Power Quote
Mr. Kierkegaard’s Sunday Morning Service
Every human existence not conscious of itself as spirit, or not personally conscious of itself before God as spirit, every human existence which is not grounded transparently in God, but opaquely rests or merges in some abstract universal (state, nation, etc.), or in the dark about its self, simply takes its capacities to be natural powers, unconscious in a deeper sense of where it has them from, takes its self to be an unaccountable something; if there were any question of accounting for its inner being, every such existence, however astounding its accomplishment, however much it can account for even the whole of existence, however intense its aesthetic enjoyment: every such life is none the less despair.
– The Sickness Unto Death
Tags: kierkegaard, Sickness Unto Death
funny
funny
Slogging through The Sickness Unto Death was the worst part of Intro to Western Philosophy. Kierkegaard makes all other philosophers, no matter how bland, dry or abstruse, fun to read.
Slogging through The Sickness Unto Death was the worst part of Intro to Western Philosophy. Kierkegaard makes all other philosophers, no matter how bland, dry or abstruse, fun to read.
This makes sense.
If you are not connected to the spirit, the roots of your nature you will be in a state of despair. Although the key word here is conscious. Not being conscious of yourself as spirit, as a part of this massive cellular body we call existence, can you be said to be conscious of the resulting despair? And if you are not aware of it can it be said you are truly in such a state? Is it possible to have this despaired feeling inside you, affecting your life, and be ignorant of it?
Maybe that’s the point… no matter if you are aware of a lacking or not, there is still an absence. Just because you can’t see the single brick missing from the dam, doesn’t mean the dam isn’t missing a brick. (Are dams built with bricks?… anyway)
Maybe, also, Kierkegaard is pointing out that being unaware of this spirit (which, personally, leads me to the idea of being in tune with everything, while all these other allegiances tend to focus only on the humanly aspect of things and ignores the thicker, more complex sense of the natural world), being unaware of this spirit leads us to attempt to fill this open space with something, anything, and whatever those “things” are will ultimately pale in comparison to the wholeness and perfect-fitting structure that the spirit is….
No?
This makes sense.
If you are not connected to the spirit, the roots of your nature you will be in a state of despair. Although the key word here is conscious. Not being conscious of yourself as spirit, as a part of this massive cellular body we call existence, can you be said to be conscious of the resulting despair? And if you are not aware of it can it be said you are truly in such a state? Is it possible to have this despaired feeling inside you, affecting your life, and be ignorant of it?
Maybe that’s the point… no matter if you are aware of a lacking or not, there is still an absence. Just because you can’t see the single brick missing from the dam, doesn’t mean the dam isn’t missing a brick. (Are dams built with bricks?… anyway)
Maybe, also, Kierkegaard is pointing out that being unaware of this spirit (which, personally, leads me to the idea of being in tune with everything, while all these other allegiances tend to focus only on the humanly aspect of things and ignores the thicker, more complex sense of the natural world), being unaware of this spirit leads us to attempt to fill this open space with something, anything, and whatever those “things” are will ultimately pale in comparison to the wholeness and perfect-fitting structure that the spirit is….
No?
Even boring old Kant is exciting next to Soren.
Even boring old Kant is exciting next to Soren.
I think yes, Michael, and personally, I love Kierkegaard. I’m reading Sickness for the first time right now, and having a grand old time. I’m really excited to get to the part about “despair to become oneself”
I think yes, Michael, and personally, I love Kierkegaard. I’m reading Sickness for the first time right now, and having a grand old time. I’m really excited to get to the part about “despair to become oneself”
What makes me curious about the chunk of text you cite, Justin, is its proximity to–and playfulness with–Socrates’ demand to “know oneself”. What seems so strange–and weirdly beautiful–about Kierkegaard’s “approach” to knowing oneself is its apparent reliance on despair, or hopelessness. As if getting to know oneself was not already informed by the desperation of joy and the joys of the desperation!
What makes me curious about the chunk of text you cite, Justin, is its proximity to–and playfulness with–Socrates’ demand to “know oneself”. What seems so strange–and weirdly beautiful–about Kierkegaard’s “approach” to knowing oneself is its apparent reliance on despair, or hopelessness. As if getting to know oneself was not already informed by the desperation of joy and the joys of the desperation!
Basically, he’s arguing that despair is a necessary stop on the road to self-realization, though he means this without the psycho-babblish connotations that my paraphrase might imply. He’s talking about what he perceives as a genuine, and decidedly not-abstract (that is, concrete) matter of spiritual concern, in a world-view where ‘spirit’ is not a metaphor for something else, but is a really-existing thing in the world.
One fascinating thing about this notion of despair-before-salvation is that while Kierkegaard’s work on the concept in Sickness is novel, the idea itself is much older than he is–nearly as old as Christian thought itself. The idea that extreme privation or trial primes the spirit for the intervention of Grace, or generates the conditions under which Grace is possible. Pilgrim’s Progress, it’s worth pointing out, starts out with Christian in the Slough of Despond. It’s the very first stage of his journey to the Heavenly City.
Basically, he’s arguing that despair is a necessary stop on the road to self-realization, though he means this without the psycho-babblish connotations that my paraphrase might imply. He’s talking about what he perceives as a genuine, and decidedly not-abstract (that is, concrete) matter of spiritual concern, in a world-view where ‘spirit’ is not a metaphor for something else, but is a really-existing thing in the world.
