What the fuck is this

the absurd, having faith they will all come back to you

I suppose that's the hardest part, to me it's no different than betting on luck.

Who do you mean by they.

>Who do you mean by they.
Whatever it is you resigned

It's not luck, it's faith. Faith that with God all things are possible, even the absurd and irrational.

hahahahahaha

If you're struggling to understand a work of philosophy, you need to read it slower. Don't move from one passage to the next until you can visualize what's been described.

Reminder that Kierkegaard is a crypto-Catholic, thus completely wrong and perverse.

What? No.

He's not a crypto-catholic. He was simply Catholic. Also, Catholocism is right, and everything else is a perversion.

Stop confusing yourself and just listen to these lectures

archive.org/details/Phil_7_Existentialism_in_Literature_and_Film

This is probably my favorite work of philosophy.

This is terrible advice. If you dont understand something move on, come back later when you have more knowledge on the subject.

I have this exact version of the book sitting on my nightstand. Kierkegaard gives me anxiety. I can't help but get a little turned on by the cover.

Catholicism is Theologically and Philosophically analogous to Atheism. In fact, excerpts from Augustine and, say, Bertrand Russell are interchangeable at least in their gist of quivering with terror before Reason, if not literally interchangeable.

You sound like someone who spends more time reading Wikipedia articles than reading the real thing. Actual learning requires reflection. To study does not mean to flit about without focus or attention, but to work through an idea or concept until it is known. In all likelihood, OP just has a poor attention span and is used to reading books simple enough where it doesn't really matter if you miss something. Kierkegaard, though, puts forward some very nuanced and rich metaphors that need to be heavily considered to really engage with the work. You cannot possibly undertstand what he is meaning about Knights of Faith and infinite resignation if you cannot work through what he is saying about Abraham and Isaac.

Why are you jumping straight in Kierkegaard? You can't and shouldn't try to take shortcuts in philosophy. Start with Plato and work your way up to Hegel and then try again.

I am planning to steal this alongside The Sound and The Fury from my local library

Your response just demonstrates how little you actually understand either author. For one, Augustine does not quiver with terror before reason. He praises reason as a wonderful treasure, and thanks God in his infinite glory for allowing man to have reason, despite our continual misuse of it.

absolute > universal = good but not good enough
absolute > absolute = Abraham

This, You shouldn’t take shortcuts in Literature and Philosophy, read carefully, and each book must be read twice even three times, brainlets are incapable and unwilling, acquire patience OP and cease it with your "HOT TAKES" you utter faggot

Quips about me not understanding or not having read someone are usually the penultimate reply before I post an excerpt that TREMENDOUSLY proves my point and the other party concedes.

Why would you steal a book you can read for free?

I want the one I can’t have, and it’s driving me mad

Why would you comment about what you are about to do, instead of just doing it? And why do you think you can take two quotes out of context to demonstrate the equivalence between two whole broad positions, which each have much disagreement within themselves?

Furthermore, why do you think that posting a quote from something demonstrates that you've understood something, let alone read it?

What 1 book would give me the most comprehensive view of kierkegaard's philosophy?

Attached: 1554986613034.jpg (1980x1564, 1.01M)

Kierkegaard's faith is simple: sacrifice without any expectation of reward, the sacrifice that even expunges the narrative of an "unsung sacrifice". How do you that? By killing the only son you only know and love.

Ive posted this before and I'll say it again: an angel didn't swoop down from the sky to stop Abraham, Abraham stayed his own hand, he needed to convince himself his God could survive even the intent to murder his child, and he proved it. That he was thinking of God, and not the devil, is certain from the fact that he did not kill Isaac.

If you have the balls for your sense of love and goodness and sublime = x to survive murdering the person you love the most in cold blood you have faith. Not because faith sanctions it but because it can survive it. Its giving yourself over to a rupture of your world so radical these threads feel like watching an ant farm reacting to Wagner. It's indescribable. You aren't there til you're there.

Attached: ww11.png (553x569, 101K)

Google it dumbass, gather all books relating to Kierkegaard, and read them all, come back when you’re done you little pussy

Good post. Kierkegaard's faith is pretty complex though, there's whole Scientific Fragments and Concluding Unscientific Postscripts that try to outline the problem of the faith.

Say that to my face and not on the internet

I'd hate to sift through Augustine even more than through Russell, but the latter's snide summary of Socrates in that letter concerning the shape of the Earth is analogous to Augustine's shit-eating fake pity and humble bragging regarding the "misuse" or Reason and his "piety" in abstaining therefrom. And generally speaking, they converge in perfect unison in pathologizing Plato et al. and purporting their principles as tragically congenital, to the perversion of their insight into tepid sitcom nonsense, which their "heroically" perform. Cowards, the lot of you.

Based post, please elaborate on the pathologization on Plato, I'm tired of French cucks and -oids turning Plato into a poster boy for capitalism/philosophy of identity

>People usually run away when I quote the things I've totally read
>>Alright, quote it
>Pssh, you really think I'm going to waste my time sifting through the many quotes I've totally underlined myself, and not simply pulled from wikiquote?
>Instead, just take my broad, vague, and jargon filled summary of these thinker's faults as completely true and without any form of bias or misunderstanding
Wow, you are good.

You have to leave

Attached: ADD04675-521A-415B-B02D-5D6C6C058E44.jpg (768x1024, 103K)

Someone call PETA

archive.org/details/Phil_7_Existentialism_in_Literature_and_Film

Amidst all the clamor is this link which will change your life. People are still ignoring the first one I shared.

>secondary material
>changing life
If you are unable to appreciate them first-hand then your heart will never be swayed by them. You may learn to pretend you understand them like literature and philosophy programs students usually do, and you may even learn to write long and wordy articles about their merits, but all of this is actually worth nothing.

To do what?, this?

Attached: 7D717826-F6B2-4827-9880-469528065B26.jpg (1117x1400, 1.19M)

Implying you dont read the text and have a firsthand experience alongside someone who has had their own firsthand experience and years of understanding??
The entire book and K's philosophy as a whole only makes sense as a personal, earnest, inward struggle. Only those attuned to inwardness will benefit.

2deep4u

based

More accurately he was a sort of Lutheran-Orthodox mix without realizing it.

>The entire book and K's philosophy as a whole only makes sense as a personal, earnest, inward struggle. Only those attuned to inwardness will benefit.
This is true, and this is also why someone else's interpretation can do more harm than good.

No, it's more that Lutheranism and Eastern Christianity err from Catholicism in similar, but opposite directions.

Hubert Dreyfus fully understands this. Thats why the lecture series is so great, he knows how to establish certain things so that you will lead yourself to revelation.