I'm a student of Philosophy from India. Thank you so much for your sharing ❤️ I learnt about him in my last semester. His works are literally worth reading and contemplating.
As someone who also teaches philosophy, I really enjoy your work! Arguably the change in the individual as being superior to the universal (in the synthesis of the third sphere) is a part of one of the most important metaphysical movements of this period of philosophical history. It became obvious with Bruno, I think, and then was manifest as well with Kant, Hegel, then Kierkegaard of course, followed by Nietzsche, etc. I’m always trying to contextualize the ideas as part of larger historical patterns and movements. Anyway, good stuff!
It’s always nice to see a new video on RU-vid regarding Kierkegaard. I’m hoping in the future you make a video on Ernest Beckers works including the Denial of death which builds upon Kierkegaard’ work.
makes sense in the day to day life we carry ourselves. there is a higher mediation between ethical and aesthetic, call it religious, and well in practical reality thoughts and decisions we are the boss of this, of what we accept and what we do. a good topic to think about for today - thx dr ellie!
Things seem to come in threes. Schopenhauer had those three means of mitigating suffering; aesthetic experience, compassion, asceticism. I don't remember whether he viewed them as steps on a ladder, but it would seem plausible, and hearing this about Kierkegaard's spheres reminded me of him.
The bit about the knight of renunciation was interesting insofar as Kant, in his second critique, said that god was necessary in that personal desires could not be satisfied more than fortuitously in a moral life.
Kierkegaard specifically addresses "mysticism" in Either/Or, and still contrasts it a few different ways to the Ethical and Religious. Recommend reading :)
interesting structure and again a lot of similarities with upanishads and atman-brahman conceptions and linkages, or as john vervaeke may say, the 'transjective' (also a platonic flavor)
5:12 So if the aesthetic is the individual and the ethical is the universal and in the religious the individual is higher than the universal then the aesthetic is higher/better than the ethical. Is this a right conclusion?
? Kierkegaard attended Schelling and Schleiermacher's lectures in Berlin (see Hannay's biography) and studied with a Danish Hegelian in Copenhagen, but I don't know of evidence that he was ever taught by Hegel.
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy You're right. Hegel died in 1831. Kierkegaard didn't make it to Berlin for another ten years. I don't know where/how I got my bad information.
We could also add the absurdist stance as some people analysing Brothers Karamazov have done. Th father is there while Dmitry has the aesthetic stance, Ivan the ethical, and Alyosha the religious.
No human in the long run, but Kierkegaard’s, mine, and your God who Christians call Lord is able, and help in ways and in more ways than you can understand and describe to another, once you know the Christ God by faith. Meditate on the Suffering Servant of the Lord and follow after His way and you will have and know rest. God rest
I was just reading a review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (free, open, online) of a book on Kierkegaard by Sheridan Hough, Kierkegaard's Dancing Tax Collector: Faith, Finitude, and Silence. The reviewer, Sharon Krishek, summarizes Hough's discussion of Kierkegaard on faith and suffering. Maybe you'd find it helpful, too. I don't know your circumstances or your background, but here's what works for me: All human power is finite, limited. But one can take the action of unconditionally affirming, inwardly, the infinite transformational power of God, a power which can bring meaning to all suffering as well as adjust worldly conditions in ways nobody can comprehend. One can affirm unconditionally that everything that comes has its meaning and its purpose, is a "good and perfect gift," despite all worldly appearances to the contrary. Moreover, it's possible to avail one's self of the good news proclaimed in the Christian tradition without invalidating other religious traditions. I hope you find whatever help you need, from whatever source.
@@somethingyousaid5059you have no reason to believe it via reason. If you're anything like me, reason will lead you to nihilism and a cold dark world in which a God of any sort could not exist. I found a way out through Buddhism. But I agree with Soren, it's a subjective journey. If you honestly look for "God" with all your might and suspend churlishness, you'll find it in a way that makes sense to you. God can't be known or transmitted in the sphere of the ethical, but subjectively realized. This paragraph can only motivate you to take action, but nothing that I can write will bring you to find the peace that you seek, only your action can do that. Funny enough, for me it came in the form of a leap of faith. I was an atheist for most of my life. Good luck my friend.
bs"d Very clear! But, re. 'ethical' about a taco, trying to convince someone why they should find the taco delicious, I myself probably would have chosen a different explanation. Once a person says 'delicious' that is leaving the conversation in the sphere of the aesthetic, again. Each person is born with, and continues to develop, somewhat different taste buds, whether this is genetic or acquired by some environmental or current-life-memory factor. So, the enjoyability of a taco would be a bit too subjective, I would think. If I were trying to give another person an ethical reason to eat a taco, there would be some other arguments. 1. One could say, the taco is in front of you, and nothing else is, and you shouldn't starve because you need to retain functionality to serve G-d or humanity or whatever, and the taco is a very good food source for retaining functionality because it draws from all four food groups, the taco shell as carbohydrate, the meat from the meat group, the cheese from the dairy group, and the lettuce, tomatoes, & onions from the vegetable group. (Except that nowadays some nutritionists no longer think of healthy meals according to the balancing of the four food groups, but many of us still think that way.) Of course, you would not convince me to eat the taco unless it had a dietary approval mark from an authorized member of my faith group, and either the meat or the cheese would have to be fake, but there are very few people in the world with such dietary requirements, so there are many people you could convince. In the days when I was listening to live talks about Kierkegaard (1976-77) I did not know the difference, so I would have eaten the pictured taco with gusto. 2. One could say, when you eat that taco, either you or someone else will pay for it and/or its ingredients, thus supporting the purveyors of the taco or of its ingredients. More tacos will need to be made to make up for its absence (anyhow it does have to be eaten because if it is not eaten, it will spoil) and that will support taco-makers and those who produce the ingredients. 3. One could say, eating that taco in contrast to ignoring it, thus providing impetus for the further manufacture of tacos, may actually boost the economy, which benefits all people in that particular economy. It could even raise the GDP. I like this talk. It is very clear. It will help me to organize different thoughts about what I want to do, as I go through my day, and to decide whether an activity is fitting into the aesthetic, the ethical, or the religious aspect, or two or all of those, and in which ways. Thus I can prioritize better. Thank you very much!
