Do not grieve the in dwelling Holy spirit ,it is our helper . I believe it's our conscience ,Yah's word or voice that sets us straight and convicts us ! HalleluYAH ! I have ruminated on this for a year ,this makes the most sense to me ,amein.
BARS. Wow I watched this twice, and dissected almost every quote the second time in order to reaaally absorb and understand. This is the best argument I’ve heard for having faith. My fav takeaways - I love how kierkagard admits and owns how absurd faith is. If only religions had this same point of view... instead they often talk about faith like it’s absurd to NOT have it. It’s 100% absurd to have it. And he owns this like armor. Beautiful. I love how he talks about essentially constantly pushing yourself to the edge in order to keep your faith.. because you don’t have faith if you actually know the outcome. “Faith is a risk”, so we must continue to put ourselves in risky positions in order to have faith. Fascinating perspective. I love how he talks about having an absolute relationship with the absolute and a relative relationship with the relative. As a lover of stoicism, it’s not surprise that this speaks to me. This is ultimate goalssss. To be in the world and enjoying things but the be able to say to a thing- it’s over. This thing has ended. I can let this go fully. I do not need to hold on to things that want to let go. Keirkagard would add, that I can let go, because I can have faith that I will have it again. Beautiful. One of my fav videos on the channel!!
Incredibly better than school of life’s video on Kierkegaard , most people think “ becoming religious and having faith” is a comfort blind thing , and well it is for the majority. but in fact in his view it’s the only thing to do if you wish to live, he was angeixty filled all the time it seemed. the definition of God has expanded a lot in my lifetime , and I can say , well with much abstractness as possible, to deny God is to deny the self
@@arnowisp6244 I would guess that God is the absurdity that is the universe. The universe somehow has the capability to create life. I see the term God as a phrase to represent the complex analysis of life that only a self fulfilled individual would truly understand it's meaning.
@@extremespartan117 when you break it down the universe, like all things that exist in this world, it has no ability to create something out of nothing. The universe exists in our space and time therefore it is impossible for it to have created itself. The fact that everything in the universe, including the universe has had a first mover to allow all things come into existence, it is only logical that the universe did not create itself because it too would require a first mover. The first mover must exist outside of our space and time, it must be everlasting, it must be an infinite being. The first mover, we call God the creator. The next argument regards to the existence of God would be intelligent design rather than chance....
Sometimes, I feel Kierkegaard wrote all his philosophy because he knew that some 200 years late, a boy in India would see himself transformed through those inspired words. Thank you, Mr. Kierkegaard.
Perhaps the reason we can't readily agree with what Kierkegaard wants us to do, which is to make a 'leap of faith' by the virtue of the absurd, is because we are too used to give 'Reason' a firm hold over us. Faith is absurd, he says; it tramps reason and it requires great personal courage to do the 'leap'. And when confronted to make such a choice we shudder at such a prospect. Our reason rebels to the thought that we have to suspend it in order to do 'the leap'.
+Solis de Luna Interesting, and I think Kierkegaard would agree it is a matter of courage. I think a counter response would be to ask whether such a 'leap' is really a leap into an illusion.
It might be a good idea to keep in mind that, to Kierkegaard, Kant may've already shown that our belief in the powers of reason is quite a ‘leap' itself. On those terms, his thinking might just be that (per se) "it's _better_ to take a leap for one's whole *self* (faith) than it is to take a leap merely for one's *mind* (reason)."
Academy of Ideas I discovered this on my own. I found that I had actually replaced uncertainty with a certainty of my own without faith--or a misdirected faith that caused immense fear and anxiety. Thinking of faith as a verb, a doing, is very helpful (and I think a more correct use of it.)
Academy of Ideas what’s to say your not in a Illusion already? I like the idea of the leap of faith based off your own conclusions they may be wrong/bias but at least they’ll be yours. Not some external bias idea that enslaves you in a way.
