Kierkegaard and Regine Olsen's Love
Quoting John
This link explains things somewhat.
It's clear that for Kierkegaard, his love for Regine played a primal, central and very real role in his philosophy. The interesting bit is in trying to consider the morality of K's actions. It seems to me that it can be looked at both ways - it seems to me that K. is involved in the same kind of deal that Abraham was when he went up to the mountain to sacrifice his dear son Isaac for God's sake.
Indeed Kierkegaard's whole corpus can be regarded as an attempt to justify himself. The teleological suspension of the ethical, the leap of faith, the religious stage which lies beyond the ethical, the knight of faith - Kierkegaard seems to have an intimate understanding of the reality behind those concepts through his own feelings and actions towards Regine.
Kierkegaard seemed to doubt his ability to be a husband or to make Regine happy. At the same time he also wanted to be a writer and completely devote his life to God. Regine herself believed that Kierkegaard sacrificed her to God. It seems certain that Kierkegaard was a man who completely believed in his own greatness, and was certain of the fame he will achieve after death:
So what's the truth? Did Kierkegaard break off the engagement he himself started with Regine out of fear and anxiety? As a way to escape his fears? Or did he break the engagement out of devotion to God?
Either way, are his actions ethical? Is Kierkegaard justified to break Regine's heart and abandon her, putting up a cold front despite her suffering? What's your opinion?
I haven't read much about this, so I can only speculate. Perhaps K was expecting to be able to reach a total commitment, and then realized he could not do it, and that his wavering was hurting R.
This link explains things somewhat.
It's clear that for Kierkegaard, his love for Regine played a primal, central and very real role in his philosophy. The interesting bit is in trying to consider the morality of K's actions. It seems to me that it can be looked at both ways - it seems to me that K. is involved in the same kind of deal that Abraham was when he went up to the mountain to sacrifice his dear son Isaac for God's sake.
Indeed Kierkegaard's whole corpus can be regarded as an attempt to justify himself. The teleological suspension of the ethical, the leap of faith, the religious stage which lies beyond the ethical, the knight of faith - Kierkegaard seems to have an intimate understanding of the reality behind those concepts through his own feelings and actions towards Regine.
Kierkegaard seemed to doubt his ability to be a husband or to make Regine happy. At the same time he also wanted to be a writer and completely devote his life to God. Regine herself believed that Kierkegaard sacrificed her to God. It seems certain that Kierkegaard was a man who completely believed in his own greatness, and was certain of the fame he will achieve after death:
Soren Kierkegaard:What the age needs is not a genius—it has had geniuses enough, but a martyr, who in order to teach men to obey would himself be obedient unto death. What the age needs is awakening. And therefore someday, not only my writings but my whole life, all the intriguing mystery of the machine will be studied and studied. I never forget how God helps me and it is therefore my last wish that everything may be to his honour.
So what's the truth? Did Kierkegaard break off the engagement he himself started with Regine out of fear and anxiety? As a way to escape his fears? Or did he break the engagement out of devotion to God?
Either way, are his actions ethical? Is Kierkegaard justified to break Regine's heart and abandon her, putting up a cold front despite her suffering? What's your opinion?
Comments (51)
There remains nothing that would have enabled him to believe that his decision to reject her was justifiable, and this is where his subjective battle tormented him and why he needed forgiveness. It is exactly as you say, fear, and the precipitating guilt that followed that perhaps resulted in his need to engage philosophically with God since there should be no fear in love. If one would turn aside 'a legitimate court' like her, than what is authentic in any decisions that we make or perceptions that we believe?
He probably did all that he could to make himself believe it was the right decision, but self-deceptive lies always catch up. The worst thing in the world is to abandon a person that you genuinely love and there is no justification in allowing her such suffering which I fear he may have realised too late, which is why he desperately wanted to talk to her but never could.
Yes there does remain something, which is utter devotion to God, similar to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son. Don't forget that Kierkegaard never renounced his love for Regine - he carried it unto his dying breaths, when he dedicated all his past work to her. He - alike his own knight of faith - believed in the impossible - that he will renounce Regine and have her too. His point was that for God anything is possible.
Quoting TimeLine
Kierkegaard was acutely aware of self-deception though, and viewed self-deception as the worst possible state.
Quoting TimeLine
But did he ever abandon her? Or was that only how things looked on the surface?