One fascinating thing about this notion of despair-before-salvation is that while Kierkegaard’s work on the concept in Sickness is novel, the idea itself is much older than he is–nearly as old as Christian thought itself. The idea that extreme privation or trial primes the spirit for the intervention of Grace, or generates the conditions under which Grace is possible. Pilgrim’s Progress, it’s worth pointing out, starts out with Christian in the Slough of Despond. It’s the very first stage of his journey to the Heavenly City.
nate the prose is deliberately dry as he was mocking hegelian thought. this is one of my favorite books ever. the first sentence in the book is one of the most clear yet confusing and it was a mockery of hegel who he determined to reak with philsophically.
nate the prose is deliberately dry as he was mocking hegelian thought. this is one of my favorite books ever. the first sentence in the book is one of the most clear yet confusing and it was a mockery of hegel who he determined to reak with philsophically.
also, even not having consciousness of despair is despair. it is one of the worst forms according to kierkegaard. you are farthest from spirit. i think he gives an example of a man standing with his back to a bank and pointing across the street and saying, “there is the bank”
also, even not having consciousness of despair is despair. it is one of the worst forms according to kierkegaard. you are farthest from spirit. i think he gives an example of a man standing with his back to a bank and pointing across the street and saying, “there is the bank”
ooooh…. thats way better than my dam thing…
ooooh…. thats way better than my dam thing…
I know what Soren thought of Hegel, and what he was trying to do, but I just found it painful. While his ideas were novel (as well as fascinating and important – without them we would not have had the Existentialist movement), his prose makes my eyes bleed. I’m not saying that Sickness was an unrewarding book; indeed, I spent hours thinking about the implications of dread, but that it fails to be ‘fun’ in the way philosophy can be when the author has an interesting prose style. Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Mill, Descartes, Ayer, etc all used language (in varying degrees) to entertain and illuminate (some of them could even be playful from time to time).
I never found Hegel boring. Phenomenology of Spirit of fascinating and fun to read. It was certainly difficult, but understandable in each difficulty.
Kant was boring, But after Sickness, Kant’s dry prose seemed refreshing.
I know what Soren thought of Hegel, and what he was trying to do, but I just found it painful. While his ideas were novel (as well as fascinating and important – without them we would not have had the Existentialist movement), his prose makes my eyes bleed. I’m not saying that Sickness was an unrewarding book; indeed, I spent hours thinking about the implications of dread, but that it fails to be ‘fun’ in the way philosophy can be when the author has an interesting prose style. Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Mill, Descartes, Ayer, etc all used language (in varying degrees) to entertain and illuminate (some of them could even be playful from time to time).
I never found Hegel boring. Phenomenology of Spirit of fascinating and fun to read. It was certainly difficult, but understandable in each difficulty.
Kant was boring, But after Sickness, Kant’s dry prose seemed refreshing.
Nate, I’m with you re: the prose style of Sickness… I think it’s an important part of Kierkegaard’s project, but even knowing that he’s pastiching (maybe for lack of a better word) Hegel, the style didn’t rock me.
But are you saying that about all of Kierkegaard’s style? There are sections in Either/Or and Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments, also Stages on Life’s Way, that rival any philosopher I can think of.
Nate, I’m with you re: the prose style of Sickness… I think it’s an important part of Kierkegaard’s project, but even knowing that he’s pastiching (maybe for lack of a better word) Hegel, the style didn’t rock me.
But are you saying that about all of Kierkegaard’s style? There are sections in Either/Or and Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments, also Stages on Life’s Way, that rival any philosopher I can think of.
he was a funny guy. he fell down at a party about a month before he died and said, “let it lie. the maid will sweep it up in the morning.” that one really brought down the house in copenhagen.
he was a funny guy. he fell down at a party about a month before he died and said, “let it lie. the maid will sweep it up in the morning.” that one really brought down the house in copenhagen.
I gotta try that one next time I fall down. Yes, I’m clumsy; I fall down often.
I gotta try that one next time I fall down. Yes, I’m clumsy; I fall down often.
Certainly not. My critique only applies to Sickness. many of his other works are quite well written. Earlier I said that after Sickness, Kant seemed refreshing. That’s true. Had I read Kant first, I would have been deadened by the dry, boring style, but found it an improvement over Sickness. None of Kant fails at being boring. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, was often exciting. Sadly, I almost failed to learn that, because my reaction to the prose of SuD was so negative that I nearly skipped reading more (a helpful Prof. guided me to giving ole Soren another try).
Certainly not. My critique only applies to Sickness. many of his other works are quite well written. Earlier I said that after Sickness, Kant seemed refreshing. That’s true. Had I read Kant first, I would have been deadened by the dry, boring style, but found it an improvement over Sickness. None of Kant fails at being boring. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, was often exciting. Sadly, I almost failed to learn that, because my reaction to the prose of SuD was so negative that I nearly skipped reading more (a helpful Prof. guided me to giving ole Soren another try).
Sam- I love that you love SK. I just read that bank example earlier today. Big fun!
Nate- the only Kierkegaard I’ve read that nearly reduced me to bleeding tears was Training in Christianity. That book might win the prize for most simultaneously fascinating and numbingly boring book I’ve ever read. It took me two tries over the course of a year and a half to get through it, and the only reason I made it through on attempt #2 was sheer force of will. I just made myself read ten pages a day, until I was through it. It was worth doing, I think.
Sam- I love that you love SK. I just read that bank example earlier today. Big fun!
Nate- the only Kierkegaard I’ve read that nearly reduced me to bleeding tears was Training in Christianity. That book might win the prize for most simultaneously fascinating and numbingly boring book I’ve ever read. It took me two tries over the course of a year and a half to get through it, and the only reason I made it through on attempt #2 was sheer force of will. I just made myself read ten pages a day, until I was through it. It was worth doing, I think.
not surprised.
not surprised.
[…] is old, but Justin Taylor talks about Kierkegaard and conversation […]