Get into Philosophy

I'm going to continue asking questions at the risk of distracting from the vital meta-conversation happening here.

I'm only just starting out with Kierkegaard. In which works does he address these ideas of equality and freedom of speech? Also, I fail to see how these two ideas alone make him a neoliberal (I'm not sure what the etc is referring to) since there are multiple ideologies that hold these two ideals.

Unfortunately no

>Get into philosophy
> Become a Kierkegaardian Neo-Nazi

Did this happen to anyone else?

Attached: D6F7CE9E-4859-4394-8441-994B06EB3FA9.jpg (1536x2048, 947K)

Best meme that never caught on related

Attached: 0BF1FC46-85DC-4A70-919A-7EC05F3C32BE.jpg (1125x1975, 1.27M)

Rebel is that you?

Equality in loving and a few other works. Everyone is equal before God. Also, I got here by realizing neoliberalism is the best system for ensuring equality and freedom of speech.

Kirkegaard was a fideist without scripture. I know "leap of faith" is a mistranslation, but his idea was always ultimately about faith as a personal enterprise above all else. We live in a world of absurdities and to deny or affirm either, to accept their incompletenesses, is a measure of faith necessary to move.

What can i read in 2 hours to grasp Kierkegaard's philosophy? I'm studying other things and I don't want to sink much time into him at the moment though I am curious

He has quite a few short works you could in that time. I would recommend listening to lectures on him since that's likely what would work best for you, though.

>Everyone is equal before God.
That strikes me as at conflict with neoliberalism, which I assume to mean a secular ethics that developed in the 20th century in response to the *death* of God. Which neoliberals do you know of that refer to God when describing either egalitarianism or free will? I simply don't know of a single advocate of neoliberalism in the 20th century who makes appeals to theology, but please provide me with names of some who do if you know them.

>realizing neoliberalism is the best system for ensuring equality and freedom of speech
Also, I hope you're joking about this. If you're not, I highly recommend Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism to see how neoliberalism has encouraged each individual to construct his/her own prison (rather than relying on institutions to do it for them).

First you would have to demonstrate why noliberalism is the result of the supposed idea of the death of God. Second, you would have to demonstrate to me why neoliberalism isn't the best for ensuring God given equality. You can practice ANY religion in neoliberal Europe, and are free to do anything that doesn't harm others.

>Kierkegaardian Neoliberal
please die

shitpost
explain why you find this idea repulsive
It has flaws, but it's the best system for ensuring freedom.

no

>You can practice ANY religion in neoliberal Europe
Exactly; that is part of my point. A secular society thrives on the capability for pluralistic conceptions of religion or God, because neoliberalism deems each religion as equally valuable/worthy of being practiced (as long as it doesn't harm others, as you say). They even allow people who don't believe in any God or theological system at all to exist and thrive. That's an essentially secular system, which neoliberalism is. I fail to see how any of Kierkegaard's writings advocate this sort of a secular system of government, and you have yet to persuade me.

>why neoliberalism isn't the best for ensuring God given equality
I think we're working with different definitions of "neoliberalism" here. Partly because I think you're using the term anachronistically. Would you, for example, consider John Milton & his Areopagitica to be a "neoliberal" work?

>ensuring freedom.
Yeah, freedom for the rich to fuck everyone else. Oh, but I guess I'm free to choose different types of cereal, so that's nice.

Sigh. Yes, people possess the will to do things that Kierkegaard doesn't condone, but that doesn't mean he wants to deprive them of freedom. Freedom is good to Kierkegaard.
Grow up

>ensuring freedom
I don't understand this fetishizing of "freedom." Do you realize that nearly all modern civilizations, neoliberal and not (Fascist Italy, Communist USSR, socialist states in Africa and Central America), have claimed that their system ensures "freedom" (because each provides a different sort of freedom)? Freedom's overrated. I'd rather be happy with my state in life knowing it was destined by fate than fucking miserable in a "free" state.

Kierkegaard disagrees

From what I've read of Kierkegaard, I believe he'd respond by saying that "freedom" without the guiding hand of God is nothing more than radical, vacuous nihilism. Because God enables free will does not mean that any system claiming free will, with or without God, is adequate. You absolutely cannot just take God out of the picture of Kierkegaard, and it feels to me by calling him a "neoliberal" that's exactly what you're doing.

Okay, where? Can you cite a specific work and page number for me? Let's try to be scholarly about this.