God still enabled Abraham to keep his son and to embrace the joy in love, that when there is an authenticity in this love between two people, one could say the sacrifice had gone ahead as if Kierkegaard renounced the very fabric of our existence, the very gift that God gave us. His acute awareness of self-deception is because his cold - almost cruel - methods of justifying his initial decision to abandon her surfaced as being a lie he told himself.
It was an abandonment of love. He was afraid.
Yes but it was God's reward for Abraham's complete faith, even in letting go of what he treasured most for the sake of God.
K. believed that he will have Regine in eternity too. He always viewed himself as married to her.
Quoting TimeLine
It is true that he was cruel - he wanted to make her hate him at one point. That's why he allowed himself to be portrayed as a cold-hearted seducer, etc. But this was his way to get her to devote herself to what truly matters - God - before devoting herself to him.
Quoting TimeLine
It's a possible reading, but Im not sure it's necessarily correct.
This is the deception that drove her to suffering and thus contrary to his moral obligations and perhaps his behaviour towards her enabled a temporary solution that compelled her marriage to someone else, but such suffering within never ceases without forgiveness, that we will never know whether she, as much as he, was tormented.
It is not good enough to hold onto an imagined story of love, the honour and honesty to face the brutality of your feelings with courage, the absence of which meant that in the end it was his devotion in God and not hers that was in question.
But there is not much doubt that in her heart of hearts Regine always loved Kierkegaard, regardless of who she married, and Kierkegaard knew this. That's why he was never jealous of her husband - he knew that she belonged to him. As K. himself writes in "Works of Love", love is a hidden secret, only known in the depths of the two lovers' souls - the external world thinks that the two lovers are mad.
Quoting TimeLine
Well what if he thought that being married wouldn't let him be devoted to God, and he would instead have to be devoted to Regine?
Can the Ubermensch love anyone except her/himself?
Yes, because the love of God also entails all the other loves.
Quoting Cavacava
Probably not :P . Why are you asking about the Ubermensch though?
After reading the article you linked, I am inclined to think that K cancelled his engagement to Regine out of an apprehension that he could not both fulfill his vocation as a writer in service to his God, and be a satisfactory husband to Regine. So I would not say "to escape his fears", but rather to avoid what he knew would be an untenable situation, and would result in even greater suffering for Regine (and himself) in the long run. I think his actions were ethical, because he had not made the final commitment.
I don't believe however that what he did could be justified because he knew he was a genius, and had great things to give to humanity. He could not have known that. He believed it, to be sure, and it turns out he was not wrong, but he could not have known the future.. Another case that springs to mind is Gauguin's abandonment of his family to go paint in Polynesia. We might say, after the fact, that he was justified on account of his great paintings. But we have the benefit of hindsight, which he did not. So, I think that what Gauguin did was unethical.
They seem very much alike, both leap and in doing so transcend the ethical same as Abe and perhaps Gauguin
Yeah, I'm probably leaning towards this interpretation too. TimeLine obviously thinks differently though.
Quoting John
Okay, but think of Schopenhauer as well for example. If Schopenhauer hadn't ardently believed in his own genius while nobody else did, then he would never have succeeded to give anything to humanity. It's almost as if the belief is what drives someone to commit to the actions that are required to make it happen. The faith.
If you are a "normal" person, you'll do a cost-benefit analysis and think about things like: "Okay, I'll spend my days working towards achieving X, but if I fail, then I'll be left with no family, and life will have gone by and I would never have been able to enjoy Y, M, Z that other people could. Or I could put less effort in achieving X, and balance it with Y, M, Z and having a normal life, that way, if I fail to achieve X, at least I will have had Y, M, Z"
But a genius isn't like this. A genius is willing to gamble with their life and lose everything - absolutely everything - in order to gain one thing. That's the distinguishing mark of genius, and it's more important than intelligence and capability. It's almost as if this belief and sheer will power is what makes the achievements of the genius possible in the first place - it's what makes them be willing to suffer greatly to see their ideas come through.
So it's not the genius's superior ability that makes him shine beyond the rest. It's the fact that he's the only one willing to give his absolute to succeed - the one who isn't scared of the prospect of failure or of immense pain. Most others fail not because they lack the talent - but because they lack the courage and conviction.
Is there any difference between "transcending the ethical" and "being unethical'?
Maybe, but in different directions ;)
I think you may well be right about that, at least for a significant number of cases. But I don't believe that such overweening self-belief is a guarantee of success, and I also don't believe it is absolutely necessary in all cases.
