>>7752583
>Wittgenstein rekt Stirner

this never actually happened though

Wittgenstein was indebted as fuck to Kierkegaard and if anything I'd say Kierkegaard is two steps ahead of Stirner (those steps being the ethical and the religious) and any rebuttal you see in Witty is prefigured already in K.

Question: why do people tend to put Wittgenstein and Heiddeger together as two sides (analytical and continental) of the same coin?

you only need to read Kierkegaard and Heidegger.

>>7752619
>Kierkegaard is two steps ahead of Stirner

The only thing Kierkegaard was two steps ahead of was himself. His particular brand of religious fervor mirrors Dostoevsky in its misguided desperation, and even though he is the father of modern existentialism his ideas, like Freud, were expounded upon and done better by others who came after him. His retarded blend of dialectical Christianity and existentialism amounts to little more than "having your cake and eating it too", and his only truly insightful writings were his misogynistic observations about the fairer sex. He is also the direct cause of modern pseudo-intellectual Christian existentialists hacks parading as artists such as Terence Malick.

>>7752593
>implying I meant the ego when I said ego, it's unspeakable
>ugh you wouldn't understand

>>7752644
You do realize Freud was born ten years after Ego and its Own was published, right?

>>7752653
I meant Stirner's reply to his critics. Or maybe it was in the book too. I dunno anymore, I'm over Max now

>>7752643
>even though he is the father of modern existentialism his ideas, like Freud, were expounded upon and done better by others who came after him
Could you name some for me please? I'm really into Kierkegaard atm

>>7752643
Heidegger has more to do with Malick really. And what do you mean by trying to have his cake and eat it too? He seems to have as much trouble with the cake as anyone else.

>>7752697
Obviously Camus and Sarte are his direct descendants in the line of existentialist thought but they're both fucking insufferable, especially Camus with his YOLO-tier "imagine Sisyphus happy lol" ideology.

If you're willing to entertain stretching the definition of "existentialist", and you're really into Kierkegaard right now, I would recommend running through the important works of Schopenhauer first and then Kierkegaard and then Nietzsche, because by having the advantage of being staggered slightly by birthrate, they were all contemporary at some point and they all work as a response to each other. The most interesting existentialist descendants stem from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, in which case I would recommend Zapffe, Cioran, and Ligotti in that order.

>>7752753
>Heidegger has more to do with Malick really.

Can you expound on this? I'm actually interested because whenever I bring this up I'm either forced to talk about it with Malick fans who don't read or Kierk fans who don't force themselves to watch modern cinema.

>And what do you mean by trying to have his cake and eat it too? He seems to have as much trouble with the cake as anyone else.

At least to me, Christianity as Kierkegaard understands it is in direct opposition with the existentialist ideas he fathered, unless you're just a dishonest Christian.

>>7752848
>Can you expound on this?
Well I am admittedly not the most well-versed in film but I know Malick himself is a big Heidegger guy and translated Heidi's works and wrote his thesis on him. It's been a while since I've seen Malick's movies but I remember them having the kind of mystic pastoralism Heidegger is fond of. I think Kierkegaard's influence on Heidegger is underestimated and that Heidegger vulgarizes it nearly as bad as Sartre would later do to him, but that's another matter.
>At least to me, Christianity as Kierkegaard understands it is in direct opposition with the existentialist ideas
Okay that's what I thought you meant. I can understand how it could seem like a step backwards. If you ask me, someone like Nietzsche is really the one trying to have his cake and eat it too by saying he's dispensing with metaphysics and morals and then trying all his will-to-power shit and new values.
The same thing goes for Deleuze or any other immanent-ist and I think that's the failing Kierkegaard anticipates in his treatment of his character "A". This make-it-yourself approach to values has no bearing, the same way a crazy bum might try to pass off a rock as currency. These things need a transcendent, outside force to really imbue meaning on it. This is kind of like Wittgenstein and the private language argument and the idea language games now that I think of it.
I think Kierkegaard's Christianity is still existentialist. The model of infinite faith constantly in need of being renewed is analogous to Nietzsche's dictum of amor fati and overcoming but I think with this transcendent element added.

>>7753035
also sorry if this post is kinda disjointed or messy. I should be sleeping or working on a paper right now. Hopefully some of what I'm thinking got through.

>>7753035
>Malick himself is a big Heidegger guy and translated Heidi's works and wrote his thesis on him

Malick wrote his thesis on Kierkegaard and furthermore Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism permeates literally all of his film work, most especially in his most recent film "Knight of Cups" and in "Tree of Life" where he quotes both Kierkegaard and Aquinas.

>>7753035
>Nietzsche is really the one trying to have his cake and eat it too by saying he's dispensing with metaphysics and morals and then trying all his will-to-power shit and new values

I take issue with Nietzsche as well, but regardless he needs to be read in order to understand the triad of Schop/Kierk/Nietzsche. Arguably Nietzsche did the most damage because not only is he the most read and most influential of the three but he spawned pale imitators like Camus. I have ambiguous feelings about Nietzsche and that's a discussion for another thread, but it doesn't detract from the fact that "existentialism" as such is incompatible and even diametrically opposed to Christianity, and thus Kierkegaard's attempt to dialectically reconcile the two is misguided at best and desperate at worst.

>>7752643
>His particular brand of religious fervor mirrors Dostoevsky in its misguided desperation
What you mean by this?

>expounded upon and done better by others who came after him
Expounded upon, sure. Done better? Nah, people after him just took it into a completely different direction that wouldn't even work within Kierkegaard's main frame.

>his only truly insightful writings were his misogynistic observations about the fairer sex
I only know his views from Judge William, what are they again? He had nice things to say about women, generally. The only time he had bad things to say about women was when writing under a vulgar aesthete pseudonym. Schopenhauer's view on women is probably his most off-base and least interesting thing about his philosophy.

>He is also the direct cause of modern pseudo-intellectual Christian existentialists hacks parading as artists such as Terence Malick.

Nah, Christianity is at fault for that. It's not like he imposes Kierkegaard's philosophical system on his film. He probably has even less of a K imprint on him than Bergman did.

Your post reeks of the average 4chan philistine. Making vague, wild, and incorrect assumptions about philosophy.

>>7753082
>Kierkegaard's attempt to dialectically reconcile the two is misguided at best and desperate at worst.
He's not attempting to synthesize though because one of the ingredients didn't even exist yet. If you want to think about it with a modern bias, then Kierkegaard is really critiquing existentialism (or those whose views would be retroactively considered so) and moving past it.