A most profound Reply. Thanks. I like this quote: “One must always guard against contracting a life relationship by which one can become many. That is why, even friendship is dangerous, marriage, even more so." "“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances. And one man, in his time plays many parts”. “As You Like It, Act II, Scene V” William Shakespeare (Francis Bacon) www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/you-it-act-ii-scene-vii-all-worlds-stage "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true."--Soren Kierkegaard
Recommended Readings: Kierkegaard An Introduction: Stephen Evans - amzn.to/1qQawen (affiliate link) Kierkegaard's Philosophy: Self Deception and Cowardice in the Present Age: John Mullen - amzn.to/1qQai75 (affiliate link) An Introduction to Kierkegaard: Peter Vardy - amzn.to/1TNZlhW (affiliate link)
Wow! I have browsed the words of these giants of philosophy, feeling a strange sense of despair, for I know that without God all rationalisation is just that ... rationalisation, a sort of puerile justification. But then I heard this summary of Kierkegaard & a light appeared at the end of a long tunnel. Now I have a way out. Thank-you Kierkegaard & thank you 'Academy of Ideas', but most of all thank-you Christ for leading me here!
Before hugging ideas, contemplate them. The light at the end of the tunnel can sometimes be a train, however it can also be an exit or even a ghost train that goes straight through you. Anyway who knows, i'm just a sceptic but i do agree with the majority of Kierkergaard's philosophies but not at a first glance.
+Academy of Ideas I loved it too, my only (small) criticism is that you don't capture the tone of the quotes you read, they come across a little mechanical and a little of the oomph is lost. Again, otherwise perfect.
Your videos on this channel are structured and organized so magnificently, it makes for a great watch. Thanks for all the vids, you deserve more subscribers.
"Great eagles fly alone. Great souls walk alone. Alone with Father. Such loneliness is hard to endure, and impossible to enjoy unless GOD accompanies. Prophets are lone men. They walk alone and GOD makes them alone." Leonard Ravenhill
mrloop Thank you sir! I appreciate the comments you posted. You made me feel good about learning about this topic. May you behold the power of lighting! ⛈🤘🏽
So now, the final part of this has always been difficult. But continuing from the notes I did in the last video... The ethicist basically will still fall back into despair when they realize the limits of their state of being; that their method is great for fitting into society, but all worldly things can still be taken from them at any moment. And again, realizing that you're in despair could be a good thing, as that's your way out. There's still a few more terms. *Faith =* opposite of despair, defined as: identifying / relating with a transcendent source, and thus attaining a balance of finite and infinite factors. Essentially the "transcendent source" is your conceptualization of the infinite (go back and see notes on previous video if needed for terms like "infinite"). For me, personally, this is articulated in a system of virtues, such as wisdom, grace, discernment, honor, and so on. A core set of these make up an ideal, fitting into the infinite, which is what I identify with. These are important, because unlike the finite, or worldly things, they cannot ever be changed or taken away. What's more, you're free to change your ideals as is needed for where you find yourself in life. So you are the only one who changes them. Also, your "transcendent source" could be what I just described, but it could also be personified by your own unique and particular understanding of "God". CHECKMATE, ATHEIST!!!! At least, in some reverse-ontological sense, but personally I'm still atheist, because my own particular understanding of transcendence does not result in a sort of "god" as someone else might perceive it. But still, I would understand the argument that went like: "God is the embodiment of only good and pure virtues with which human kind can aspire (feel free to insert Jesus in there if you'd like), as demonstrated in the events that played out in Israel, and were recorded in the Bible". If someone brings up science, that argument can be addressed by pointing out that faith and science *are not* meant to do the same thing. Science increases our understanding of the natural world. Faith provides personal meaning, purpose, and hope. That was covered in the previous video too. Anyway this brings us into the "religious sphere", and this is where we encounter our last two ultimate forms of being. *Knight of Infinite Resignation =* letting go of the worldly. Now, this should be contrasted with "renunciation", which is the Buddhists method (and also some sects of Christianity). The difference? Resignation means you're going to try your best today to set things right, but absolutely resign yourself to the fact that you can only control what you do, you cannot control anything beyond that. You can control your actions, but not the consequences of your actions, so you will definitely try, but simultaneously accept whatever outcome that happens, gracefully acknowledging your limits. Renunciation means totally withdrawing from the world (becoming a monk). Again, becoming a Knight of Infinite Resignation means that you live within the finite (the worldly), enjoy what is here and now, but totally willing to accept that it could be all taken from you, and there's nothing you can do about it. This doesn't mean that you should totally stop trying - just that you should try your best, and accept whatever outcome happens. However, this is only the last form that deals with the finite. What about the infinite? The absolute LAST perfect form... is the *Knight of Faith!* And here's where you strike a perfect balance between the infinite and the finite, by putting faith in the transcendent values (God) that you cannot *know for certain* is absolutely there in any sense. The lack of objective certainty requires faith. But you're still dedicated to the transcendent values (God). I might also insert some pessimistic induction here (another completely separate position in philosophy)... that the rightness of an idea does not need to be perfect for it to be useful or productive. Even if the idea of God is somehow wrong (not perfectly right), it's still useful and provides good results.
