GENIUS FORUMS

Here's a quote by Kierkegaard, a writer whose meaning has often eluded me:

The case with most men is that they go out into life with one or another accidental characteristic of personality of which they say: Well, this is the way I am. I cannot do otherwise. Then the world gets to work on them and thus the majority of men are ground into conformity. In each generation a small part cling to their "I cannot do otherwise" and lose their minds. Finally there are a very few in each generation who in spite of all life's terrors cling with more and more inwardness to this "I cannot do otherwise". They are the geniuses. Their "I cannot do otherwise" is an infinite thought, for if one were to cling firmly to a finite thought, he would lose his mind.

Just like the title of the thread says, "How Can a Thought be Infinite?"

Anyone want to explain that one to me?

Can you find the beginning of any thought, or the end of any thought? In time or in meaning?

It is literally impossible for any thought to be otherwise than infinite; a thinker cannot be otherwise.

Kelly Jones wrote:Can you find the beginning of any thought, or the end of any thought? In time or in meaning?

It is literally impossible for any thought to be otherwise than infinite; a thinker cannot be otherwise.

You are entirely negating Kierkegaard's point. If it were literally impossible for a thought to be finite as opposed to infinite, in the way he is using the term, then no one would "lose his mind," if it's the very finitude of a thought which makes it maddening to cling to.

So either you are negating his point or missing it. Your classifying all thoughts as infinite is based on thought itself being intangible. You do not have to "find" a thought's temporal beginning or end to be sure it has both things. Thoughts can and do recur, which implies temporal limits. And you obviously do not think all thoughts at once, at least not on a normal basis. Also, you imply a thought has no boundaries in meaning. That is plainly a self-contradiction, unless there was only one possible thought.

To address Loki's question, I think Kierkegaard was speaking about the resiliency of a thought, when a notion assumes the mantle of dogged conviction. If one clings to it, one will either sink or swim, depending on whether it is infinite or not. If it is finite and one clings to it, one cannot adapt and a rift develops between what one does and what the circumstances call for. The tighter one clings, the deeper the rift in one's psyche, and the more pronounced the outward manifestations. "Losing one's mind" is just a way of describing this schism, the schism from which a schizoid person suffers.

But if it is "infinite," then a thought becomes the truth and clinging to it would keep one from perishing or else being "ground into conformity," which can appear to be quite the same thing.

What he means is that geniuses understand the "I" itself from the "I cannot do otherwise." They understand that the "I" is beyond all time, and place the highest value on the "I". The part that loses their minds by clinging to the thought falter in their valuation of the "I". They don't cling to the thought firmly enough. Hence, their thought is "finite."

Interesting take, jupviv.

They don't cling to the thought firmly enough. Hence, their thought is "finite."

This would mean that if you did cling firmly enough, the thought would be infinite. I think SK is implying that no matter how firmly one clings to the wrong thought (finite, not true) one fails. It is in this part of the quote:

for if one were to cling firmly to a finite thought, he would lose his mind.

But yes, if the "I" is beyond time, it requires thoughts of the "infinite" kind. If not, it must conform to the world with its terrors; if so, the mind is a rare genius and the world may end up turning about that mind's axis, conforming to it. It seems a lot is left to circumstance to decide which are the geniuses and which are the ones who have lost their minds. Perhaps only the accumulation of circumstances - history - can judge.

cousinbasil wrote:

jupiviv wrote:They don't cling to the thought firmly enough. Hence, their thought is "finite."

This would mean that if you did cling firmly enough, the thought would be infinite. I think SK is implying that no matter how firmly one clings to the wrong thought (finite, not true) one fails.

I think what Kierkegaard means by an "infinite" thought is a thought that always remains in the mind of a person(i.e, the person consistently values reason above all else), whereas a "finite" thought is a valuation of reason that falters and changes according to circumstances. But most men don't even value reason("ground into conformity.")

It seems a lot is left to circumstance to decide which are the geniuses and which are the ones who have lost their minds.

Yes, anyone who becomes a genius is caused to do so, but genius itself is outside time. The genius(who is conscious) creates his own time through his consciousness, and since he creates time, he is outside it.

Yes, anyone who becomes a genius is caused to do so

This can be seen clearly if one examines the lives of most geniuses. One can hardly imagine most geniuses choose to go through the trials they encounter. They do not conform because they can't. Once in a while a genius does choose to keep the light under the bushel, so to speak. Gauss, for instance, refused to publish his work on non-euclidean geometry. Many believe he opted not to under the advice of colleagues, advice similar to that received by Lobachevsky from his colleagues about the exact same subject and which he ignored, suffering the ensuing academic scorn.

Loki wrote:Just like the title of the thread says, "How Can a Thought be Infinite?"

Jup is right. Perhaps even simpler: Kierkegaard is making a distinction between "I am" as character, a set of personal properties and preferences and "I am" based on fate, awareness and existence alone.

The reason one would lose their mind otherwise is that personal properties and preferences are subjective and not fixed and their constant change and flux (deceit) would tear one to pieces if one clang to it so tightly.

cousinbasil wrote:One can hardly imagine most geniuses choose to go through the trials they encounter. They do not conform because they can't.

They choose not to conform to delusions, but they don't choose the existence of the delusions that they are not conforming to.

BTW, I just remembered a quote by Nietzsche that is similar in spirit to Kierkegaard's quote - "It is not the intensity but the duration of great sentiments that make great men."

cousinbasil wrote: If it were literally impossible for a thought to be finite as opposed to infinite, in the way he is using the term, then no one would "lose his mind,"

The attempt to hold onto finitude is what makes people insane. It is literally impossible to do, but deluded people don't know it. They think they're achieving it, such as with academic treatises trying to encapsulate an entire view, scientific works full of millions of categories, and religious dogma trying to concretise what cannot be concretised.

Some people just never wake up to the delusion.


.

jupviv wrote:They choose not to conform to delusions, but they don't choose the existence of the delusions that they are not conforming to.

But then, no one does. Per SK, most people conform. The existence of that to which they conform is not by their choice, or else it would not be conforming (adjusting to something external.) Geniuses and mad men do not conform in some significant way. (Many if not most people fail to conform in minor ways.) If what the genius experiences is "I cannot do otherwise," then that does not allow room for choice. He clings to his thought because he must.

cousinbasil wrote:If what the genius experiences is "I cannot do otherwise," then that does not allow room for choice. He clings to his thought because he must.

Yes, a genius cannot be something other than a genius, because he is a genius. But only a genius understands this fact.