*Smiles pompously* Honey, I'm not taking the God out of Kierkegaard. I'm not saying any system is adequate. You're strawmanning me. I'm saying neoliberalism is the best system to ensure the freedom to worship God. Have fun worshipping God in atheist soviet russia.

I've already mentioned something.

>Grow up
The joke is I don't care for different cereal and there is no real freedom for anyone but the born rich. Fucking autist, learn about sarcasm please.

>Honey, I'm not taking the God out of Kierkegaard. I'm not saying any system is adequate.
But you ARE saying that Kierkegaard can be conflated with neoliberalism, just by using the expression "Kierkegaardian Neoliberal." But it seems to me that by doing so you're willing to compromise the vitality of the Christian God to Kierkegaard's philosophy by claiming that a secular system is compatible with Kierkegaard.

>Have fun worshipping God in atheist soviet russia.
Obviously I used that as an example among many; do you not see that you're now doing to me exactly what you accused me of? I wouldn't dare claim that Kierkegaard advocates secular socialism in the way that you're claiming he can possibly support secular neoliberalism.

In my collection of Kierkegaard I can't find anything titled "Equality in loving"... is it a portion of "Works of Love"?

Grow up

Take a leap of faith off a cliff.

>compromising the vitality of the Christian God by...allowing people to worship Him
Wtf

Also, I'm not saying he would support Soviet Russia.

Yes, it's called Works of Love.
Grow up

I hate that you're just proving right. Why would you make a thread about Kierkegaard as a neoliberal and completely avoid actual discussion of his works and ideas, instead relying on 2 word responses and ignorance?

But neoliberalism is not the only ideology that allows the worship of the Christian God. Also, as I've tried to argue, I feel that neoliberalism, by allowing any religious perspectives to thrive, especially atheism, actually cheapens the value of Christianity.

LEAP

He's being rude without providing arguments, why would I give him more depth than that? For the other guy - I've already argued that the Christian idea of equality is manifested neoliberal states. Freedom is good in the Christian view. Jesus wouldn't be opposed to a secular state. "Render unto Caesar".

Yes, it's not the only ideology that allows the worship of the Christian God, but it's the best for ensuring freedom. The Bible tells us not to restrict other peoples freedom. Look into the meaning of Render unto Caesar.
Grow up

>He's being rude without providing arguments, why would I give him more depth than that?
Being initially sarcastic isn't being rude my obvious argument is Neoliberalism doesn't provide freedom for the average person except in petty consumer choices. Only people with lot of money make real decisions about their own life and the lives of poorer people. Money dictates what people do in market economies so it obvious that people with a lot of money tell other what they do for a living. Neoliberalism is the opposite of freedom for the majority of people who live under it.
And instead of addressing that you just tell me to grow up? Maybe you don't have anything of substance to say about freedom and neoliberalism.

I apologize. I thought you were trying to do the same thing as this guy. I agree with you. Ideally I would be a Christian Anarchist, but I feel as if that isn't possible nowadays. So, I accept that the second best thing is Neoliberalism.

I've been doing a precursory reading of Works of Love during this "conversation," and want to point out a section that my edition helpfully puts in bold:
>"You shall love." Only when it is a duty to love, only then is love eternally secured against every change, eternally made free in blessed independence, eternally and happily secured against despair. (IX 32)

This strikes me as troublesome; is Kierkegaard not saying that "duty" (i.e. not freedom) is a necessary pre-condition to *actual* freedom? Where in neoliberal ideology do you find an equivalent? It strikes me that neoliberalism values freedom for freedom's sake, whereas Kierkegaard (and most Protestant theology) sees freedom as a result of absolute service to God (which in secular neoliberal frameworks doesn't exist).

By the way, which neoliberal theorist are you using to define your own definition of neoliberalism?

>freedom as a result of absolute service to God
Wholly agreed. This has been my argument throughout the entire conversation. Freedom allows us to worship God freely, and to proselytize people who don't know the Truth. How could we possibly convert anyone who doesn't know the truth if they don't have the freedom to voice their disagreements? This is why the Church must be separated from the state. The definition of neoliberalism I am using is modern day Europe.

