Kierkegaard – “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere” or something like that is the one liner that I always associate with him (perhaps wrongly). Not cool
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
When two people fall in love and suspect they are made for each other, the thing is to have the courage to break it off, for by continuing they have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
What then is melancholy? It is hysteria of the spirit. But melancholy is sin, really it is a sin as great as any, for it is the sin of not willing deeply and sincerely, and this is the mother of all sins. This sickness, or more properly, this sin, is extremely common in our time, and accordingly it is under this that the whole of German and French youth groan. I gladly admit that being melancholy is in a sense not a bad sign. People whose souls have no acquaintance with melancholy have no presentiment of metamorphosis.
What is a poet? An unhappy man who in his heart harbors a deep anguish, but whose lips are so fashioned that the moans and cries which pass over them are transformed into ravishing music. His fate is like that of the unfortunate victims whom the tyrant Phalaris imprisoned in a brazen bull, and slowly tortured over a steady fire; their cries could not reach the tyrant’s ears so as to strike terror into his heart; when they reached his ears they sounded like sweet music. And men crowd around the poet and say to him, “Sing for us soon again”—which is as much as to say, “May new sufferings torment your soul, but may your lips be fashioned as before; for the cries would only distress us, but the music, the music, is delightful.”
Faith is against understanding, faith is on the other side of death.
Longing is the umbilical cord of the higher life.
When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world – no matter how imperfect – becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love.
But you are free to dismiss him with a waive of your hand: this is what I mean when I talk about what I see as a Reformed propensity to evaluate things from the outside “I don’t need to eat a whole egg to know it’s rotten”.
ben and Deb positive, John against, thin evidence of a Reformed Propensity to evaluate from the outside, Matt. Also, are you suggesting that you DO need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten???
Positive? I dunno, I agree with Schaeffer’s critique of the dualism inherent in his worldview, but at the same time, he is a good writer who says some helpful things. My very Reformed pastor told me this morning after church that it was good to read people with whom you disagree, although I would tend to agree with Matthew’s assertion, if only in general terms.
I gave matt credit for the waive/wave, probably wrongly. Deborah I did not mean that you were a fan of SK by characterising you as “positive”, I simply meant that your response about SK was a positive one. Yours was not a response that could be waived away by Matt as “a reformed propensity”
Your accusations disturb me -I expect more from you. I didn’t casually dismiss SK “with a wave of my hand”. Firstly, I read your quote from the eulogy and made a general comment about it that I think reflected its merits – little or no truth content, however well and/or emotively written.
Your response was a general baptism of SK – calling him “a good one”. You make a general statement that he is “good”, and in response I make a specific response (that I limit because I do not profess to be an expert on SK) that specifically sets out one of his philisophical tenets as I understand it, which if correct, would counter the idea that SK can be given the generic mhjb baptism.
I do find SK’s writing interesting, and he has some insights that appeal to me. I wasn’t dismissing or engaging in any “Reformed propensity”. I would only encourage you to analyse and sift everything you read, rather than agreeing with a general thrust or appreciating an appealing style of writing or subject matter. To merely understand what a philosopher is saying is meaningless if you can’t also critique it. I am not saying you don’t do that, but it doesn’t really come across in your writings.
Those crazy Nords – always writing meaningless statements with little or no truth content.
SK was a strange one, but a good one, I think.
Kierkegaard is one of the few philosophers I can still sorta-kinda-maybe respect.
I liked it, if only for the last sentence.
And what a last sentence it is!
Kierkegaard – “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere” or something like that is the one liner that I always associate with him (perhaps wrongly). Not cool
Here are some others of his:
But you are free to dismiss him with a waive of your hand: this is what I mean when I talk about what I see as a Reformed propensity to evaluate things from the outside “I don’t need to eat a whole egg to know it’s rotten”.
ben and Deb positive, John against, thin evidence of a Reformed Propensity to evaluate from the outside, Matt. Also, are you suggesting that you DO need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten???
Positive? I dunno, I agree with Schaeffer’s critique of the dualism inherent in his worldview, but at the same time, he is a good writer who says some helpful things. My very Reformed pastor told me this morning after church that it was good to read people with whom you disagree, although I would tend to agree with Matthew’s assertion, if only in general terms.
wave/waive is a good mispell, heh.
I gave matt credit for the waive/wave, probably wrongly. Deborah I did not mean that you were a fan of SK by characterising you as “positive”, I simply meant that your response about SK was a positive one. Yours was not a response that could be waived away by Matt as “a reformed propensity”
ditto, Deborah.
Hans, I think you agree deep down with my ‘reformed propensity’ comment.
Your accusations disturb me -I expect more from you. I didn’t casually dismiss SK “with a wave of my hand”. Firstly, I read your quote from the eulogy and made a general comment about it that I think reflected its merits – little or no truth content, however well and/or emotively written.
Your response was a general baptism of SK – calling him “a good one”. You make a general statement that he is “good”, and in response I make a specific response (that I limit because I do not profess to be an expert on SK) that specifically sets out one of his philisophical tenets as I understand it, which if correct, would counter the idea that SK can be given the generic mhjb baptism.
I do find SK’s writing interesting, and he has some insights that appeal to me. I wasn’t dismissing or engaging in any “Reformed propensity”. I would only encourage you to analyse and sift everything you read, rather than agreeing with a general thrust or appreciating an appealing style of writing or subject matter. To merely understand what a philosopher is saying is meaningless if you can’t also critique it. I am not saying you don’t do that, but it doesn’t really come across in your writings.
Fair enough, I spoke too harshly, and applied a prejudice of mine uncharitably, I’m sorry for that.
FWIW, The first sentence of your last paragraph sums up exactly what I think of SK, and lots of the other crazies linked to on this site.
No way did Kierkegaard say, “the mother of all sins.” It should be “a mother to all sins.” The little blue light whiffs again.