Athena Brown Also, I know the idea of God can produce good results, in fact, when I was deeply spiritual, my faith could move mountains. However, my silly self peeked beyond the veil and saw the absurdity of religious beliefs, and more so, the immoral actions of some religious heroes of mine. Now I'm stuck, do I continue having faith for pure utilitarian purposes or do I accept the truth in all its ugly form? This has been my struggle so far and any advice from you would be much appreciated. Sometimes I wish I was unintelligent and could blindly follow the group; as I'm learning that the more I know, the more meaningless and trivial it all seems.
Cherechi Osisioma From what I've understood out of what you said, it seems that you have this very particular view of what God *must be*, in order for him / her / it to be "god". Growing up in America, some people have this view of God; that he's large, wears a robe, has a huge grey beard, and a permanent frown. The ontological argument is that for God to be God, he has to exist, since he's the greatest thing to ever exist, and existing is better than not existing: therefore, God exists. The reverse-ontological that I referred to above actually holds that God being only conceptual is greater than him being real, because if he were real (as in some kind of large humanoid ethereal spirit), then he would be subject to the laws of realness. If he's only a concept, then he's truly eternal, as he can't be affected by anything else that's real, and will retain the sameness that concepts retain. Basically: God doesn't even have to be real for you to believe in a higher transcendental good, like what Kierkegaard was explaining. For me, my transcendental concepts towards which I aspire are simply a group of virtues. God doesn't play any role in my understanding of creation either, but given how nebulous this concept can actually be, I totally don't mind my Christian friends having their own biblical view of the matter. You can find a little more explained on that here: facebook.com/Athena.Brown759/posts/898628363601042 In regards to immoral actions, I'll say that's probably because most people can be far more complex than we often consider. We only see what's on the surface, and most people have multiple different sides to them that we never see, and sometimes they have unreconciled competing interests within themselves. A better approach might be to accept that almost no one is going to be perfectly aligned with what we expect all the time, but we can still appreciate what they stand for, and the good that they've accomplished. This might be related as well to what Kierkegaard was saying about never having met someone who perfectly matches his description of the Knight of Faith. I hope that helps.
My advice would be to quit believing in what you have read in a book written centuries ago, or what you have been told at church or any other place. The best you can do is to extract the good things that you have learned through the school of life and apply it to your actions and relationships with others. Stop believing in entities that you'll never know if they exist; however, act out of fear & without caring if people behind you act in a manner that does not conform with your conceptions of life because some people only care for themselves, and they're not thinking about you when they carry out an action. Continue to improve your life & enrich that of the others; for this you do not need any religion or any type of god. What's important is what you do in this life and not what will happen afterwards.
