Soren Kierkegaard?

[rlj51]

Who was this guy? I have read a little bit about him, and it seems like he was quite misunderstood. Has anyone read his stuff, and what do they think?

BTW I am new. Let me introduce myself. My name is Randy, I live in WA state, and I am becoming increasingly interested in philosophy. Thanks!

[Ishmael]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/

[b488]

First of all, welcome!

my fave internet site about Kierkegaard :

http://www.webcom.com/kierke/


In reading more and more about philosophers and their work, you will see that most have been misunderstood in one way or the other. And again, many scholars will disgaree about the meaning and implications of each of their predecessors ideas (keeps em in business, anyway) :tongue:

K. has a special place in my heart. I think he is dead wrong on several things (his writings on original sin are especially vexing to me), but I admire his thought and passion on the whole.

If you have any specific questions after reading, maybe you can ask here and either I or someone else im sure would be happy to help you with it (whether they share my enthusiasm about him or not)

Ciao! :thumb:

[Bill K.]

rlj51,
I have read all of SK's works and have been a restrained fan for many years. (My most recent son is named after him!)

Probably his most important message was that one must be "existentially" involved in truth for it to be "authentic."

His most controverial point was that he divided truth up into two basic categories: (Warning: This is a very simplified version)

1) Truth as objectivity (such things as Christ's death and ressurection). He spends little time on this, because, in his mind, it has already garnished all the press of his day in the prescribed orthodoxy of Denmark. When I say "spends little time" I do not mean that it is not mentioned. Even a casual reader will see that it is never out of his mind. He simply assumes it rather then defends it. He has been accused of not believing in objective truth, but this is wholly false, a myth created by his theological detractors. A simple read through his autobiography will answer the question against his naysayers.

2) "Truth as subjectivity." This is what has made him "famous."
Many neo-orthodox theologians (and some heretics, aka., Tillich) incorporated this theme into their work. (In my opinion, they did so in a manner quite removed from SK himself.)
Basically, with this idea, SK sought to affirm the necessity of being existentially committed to truth, not merely assenting to a compendium of head knowledge. The nature of this "committment", he held, was a truth even of itself: there was true and false subjectivity.
While his general work focuses on an extreme position in regard to this, he is fully aware of it. He attempts to explain his extreme position in other works, yet this explanation has generally gone disregarded by his detractors. In a nutshell, he saw his work as a necessary swing of the pendulum (his metaphor) in the extreme opposite direction as the only way of remedying the very lop-sided, knowledge-centered faith of Denmark.

I am in full agreement with his basic thesis.

As a person, he was wonderfully hospitable, generous to a fault (he died in the act of giving), but struggled with a debilitating melancholia. His life is rather cryptic, but never dull.

Just a few notes. Hope this helps.

In Christ,
Bill

[mattbballman19]

Some wierd facts that I've run across is that it is said that his left leg was longer than his right, he was mocked for his unusually long and pointy nose, and that he left his 'to be'wife for reasons that I'm not aware of at the moment.

matt