There is no guarantee for success - I agree. The self-belief merely makes it more likely, but that's all. That's precisely why the genius is admirable. Because without any guarantee they make the leap - they dare - they display courage and conviction. That arouses a feeling of possibility in other people, and soon laughter turns to awe. Awe that someone dared to risk and gamble.
The dividing line between stupidity and genius is that the stupid person gives in to the demands and laughter of the others - while the genius perseveres. That's why I believe genius has to do with a certain type of personality more than anything else. It's the character that others ultimately admire in a genius.
Quoting John
What case(s) would you / are you thinking about?
Point of view. The person who transcends the ethical out of love or force of will, is unethical by definition but I don't think that translates into their having to act unethically. It means that they don't feel themselves bound by normative oughts, or perhaps the guilt for behaviors that we normatively might feel guilty about don't affect them in the same way.
Probably his most powerful works exploded out of the crisis surrounding that. His whole corpus? A lot of it is about the death of Christianity, so... I don't think so.
"There was one who was great by virtue of his power. One who was great by virtue of his wisdom. One who was great by virtue of hope. And one who was great by virtue of his love. But Abraham was greater than these. Great by virtue of power which is impotence. Great by virtue of wisdom whose secret is foolishness. Great by virtue of hope that takes the form of madness. And great by virtue of a love which is hatred of oneself."
Regine? She's a long way off from here. He gave her up because he knew he would have been miserable with her... and so she would have been miserable too. That's what I think.
When one transcends love they by definition abandon it as was closely stated earlier by Cavs, only Kierkegaard came to realise it much later. Indeed, his initial decision may have been the assumption that the situation was untenable, that the idea of marrying Regine would have been a mistake both for himself and for her, but he realised that it was wrong afterwards, that his so-called 'final commitment' was self-deceptive and the very reason why he was tortured by the decision.
It is indeed his fears, fears that to commit to Regine may have situationally limited his capacity of genius, but he realised that to be wrong and on the contrary it was the very impetus to his overall capacity to undertake the subjects that he did. As you say, Gauguin did not know what the outcome would have been and neither did Kierkegaard, only he came to clearly and absolutely regret it, which is verification enough that even he realised it to have been wrong.
Quoting Mongrel
This may have been what he initially assumed that compelled his decision, but he induced the very misery that he sought to avoid by what he later came to realise was self-deceptive. As he said himself, "To cheat oneself out of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity."
I don't think if offered the choice, K would have chosen differently. He knew what he was getting into from the very beginning, but that didn't mean that it wouldn't be immensely painful. What makes you think - from his writings - that he would have chosen differently?
Also be careful that you don't judge emotionally. Your mind may subconsciously put you in Regine's shoes, and go through the events of the guy you absolutely love rejecting you, putting up a cold front, etc. Then you'll judge K. to have done wrong, just as a way to safeguard yourself. A lot of virtue signalling plays the same unconscious role - serves to attract a virtuous person to you (even if you may not be virtuous to begin with) simply because that's one of your deepest desires. Be honest to yourself (not trying to suggest you currently aren't, but just something to keep in mind).
There is nothing wrong with such emotions, on the contrary I - like Kierkegaard - know that whilst it is compelling intellectually, an absence of love is very root of our failure to attain the virtuous disposition that we seek. On the contrary, perhaps the warning should be deflected back to you as Kierkegaard' writing on the subject is very clear and whilst Kierkegaard' decision may be appreciated out of respect for his work, in the end we will never know whether he would have been greater or worse if he did decide to be with Regine or not. All we know is that they both were miserable because of it. Again. "To cheat oneself out of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity."
I agree to that, but what makes you think K. cheated himself out of love? He never for a single second denied that he loved Regine. He believed it in his heart - he had the infinite hope of someone who was certain about it - had complete faith in it. Do you really think that not being together physically with your beloved is cheating yourself out of love? Do you think it is impossible to love if - say - your beloved is dead? This isn't about imagination, etc. these are real feelings of love that you can experience for a person even if they are not close to you, and even if they are dead - in fact, even if they reject you. You are not cheating yourself out of love when you open yourself up to those feelings - you would be cheating yourself out of love if you tried to get rid of them because they can be painful, or otherwise.