how can we be sure we're not simply deceiving ourselves and our ideals are delusion? I crave the comfort of the transcendent and often act as if it is true .I.e morality self sacrifice, consciousness and love being more than mere chemical reactions but I always fall back into the realisation it could all.be delusion and wonder how anyone can ever be sure of anything being absolute. The nearest thing I've found to reality is Buddhist philosophy but even there there is not much to hold onto (in fact that's the whole point of buddhism)
because some people understand stuff on an unconscious level and are just dying to express it well. It takes the true genius (not to insult you) to accurately express the ideas. Also, art is another medium to express oneself
It takes a certain amount of articulated understanding and elaborative rehearsal , a lot of practice and a lot of stumbling, just get out there and talk to people really, in real life , not in text, there’s some flaw in messaging that makes it easy to not be genuine
Thanks so much for quoting Kierkegaard and letting us know what he had to say for himself. My only question is whether an individual looks for examples of the esthete or the ethicist at the end of her rope in others or in oneself. Keep up the good work!
Minha impressão é que busca a compreensão da esfera estética e ética em si mesmo embora no outro também. Os exemplos de Kierkegaard sobre as duas esferas o provam. Mas como poderia ele comprende-las se não as reconhece em si mesmo e nos outros? Nisso, aliás, acho que ele não diferia dos grandes poetas e romancistas. Um Shakespeare ou Dostoievski, por exemplo, como poderiam criar seus personagens se deles não tivessem um vivência mais do que estritamente pessoal? Com isso, porém, não sei se forço o entendimento de Kierkegaard, pois sua obra pseudônima estava a serviço do que ele concebia como sendo uma comunicação indireta. Ou seja, ele mesmo ao assumir personagens-autores indicava claramente não se idêntico a nenhum deles. Somente as assinadas em seu próprio nome então responderiam por sua posição: ser si mesmo por uma escolha
I stumbled onto your videos by accident and I am very impressed . Philosophy, psychology, and ancient religious texts and myths are my passion to learn about. I am curious as to what your schooling has been and where you may have attended college? Very well done young one!
MVcamera I do not even agree with this style of philosophy: the meaning and implications of "absurdity" are obscured here by beautiful poetry and emotional rhetoric; whereby, a talented writer, it seems, can persuade (or bias) one who is not thinking critically that (epistemological, metaphysical, ethical, etc) insanity is both romantic and ideal. Very interesting ideas, indeed! Very talented writing (displayed in a very good presentation). Though I am very skeptical that the beauty of Kierkegaard's religious life isn't a poetic smokescreen which becomes incoherent nonsense when analytically scrutinized in detail. And that this doesn't have a negative effect on the thinking of those not trained in philosophy (and the modern sciences).
@@bradlencioni2850 wouldn't the whole basis of the religious life be faith, and thereby have no relation to reason? what good would analyzing in detail do if it is all based on belief anyway? these are two different world-views; it's no use explaining one in terms of the other. That being said, I absolutely agree that these are very interesting ideas!
@@bradlencioni2850 Thats more or less the whole point, that religious life is a belief and cannot be scrutinized in detail without becoming absurd. Even if you are trained in philosophy or the "modern sciences" it cannot tell us anything about the internal anxiety of living a finite life with finite things.
The point of this video is punctuated perfectly by the advertisements that pop up offering me food or symbols of status. “Come to us, we can satisfy you” no you can’t.
There seems to be a consensus on the Net that aesthete rhymes with complete, and the first syllable is either ess (US) or eess (UK), depending. I don't want to be too picky as our host sounds lively and smart and Kierkegaard is presented so well. Mr. K. seems more relatable to me than Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, though all of these philosophers know the heights. The mountains are not going to vanish for humans, no matter the supreme efforts of "the elite" to dumb down whoever they can.
Thank you again absolutely fabulous the way the presentation is broken down and the methodical explanation of this philosophy is soon good and again I feel this philosophy resonates with my Core Self and it's concrete and mystical refraction.that was such a good delicious Meal with aperitif entree main course and desserts.i hope not to have spoilt the whole appreciation by using this concrete oral and gustatory imagery.But is psychological spiral nourishment.I enjoyed the paintings in both presentions.Wishing us all Faith and nothing but Faith.
