Hey /lit/
I was wondering about some similarities between Sartre and Kierkegaard. Is Sartre basically an atheist Kierkegaard? Or are there other differences I'm missing?
I'm specifically referring to Sartre's statement "existence before essence" and the different types of people and their development in Kierkegaard's philosophy.
Thought /lit/ was crazy about Kierkegaard?
I thought Absurdism is Atheist version of Kierkigard.
>>7729352
Sartre was a phenomenologist and existence philosopher.
Kierkegaard was more in what people called the existentialist movement.
Sartre writes from Husserl (but also from Kant and Hegel, like Kierkegaard), which is the big difference.
Existentialism transcends "athiest/theist" divide as we normally use these words.
>>7729841
>Existentialism transcends "athiest/theist" divide as we normally use these words.
Well yes, in the sense that it displaces the atheists who claim that the meaning of life lies in science and logic, but Sartre definitely regards religion in the same sense that Camus does: a kind of philosophical suicide.
>>7729352
If I'm not mistaken, Kierkegaard believed that there was essence that coincided with existence, since a human being is a spirit that has a unique relation of being finite (bound by biology and social concerns) and infinite (the freedom to decide and the power of the imagination). The unique relation of relating between these two points is the main point of the quote in the Sickness Unto Death: "the self is a relation that relates itself to itself [or something similar]...". In short, because we are God's children, we have a unique essence that separates us, and whether or not we affirm this essence is up to us. One should note however, that according to Kierk affirming your essence in the wrong way leads to -existential- despair, which is exemplified in Kierk's different types of people:
The aesthetic focuses on the infinite side of relation, finding essence in art, feelings, Romanticism, self-pleasure, etc.
The ethical focuses on the finite side of relation, finding essence in work, civility, politics, other people, and public life.
The religious is the only "mode" of life that offers a proper synthesis between both sides, as he finds the infinite in his relationship and adherence to God and paradoxical Christianity, and still follows the ethical duty of society, but avoids narcissism/solipsism of the aesthete and the dogma of the ethical (which is achieved by teleological suspending the ethical). But Kierk also knew that many people would spend their whole lives in the aesthete and ethical, and saw no reason to become religious even when dying. Originally in Either/Or Kierk doesn't necessarily condemn either way of life, only pointing the inherent despair in both, but he later amends his position in Stages of Life and Sickness Unto Death to condemn both the aesthete and ethical for falling into the "levels of despair".
Now you already know that Sarte disagreed that humanity has inherent essence, but he did agree that one should find his way of affirming essence, the key to existentialism, but also had his own pitfalls of wrong affirmation in bad faith and inauthentic living.
That's the way I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>7730080
Really great post. Only one question I have for you.
>The religious is the only "mode" of life that offers a proper synthesis between both sides
Is it really a synthesis? I was under the impression that the leap of faith required for a thoughtful christian doesn't necessarily have to provide any sort of synthesis between the two; its just the achievement of spiritual fulfillment by finding the intrinsic essence/purpose in human life. I haven't read as much K as you have, so I'm interested in what you have to say about this.
>>7730121
Yes what you said is more in line with it. With the word "synthesis" and subsequent clause I was trying to communicate that the religious life is not in complete despair because it doesn't mis-relate the self, not the idea that the religious life is a dialectical synthesis. Some scholars think that Kierk thought that some people in the ethical stage had maintained that dialectical synthesis of social-care and self-pleasure, e.g. going to work to support your family and drinking and entertaining yourself on the weekends. The distinguishing factor between this dialectically synthesized ethical and the knight of faith, then, would be the essence religion provides and acceptance of paradoxical Christianity, as you said.
Awesome thanks anon! Very interesting stuff
Having a tough time believing I just received a well articulated, well though out interpretation of a philosopher on /lit/. What a time to be alive
>>7729994
Just but Kierkegaard does not speak of religion per se, but faith.
Kierkegaards works are in some sense an attack on organized religion
>>7730080
/lit/ post of the day
>>7730080
top stuff, I'm reading Either/Or and your post helped me out a lot
Sartre's kiddy-fucking ideology of 'du what makes u feel gud' got into his philosophy and basically made it an inconsistent mess.
It's his type that have caused the modern plague of nihilism.
>>7730080
thumbs up, buddy
>>7730419
i find that /lit/ contains extreme polar opposites. Those who provide the great insight and discussion that i believe is truly hard to find anywhere else online, and those who shitpost
>>7730080
Nice. Let's keep doing this. Let's make this what /lit/ is like.
>>7729352
Any of you read Kirk's pseudo-chapter on Camus.and Sartre's rebellious despair in Sickness Unto Death. Calling it demonic madness, to see no fixed finite meaning and instead invite the fallible fever dreams of your own egos to fill in the empty - that struck me as such a terrifying analysis of modern culture: that we leave it on the the individualiatic shoulders of narcissist "fencer of nothing" who due and mistake life endlessly.
But what was so beautiful to me wasn't his brutal depiction of the pointlessness of our mortal attempts to understand and form our own imperfect meanings, it was the sheer insanity of his closing quote - that We, the sorry flawed bits of ink, might hold justice in our rage against such second rate author.
I don't know anons, Ive done a.lot or acid In india right now, but I feel that those very words describe and inspire our whole insane postmodern bullshit better than anything.
Anyone see the guy as a kind of socrates 2.0, or am I really being Silly?
>>7730080
What a load of absolute bollocks.
>>7734139
How so?
>>7730080
>(which is achieved by teleological suspending the ethical)
What does this mean?
>>7734325
Religious experience>le Moralitat Laws of modernity