K. understands that love belongs to eternity - not necessarily to time. In time the two lovers may not be together - but that doesn't stop them from being together in eternity - and that includes this very moment. Regine was his - not in time, but in eternity. He gave her up in time so that he may have her forever.
Schopenhauer was able to avoid the necessity to work and still live pretty well by all accounts, due to a bursary from his father. So, he didn't really have to risk much at all, but just follow his passion. Same for Cezanne.
Then there are those who, by virtue of their talent and application within the system, become university professors, and are able to do their vocational work in harmony with their occupational work. Kant and Hegel are prime examples. Nietzsche might have been like this too, due to his brilliance he gained a professorship at Basel from 1869 to 1978, which he apparently relinquished for health reasons. Augustine became a well regarded bishop, and opted to work for his salvation within the more widely accepted religion of Christianity; abandoning the relatively dangerous Manichean doctrines. It could be said that in the end he went for the safe option.
Some, like Van Gogh for example, due to general dysfunctionailty, probably simply cannot do anything else but follow their obsession; any other course would be intolerable to such a personality. Every case is different I would say, but I think talent and intellectual brilliance are certainly necessary, and probably also an obsessive nature driven to follow every avenue of inquiry, every nuance and subtle connection between things within the chosen discipline and relevant to the creative process.That is how new discoveries are made.
Yes, I don't agree that anyone should feel constrained by "normative oughts" in any case. Morality and ethics should be a matter of conscience and intuition, not of following sets of rules.
But, if someone breaks their commitments to others to follow their own selfish pursuits, that their works might come to be considered to be works of genius in no way constitutes a moral justification for their neglect of their commitments. This is not to say that they should not have broken their commitments, either; but just to say that they should realize that their can be no justification for breaking them. Whether they subjectively feel justified is another matter altogether.
I think that marrying Regine would have been a mistake, unless he was able to be wholehearted about it, which he obviously was not. What we imagine a love relationship will be and what it mostly likely will become are two very different things. It is much easier to be romantic about the whole affair when looking from afar.
I've never been a fan of this most melancholy of the Danes. I wonder if he ever read Goethe and pondered whether the eternal feminine really draws us upward ("Das Ewig-Weibliche Zieht uns hinan.") If so, it seems he thought it does not. Given his statement about the need for a martyr, it seems he thought he would do so.
The reference to Abelard in the link Augustino provided is interesting. Poor Abelard was castrated for loving Heloise. Did K castrate himself, figuratively speaking, for refusing to love Regine, dying a celibate bachelor according to the link?
I think K's self-regard must have been monumental for him to treat another so shabbily on the ground that he is so important a figure with so much great to do that it's best (for Regine!) not to return love for love. As to the shabbiness, I don't refer merely to his breaking the engagement (which he saw fit to do twice), but to his subsequent haunting (stalking?) of his unfortunate victim, at least until she married, thereby reminding her that he would never be hers. A man of honor would have let her be after refusing her.
But perhaps those who think themselves martyrs have no honor. "There is no crime for those who have Christ" is what a fifth century Christian zealot said when accused of religious violence.
This is precisely it, the humanity and very actuality of the situation. He was haunted by his decision to abandon her and likely his approach and treatment of a mutual love that when he became conscious of his self-deceit, it compelled a desperation that never ceased. His initial actions to justify his abandonment were all merely a way to make himself believe that he did the right thing only to realise that she was perfect and he was wrong.
Quoting John
I think you need to look at this from afar as what I see here is more of an idealization of Kierkegaard for abandoning love in place of his philosophical love for God rather than appreciating that even Kierkegaard himself was conscious of - though a few years later - his mistake to his everlasting regret. The problem is not the outcome of the potentiality of this love as there was none; K mentioned that there was absolutely nothing about Regine that could have justified his abandonment of her, despite initially attempting (self-deceptively) to make himself believe that there was.
The result was unjustifiable suffering and likely to both parties and though it may sound appealing to those that appreciate such existential suffering, it is completely foolish and cruel. It was unethical to play games and be deceitful to her as a way to ward of the potential of confronting the future that appears frightening, and yes, there is always a risk that such a romance would never fruition to something beautiful and solid, but likewise, there is also a chance that it will form into a great love that could have compelled him on the same path or even greater. In the end, all that was left was merely pointless suffering because he was an idiot.
How many well-documented cases of great, lasting loves can you cite? The practical day to day exigencies of living together and raising a family are not things which come within the purview of the romantic ideal of 'great love', and are not likely to be supportive of its fruition, either.