>Ideally I would be a Christian Anarchist, but I feel as if that isn't possible nowadays
So where in Jesus or Kierkegaard does either say "it's okay to compromise your values for the second best option"? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm asking an actual question. When Jesus confronted the money changers in the Temple did he say "Oh, well, you know it's practical to have merchants and money changers in the Temple because the current economic models of the time demand that they be somewhere, and I guess the Temple is a place where a lot of people go, so it's okay for them to be there" or did he flip out at them?

Wait, so before we go any further, you *are* knowingly using "Kierkegaardian Neoliberal" as an anachronistic term, such as when people apply a Marxist reading of Thucydides?

Decent point, but my view is that I should support systems that benefit people in the same way that Jesus said Render unto Caesar.

nope im just a kierkegaardian who is a neoliberal who thinks that neoliberalism is the best for kierkegaardian views

You really really dig that quote, don't you? I have to say I'm less inclined to be so gung-ho about it, since it's only present in the synoptic gospels and absent in John (which I base my own Christian perspective around). But that is a matter of personal interpretation, which I find to be the most valuable aspect of Protestant Christianity. So I think we're seeing more eye-to-eye than I initially thought.

I have a question to prolong this conversation: would you be capable of voting for a leader of whatever country you're in who simultaneously supports your brand of neoliberalism, but is openly an atheist?

>who thinks that neoliberalism is the best for kierkegaardian views
So you *are* using it anachronistically, basically. Unless you can point me to a passage of Kierkegaard where he uses neoliberalism or an equivalent term.

Yes, I think I would. If a politician would enact policies that would benefit people, despite being an atheist, I would feel compelled to vote for him. If I mostly agreed with a politician, but the politician was very anti-religion, I would not vote for him. I faith to be the most important part of existing.

Follow-up Q: Where do you think this atheist derives his/her (sorry, I'm in academia, I can't help but use the silly 'gender inclusive' pronoun shit) neoliberal values from? Is it from the same source as you or a different one?

(Addendum: I ask this because I personally am wholly incapable of voting for an atheist [though I'm also against voting/democracy, but that's an entirely different convo]. I'm curious how anyone who identifies as Christian could vote for an atheist leader. )

Could be from political science, could be from Christian influences. It depends. Being a politician, to me, is a duty to serve the people. I don't mind if my barber is an atheist, because they are fulfilling their duty no matter what their religious views are. If part of the politicians goal was to reduce Christian influence on society, it would be antithetical to vote for said politician as a Christian.

>Could be from political science, could be from Christian influences
If you're willing: could you dig deeper on this? Really, what compels an atheist to continue supporting a system that allows for religious freedom, something that as an atheist he/she would have to concede they find no value in, which you hold in high regard, aside from the fact that voters like you would refuse to vote for him/her? I'm trying to point to the fact that the removal of religious influence on government won't come by means of a sudden ban on religion, but by a subtle and steady chipping away at Christian values.

I also want to clarify that by political Christian values I mean caring for the poor, economic justice & the like, not non-Biblical issues like abortion that regrettably (in America at least) have become the focus of phony Christian politicians.

Addendum: I want to clarify that my anxiety (ha) about neoliberalism is that it leads to *increasing* secularization in the populace. The "freedom of religion" that you hold as a great value of neoliberalism really has worked to make an increasingly atheistic and secular culture (though, as you point out, their ethics still tend to be derived from the Christian tradition). I feel like as society presses onward, all we'll be left with is an empty moral code that's derived from Christianity, but completely leaves God out of the picture. And I feel like this is a future that Kierkegaard would abhor.

>equality
Humans are not equal, why should they be treated as such?
>freedom of speech
Great, a bunch of morons shouting about things they know nothing of. Only those who are knowledgeable should speak about important issues.

Bitch ass detected. user please keep talking, I get off on illiterate shits complaining about mundane things.

Attached: 20190914_210124.jpg (1417x1890, 882K)

Yes, more people are openly becoming atheist, because they never had true faith to begin with. It is not faith if people are so easily convinced out of it. You can make a parallel to Abraham here. Freedom allows
A. Christian Truth to be spread
B. Dissent to be answered

It is in an atheists best interest to maintain this freedom. First they came for the Christians, then everyone else etc.

Humans are equal under God, yes. Freedom of speech allows truth to be spread.

1. Prove God
2. Prove God is the Christian God
3. Freedom of speech also allows lies to be spread.

>Yes, more people are openly becoming atheist, because they never had true faith to begin with.
If that's the case, isn't it because the system of neoliberalism has not only enabled it, but encouraged it (through presumed "freedom")? Don't you see that the explosion of atheism and secularism is a result of this neoliberal ideology? How else do you account for this radical rise in secular thought?