A "Mass Man" is what you find, for example, in contemporary "christian" churches/circles. Knights of Faith are, for examples, usually Christian martyrs, or usually modern day Plymouth Brethern Born-Again Christians.
I think its because most philosophy channels consider religious philosophy with disdain and beneath their intellectual level when infact the exact opposite is true as Dostyovesky said there is no higher passion attainable by men than faith
It's breathtaking how Kierkegaard reminds me of my Islamic upbringing and tradition. I think that is personified in this story about prophet Muhammad, which I will paraphrase: A man asked him: You teach us to have faith in an omnipotent God. Does that mean when I am to enter a marketplace, I do not have to tie my camel up? It wouldn't run away then? The prophet replied: "Tie your camel, then have faith in God." I much love the prophet Muhammad as a Muslim, but I feel his success is objective. He was supremely successful in this world as a leader, yet his gaze was fixated on faith in an afterlife to come. I see in him the Knight of Faith Kierkegaard so seeked but never found. Indeed, to have deep faith and then to be immersed in this profoundly ugly world at the same time; perhaps this balancing act is the greatest of all arts: The Art of Living. PS: A BIG THANK YOU for presenting the ideas in such an intelligible format. Kudos.
This channel is amazing! However I had no way of knowing going into this whether it would be a continuation of the last video on the existential problem or not. Consider adding a "part 2 " or some other means to identify whether it's linked to a previous video. Your views would increase a whole load I'm sure !
Thank you for all the work you put into these videos. They help get me through my days. I always enjoy hearing something new. You’ve brought me so much information and introduced me to so many people I would have never heard of. Much appreciated my friend! ❤️
Would you be willing to present on Pantheism and differentiate between Spinoza, the stoics, Albert Einstein and others? It seems to me a valid position for the achievement of becoming a "Knight of Faith".
You are really good at explaining and your videos are interesting without being tiresome but you need to upload videos more often..... Plus it would be great if you could do more videos on Arthur Schopenhauer.
All of these ideas are novel and make a great conversation piece but until each of takes a moment to look within ourselves and accept who we truly are then this philosophy along with all others will be doomed to obscurity. It’s more important than ever to not just watch these videos or read books on philosophy but discuss it publicly, we have to live it, embrace it and teach it to others. Philosophy teaches us to ask questions, use logic to examine every situation and rely on reason to provide the answers to those questions even in the most uncertain times. We face ignorance, bigotry, racism and hatred at every turn. In light of the dark times we face this is reason we need to lean on these great philosophical minds as examples non-conformists who stand in stark defiance of those who would and will subjugate it’s people with poor education, hate filled rhetoric and fear mongering. It’s important for those of us who study and embrace the ideals of philosophy to enlighten others and expose as many people as we can to wisdom and beauty of philosophy. Keep watching these videos, keep having conversations and keep introducing philosophy to others.
This really reminds me of the Enneagram, and its type 6 dilemma along with its virtue. It's like Kierkegaard found the solution to the 6's plight on his own.
As an 9w1 I related as well. 9s fall asleep to themselves in order to maintain a false sense of peace. We like to merge with other persons when we should be merging with the divine, the eternal being, and helping others to seek enlightenment. At least, that's what I got out of it.
Please correct me here if I didn't quite understand what Kierkegaard meant at 11:47. I find his reasoning fascinating except where the young man who gives away his riches is consoled with the words "By virtue of the absurd, you will get every penny back again- believe it!" The problem with this is a lot of people give away their money and belongings in the hope and "faith" that God will give it all back - just have faith. I, personally, don't think God would have given the young rich man every penny back but because he would now be dependent on God and not Mammon he will by some miracle be provided for. His riches and trust is in God and not a bank account. Dunno. Maybe that is what Kierkegaard meant?
I suggest that your next series of videos to cover my writings. Im sure many of your viewers would want you to provide an insight to shed light on my ideas.
Although the wording is vastly different, this concept is very similar to Zen Buddhism's Ten Bulls. After one's experience of transcendence and reaching the source, one returns back into society with a changed outlook.