Of course it is certainly possible that kindred spirits can live together in a love that becomes ever deeper, even if not more intense, as they become the greatest of friends; but I would say that it is exceptionally rare, and, to quote Spinoza "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare" (emphasis mine).
I think you are drawing a long (and flaccid) bow in saying that K was an "idiot". That seems a bit like an ant saying than an elephant doesn't know how to use her strength effectively.
We witness a being who has no personal identity. The Will of the universe flows through him unmuddied by attachment or aversion.
"...Great by virtue of a love which is hatred of oneself."
Again, this is merely an unrealistic idealization particularly of Kierkegaard considering that you assume his greatness that therefore means his love for Regine would have also surmounted to something 'great' but there are a plethora of examples of love between two people that is lasting and genuine and that enables growth and an authentic happiness, many great figures who speak highly of the love shared with their partners that strengthened their careers and who they are as people. That in itself is the only greatness necessary. There is a clear schism of documented cases only because it exemplifies people' preferred trend to tragedy.
Quoting John
A rarity does not mean an impossibility, the chance still exists that is enough to doubt any claims of failure. It is better to have tried in this mutual love and failed, then to have lived an entire life regretting and Spinoza is clearly right. The path to anything wonderful is always short and narrow and that intensity proves the authenticity of your love, such an intensity being delayed qua K.
Examples?
Quoting TimeLine
I don't know what this means.
Quoting TimeLine
No it does not mean an impossibility, and I stated that myself. K chose to pursue his genius, and he could have failed at that, too. He might have succeeded in expressing his genius equally but differently if he had gone with R; but certainly not if he could not go wholeheartedly, and that has been my only point. If he really lived in regret then that would be an expression of his weakness, but he obviously did not live in regret to an extent that it crippled his creative spirit.
On the other hand, it would not have been weakness, but rather would have been strength, to feel his loss without regretting it, and this could actually have contributed to his work. K chose his path, took his risk and lived with the consequences; what more could be asked of him? If he indulged in some capitulation and regret, is that so surprising; he was not superhuman, after all.To be honest, I think it is you that is doing the idealizing here.
It is incorrect of you to say that his decision was right when he himself is conscious of it being wrong and thus you are injecting a level of your own idealization of K rather than appreciating the humanity behind his decision, that he is a man after all.
He lived in regret because his actions were regretful, they were wrong and he was conscious of that. He realised that she was perfect for him and worth courting, thus in the end, he missed out on the most important aspect of our existence, mutual love.
What made Kierkegaard a great man and a great philosopher was the fact that - save for initially, hence the initial self-deception - he was courageous enough to admit that he made a terrible mistake and that he was sorry for that mistake, something he clearly wanted to tell her. It is quite the opposite of what you think, admitting that his decision is not a strength but cowardice.
Life is meant to be shared within the boundaries of authentic and mutual love. That is not an idealization. That is a fact.
Quoting John
It meant most people prefer stories of tragic love, which is why we rarely hear of the success in love; our preference has always been with our imagination that we blindly walk past an opportunity for genuine love.
Quoting John
Do you need to make a celebrity of something so human? My physics lecturer who is a brilliant mind and authored several books speaks highly of his wife and partner of 32 years, in the introduction of his books and publicly. To pretend that long-term happiness between two people who genuinely love and care for one another as being very rare is farcical at best.
...
Quoting TimeLine
This is false. Cite any evidence of K. thinking of his leaving Regine as mistaken.
Quoting TimeLine
Where did he mention this? Cite it please.
Quoting TimeLine
What is your EVIDENCE for saying K. thought that he personally missed out on love?
Furthermore, not everyone will agree that "mutual love" is the most important aspect of our existence. That's what you think because that happens to be your dominant desire.
The facts are completely the other way around. Regine implored K. to take her back for YEARS and K. still refused. It wasn't a momentary lack of judgement.
It seems to me that either you must condemn K. completely, or approve him - but you can't say "oh he regretted what he did, and became a changed man" because there isn't any evidence for that.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't know. Not everyone's life is meant to be shared within the boundaries of authentic and mutual love. Take Alexander the Great. You think Alexander married because of love? Absolutely not - he married as was necessary to build the strategic alliances that his budding empire needed. Of course he probably chose to marry women he liked, who looked nice, were pretty and sexy for the time, were socially well-regarded, etc. But he just couldn't marry purely for love - that would have meant hurting both himself and the woman. He would be away on the battlefield most of the time.
