed to the Abrahamic god belief?

If there is anything in Kierkegaard that seems passé, I wouldn't hesitate to clarify that he was not a man of his time. He didn't subscribe to any belief, so much as invent new ones. In every sense of the term, he was a freethinking genius.

Saying otherwise is like complaining that George Orwell is conventional and unoriginal for using terms like "Big Brother" and "newspeak", which are clearly used everywhere.

In the last century-plus, Christianity has had to adapt to Kierkegaard.

[hades]

All science is a variation of the theme of studying dung-beetles. Even the grandest theorizing by cosmologists is infinitely small and infinitely unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

Apples and oranges. Sounds like you are creating a hierarchy of value, and are placing scientific-thought somewhere on the bottom...whats the point of this arbitrary mental construct of yours?

Why not indeed? I'm sure it is a perfectly respectable pastime. I just can't imagine anyone with intelligence actually doing it.

It's like settling down for a third-rate existence. An abandoning of the stars. A giving up of one's soul.

Again, science goes way beyond studying dung-beetles and has marvelous results and effects.

What makes something worthy of examination and inspection in your point of view, if not science, then what and why?

I think it is an escape from that wonder. Or the directing of it in such a way that it becomes distant and harmless. It is as though the wonder, and all that it implies, is far too powerful for them and they have to dilute it as much as possible, just to live and breathe.

Science is process of immersing oneself in the trees and losing sight of the forest. It is a useful vehicle for those who want their minds distracted from fundamental issues, and many people are quick to take advantage of it.

What do you think are the fundamental issues?

To my mind, his greatest expression of genius was his uncompromising nature and his willingness to squarely face the suffering which underlies becoming truthful and wise in this world. Most gurus concentrate on the perceived happy aspects of spirituality - the tranquility, inner peace, greater control, etc - but very few of them ever touch upon the terrifying and painful aspects. For good reason, they don't want to scare their followers away! It wouldn't be good for business.

That sounds just a bit circular, his greatest expression of genius was his willingness to face the suffering which underlies becoming wise [a genius]....


I'm trying to find out what he said or did that warrants such a rank. For example, if I asked what makes Michelangelo Buonarroti a fantastic sculptor? One could answer: well he sculpted X Y and Z...and they were fantastic by our standards.

Do you understand what I mean?
Don't tell me hes a great sculptor because he had the courage to face the suffering which underlies becoming a sculptor...

So now, if you want, you could give me some examples of him being wise, like examples of him "squarely facing the suffering which underlies becoming wise"....

thnx

[Kevin Solway]

I'm trying to find out what he said or did that warrants such a rank. For example, if I asked what makes Michelangelo Buonarroti a fantastic sculptor? One could answer: well he sculpted X Y and Z...and they were fantastic by our standards.

Do you understand what I mean?

Have a look here for some of Kierkegaard's "sculptures".

[Matt Gregory]

Everything has to be sex-related nowadays, otherwise it doesn't register in the modern mind. Where it will end, I wonder?

Wasn't it Lao Tzu who said, "Great thought seems like sexual dysfunction," or something?

[David Quinn]

He might have done. In the following translation, the line is, "Great purity seems sullied".

The wise student hears the Tao and practices it
diligently.
The average student hears of the Tao and gives it
thought now and again.
The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.
If there were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is.

Hence it is said: The bright path seems dim;
Going forward seems like retreat;
The easy way seems hard;
The highest Virtue seems empty;
Great Purity seems sullied;
A wealth of Virtue seems inadequate;
The strength of Virtue seems frail:
Real Virtue seems unreal;
The perfect square has no corners;
Great talents ripen late;
The highest notes are hard to hear;
The greatest form has no shape;
The Tao is hidden and without name.
The Tao alone nourishes and brings everything to
fullfilment.

The meaning is very similar.

-