This episode is particularly diffcult for me to understand, kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' is such a dangerous idea i dont understand how a resonable person can allow himself make that move.
It is a "dangerous idea". An almost unbelievably difficult and unbearable challenge to "reason". Thankfully, in a certain sense, it would appear from your comment, that you have not yet fallen into the "despair" that makes it your ONLY move.
@@OneMan-wl1wj when I was in despair, it was a very helpful video to help me bounch back; but I just can't have a blind eye on why most people are religious. This leap of fate can easily break an atheist who didn't arrive at his choice logically.
The “Refined Aesthete” is a real clever fellow, because he does not simply seek pleasure, he seeks to have power and authority over it-to stand outside and above the universal. He seeks to create the world “in his own image.”
Why isn't the knowledge that all things are finite enough to grasp that a well lived life must not take them for granted? People of faith resign themselves to life's losses with a "God will provide" attitude. That removes their anxiety just like Denial does. I have seen people squander their fortunes with that same attitude- only to regret it at an older age. It seems to me that abandoning reason is a leap to self delusion not to selfhood.
That’s the point. It’s a paradox. Trusting God and admitting you are powerless seems to be the opposite of selfhood, but indeed putting your trust in the absurd is a risk and takes great courage and strength. Ultimately, this denial of selfhood and giving everything to God is what leads to selfhood. It’s a paradox
I believe that’s a maxim of the mass man apart of religion , “God will provide “ only a superficial understanding to deny one further investigation of what one believes
I sometimes wonder how does one live any other way but in despair in a world where every single detail of that world is in direct contrast to everything they believe everything they stand for everything they hold dear? This is conundrum.
this is the exact video content matches with the eternal eastern philosophy mentioned by all saints in india across the time since vedas around 3500bce. i think kierkegard must be someone saintly hero of his time.
+marc Schädeln Yes, and that may be the very point of Kierkegaards faith. Renouncing ones self means to let go of all the illusions men tend to make up of theirselves, which is a mere disguise built up in temporal terms. The self is exactly what restricts the human-being in his being, for being is possibility, while the self, as a temporal image, is grasping something finite in fear of committing to the infinite.
+marc schädeli In existentialist terms, that's not exactly the case. According to Kierkegaardian scholars Hubert Dreyfus and Jane Rubin, the "infinite" is best defined as a worldview or a way of living in which things make sense to us. This is close to Heidegger's idea of mood. Think of sadness and how, when you're sad, everything that comes your way appears as sad and worthless until happiness comes, if and when it comes. The finite is the specific and overriding value within that worldview. In other words: what matters in the world, such as pleasure, freedom, or faith. Freedom is the ability to chose whatever it is we value as something which defines our worldview and thereby us. Necessity is the fact that once our values have been chosen, they are essential to who we are. Eternity is best defined as a continuity one establishes on one's own life, between the past, present, and future. Or you can think of it as the present, in which we always find ourselves. (But that's a different way of thinking about time.) Temporality is the measurement by which the past is separated from the present and thus from the future. Kierkegaard suggests that the Knight of Faith wields these seeming opposites in such a way that they support each other rather than canceling each other out. In short, one is willing to sacrifice the finite but not do so because of one's own self-destructive desire (an urge with which Kierkegaard struggled for most of his life). Instead, one accepts the world as a gift from God and only gives up his finite "worldliness" if God demands.
My humble remark - intended to be humble, that is - is that there is understood to be an infinite self, or Self, that the scraping away of the little self can reveal. Words have the two sides of revealing and obscuring, as we know.
Excellent treatment of the topic! Here God may be Christian God according to Kierkegaard but it’s not a necessity. God is anything which inspire to transcend your individual self, for example a pantheistic god or not God at all but your identification with the universe. This last possibility was not considered by K. Though probably wouldn’t have been well received by Danish society. Curiously Kierkegaard in that is taken by his own explanation snd he is incapable of seeing he acting from the moral and concept pertaining to his narrow time and culture. But then again who isn’t
