>>7507834
Genius.
Either/Or is one of the greatest points in philosophy.
>>7507834
Invented Existentialism. Cool guy in my book.
>>7507834
Master troll, god of prose in Danish. Pretty much the only prose in Danish that rivals the best I've read in English.
>>7507845
I thought he wrote in a super archaic fashion using words and tenses that no longer existed even in his own time.
Best books by him?
He's the goodest
>>7507834
A sad, death-obsessed Christian apologist who used a stupid argument of faith to justify the actions of the Biblical Abraham. He basically tried to refute the basic arguments of logic and reason. He was a sophist and hardly a philosopher at all. Why does /lit/ like him? Have any of you read anything he's written?!
>>7507931
go back to reddit
He stayed pure and true to his lady just like I intend to to as soon as I find her, virgins across time, my brother Soren K. Praise Jesus, the historical man who lived and was a real person, and also the son of God.
>>7507932
That seems to be the answer to everything. Even when Reddit has nothing to do with this. I'm not even someone who used Reddit. Kierkegaard is liked everywhere (college campuses, churches, 4chan, reddit, random people I speak to) and I honestly can't see why if you've taken a look at what he's written.
What's the appeal? What am I missing?
>>7507944
I'm mad at you.
>>7507931
He did't want to refute logic and reason, only the dialectic of Hegel. My love for him is because of his prose and different pseudonyms that he used to contradict and converse with who other but himself in search for an idea he only could infer from his love with Regina.
>>7507931
>Christian apologist
Nope. There's nothing to apologize about, his philosophy is almost completely compatible with a secular world view.
>justify the actions of the Biblical Abraham.
He isn't trying to justify abraham he's using him as an example of a concept.
>He basically tried to refute the basic arguments of logic and reason
Also wrong
>Have any of you read anything he's written
You clearly havn't. Or if you have your an idiot and can't understand philosophy
>>7508165
>doesn't understand that Christian Apologetics isn't "apologizing" for anything and that most of these are completely compatible with secular world views.
He used Abraham as an example. Ok. He emphasized that what Abraham did was virtuous, not reprehensible. The justification was "faith." This is why Kierkegaard is not only wrong, but as wrong and as insane as you can get.
>"also wrong"
Just saying I'm wrong is a non-argument. Prove I'm wrong?
>>7507999
Ok, those are understandable good traits, but he's still wrong about Hegel. And his conclusion about faith is absolutely contrary to anything even remotely intellectual or philosophical.
>>7508250
He found that only rational thinking lead to determinism and the negation of the irrational which is the other side of the same thing. And by faith he postulated more of an absurdism (for a typical westerner) to trascend that determinism the same way Jean Valjean did and Javert couldnt unserstand it.
>>7508262
Its not about being contrary but inclusive, retard. You failed to grasp the idea, I get it.
>>7507850
Bump for interest!
He is a legend.
>>7508311 I like him, his proposal to make your own way and the poems at the beginning of eighter or are clever/funny. But the blind faith thing really seems like a guide to fuck your shit up. To what extend must we see this aspect of his as a core thing? I'm not all about pure reason, but I don't even see what good should come from believing - the world can be harsh so better prepare. The tl;dr is that refusing to see you e.g. suffer from oneitis is no goox way to go.
>>7508410
I never said we all should follow his example. The guy was a martyr (seek the origin of the word) and lived a very sad life. Still, still, I love those kind of writers, like Rilke, Hölderlin, Proust or those crazy women who killed themselves in the end.
>>7507850
Go read Either/Or
>>7508250
are you fucking kidding me m8? he used Abraham to describe the terror of the act, as well. thats an integral consideration -- outside of the context of faith, what Abraham did was monstrous and completely AGAINST the Christian morality. That is why the question is ever even capable of being posed as to whether there is a teleological suspension of the ETHICAL. If Kierk didn't recognize Abraham's actions as inherently immoral, he wouldn't even function as an adequate example for the knight of faith (not that the example needed to necessarily be violent, but none the less it was recognized as immoral and was in no way a defense of it).