There has been a rise in secular thought because secular ideas are floating around. If people are easily convinced by these ideas, they don't truly have faith. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard concludes that a man of faith ascends the universal, and acts as an individual.
No

What is the purpose of identifying with a specific ideology?

>because secular ideas are floating around
You seem really hesitant to acknowledge that the reason the secular ideas are floating around is because neoliberalism has enabled them. But your point about faith transcending the universal is well taken. I feel like if you educate anyone enough in philosophy, they'd come around to faith (hell, Spinoza's proofs of God still haven't been adequately refuted). BUT, and this is a big but, popular culture (fueled by capitalist neoliberalism) has distracted the masses into spending time watching Netflix & jejune movies and entertainment so that they don't think about the big questions about faith and God. How do you not acknowledge that neoliberalism caters to the lowest common denominator with enticing entertainment to keep them from thinking?

Also, I approve of your dismissal of which is a totally silly, useless post. (by a neoliberal utilizing freedom of speech)

I'm not hesitant. I'm glad it enabled these ideas. I've mentioned earlier that dissent should be passed around freely so It could be argued against rationally. If easily convinced, it's not faith. Regarding distraction by Netflix: they have the freedom to not be distracted. Christian doctrine is that if someone by no fault of their own doesn't find faith in the Christian God, they are not to blame. This is why children go to heaven. Again, neoliberalism allows a Christian alternative for netflix to pop up, and it is the peoples decision if they want to subscribe to it or not.

Alright. Well here is where we have to agree to depart in thought and leave it there. You seem to be complacent with a neoliberal landscape enabling & promoting the degradation of God-guided humanity. And I just can't bring myself to be okay with that. I appreciate the conversation, as you both provided valuable input into the relationship between Kierkegaard and neoliberalism as well as forcing me to think about my own ideas on the position.

I'll quote a cheesy Christian rock band from my youth, Switchfoot: "We were meant to live for so much more, but we lost ourselves."
Goodnight & farewell, brother.

The state should allow Christian dissenters, because shutting down any thought allows Christian thought to be censored. It is unfortunate that Christian dissent arises, but Christians themselves should deal with the problem. Nice talkin to ya, God bless you.

On a final note: if you haven't read Milton's Areopagitica (which I brought up previously), it seems like something within your interests. Maybe we'll accidentally encounter each other on Yea Forums again in the future & can talk about Areopagitica.

Will do

Kierkegaard detested democracy. Read The Book on Adler and The Present Age you illiterates.

Attached: 1564537601611.jpg (600x338, 58K)

>A people’s government is the true picture of hell. For even if one could last out its torment, it would still be a relief if one got permission to be alone; but the torment is that ‘‘the others’’ tyrannise over one.

>I felt a real Christian satisfaction in the fact that, if there were no other, there was one man who (several years before existence set the race another lesson to learn) made a practical effort on a small scale to learn the lesson of loving one’s neighbor and alas! Got at the same time a frightful insight into what an illusion Christendom is, and (a little later, to be sure) an insight also into what a situation the simpler classes suffered themselves to be seduced by paltry-newspaper writers, whose struggle or fight for equality (since it is in the service of a lie) cannot lead to any other result but to prompt the privileged classes in self-defence to stand proudly aloof from the common man, and to make the common man insolent in his forwardness.

>The truth is always in the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because as a rule the minority is made up of those who actually have an opinion, while the strength of the majority is illusory, formed of that crowd which has no opinion — and which therefore the next moment (when it becomes clear that the minority is the stronger) adopts the latter's opinion, which now is in the majority, i.e. becomes rubbish by having the whole retinue and numerousness on its side, while the truth is again in a new minority.

Attached: kierkegaard.png (460x460, 71K)

>Only those who are knowledgeable should speak about important issues.
So why are you speaking?

the whole point of the ethical as a limited sphere is because of its self consuming teleology. Faith is the ultimate and absolute relation with the absolute. The fact that you conflate Kierkegaards ideas with banal political ideas like equality, freedom of speech, ect is a great insult to his thought. Shame on you

>not non-Biblical issues like abortion that regrettably (in America at least) have become the focus of phony Christian politicians.
How is abortion a non-biblical issue? Does God approves abortion? If by that you mean that it is a strawman for more important questions than I may agree with you.