What did Marcus Aurelius want most? A quiet life at the countryside. Rulers generally don't have a quiet life at all. They don't have time for family, taking care of their woman, etc. It comes with the territory.
Quoting TimeLine
This doesn't mean they have a great relationship. Donald Trump speaks highly of Melania in his books and publicly. Does that mean they have a great, loving relationship? Unlikely, because Trump just doesn't have the time for that to begin with. His previous wife Marla shagged Trump's bodyguard - who recently killed himself by overdosing - struggling to find employment after Trump kicked him out.
The fact is MOST people in the West today don't have great married lives at all. For most it's quite terrible actually. Divorce rates are at 50%+ in many of the most developed places.
Even amongst those who don't divorce, how many do you think aren't troubled by things like infidelities, adultery etc.? All my family (who aren't divorced) have cheated on each other for example. That includes older generations too.
So yes, John is right, that kind of love is RARE. It's not something "so human". People who won't cheat on each other are people who don't need each other (or other people) to begin with. That takes training, it's not the natural human condition.
I do retract my comment of his idiocy; I spent today in a profoundly draining conference and typing on my phone is not that easy. But, one could perhaps be classed as rather strange if he felt that his future lineage would ultimately be 'cursed by an extreme melancholy' as his family had been, when clearly the melancholy itself was created.
Quoting TimeLine
"...and she is and remains an intermediate court, a legitimate court, that must not be bypassed."
"...she was the beloved. My life will unconditionally accent her life, my literary work is to be regarded as a monument to her honour and praise. I take her along into history."
Quoting Agustino
"I cannot quite place her impact on me in a purely erotic sense. It is true that the fact that she yielded almost adoringly to me, pleaded with me to love her, had so touched me that I would have risked everything for her. But the fact that I always wanted to hide from myself the degree to which she touched me is also evidence of the extent to which I loved her… had my vita ante acta not been melancholic, marriage to her would have made me happy beyond my dreams.”
Do you think that an attempt for forgiveness meant a regret on part of the person seeking this forgiveness?
Quoting Agustino
Cite please.
Quoting Agustino
Cite please.
Quoting Agustino
Oh, you know my desires, do you? Well, here I was thinking that I was an authority to myself. Praise, O mighty Augustino, for seemingly crossing the metaphysical boundaries into the transcendental realm that is my subjective. Hail, Augustino, for thou art a god. :s
Love is what all people desire. This is merely an ad hominem attack to try and purport that my approach to the subject is skewed by proxy, perhaps because I am a woman. And mutual love needn't be erotic alone. It could be true friendship. It could be familial. But it must be reciprocal and genuine.
Quoting Agustino
No, he came to her telling her that he wants her, asking for her hand in marriage and then changing his mind because his disposition was prone to this 'melancholy' for which she, in her devotion and love for him, implored him that she will do whatever it takes for him. You have confused her affections and her love for him and his waywardness whereby he would court her affections by telling her his eloquent and ardent feelings and then retracting the moment she reciprocates. She was constantly confused between these two states, but clearly she was devoted to him and loved him and he knew that and no doubt felt the same way in return.
He was terrified of the happiness that he would have attained with her.
Quoting Agustino
I think Alexander the Great or Marcus Aurelius are extraordinary examples; he was merely a humble philosopher from Denmark and millions of men are just men who want to do something significant - like maybe write a book or work in a particular field - not become some whopping leader of a great empire. I agree that many men choose women who look nice and are socially well-regarded, but this is precisely why so many marriages end up failing; it has almost become easier to live in a lie, as long as there remains some superficial or fleeting happiness, which is usually the pat on the head from others in this social group. Genuine love promotes a longevity as it transcends this spatiotemporal domain; it is not about looks or society, just two people who are united with the same sensual experience. "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil... She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness... Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her."
Quoting Agustino
:-|
As I said, authentic. The love must be genuine. Anyone and everyone can say 'I love you' but it is not often that one actually genuinely means it.
Infantile love follows the principle: "I love because I am loved."
Mature love follows the principle: "I am loved because I love."
Immature love says: "I love you because I need you."
Mature love says: "I need you because I love you.”
Quoting Agustino
This is what happens when you do not actually love your partner. It is not easy finding a genuine bond, no one is saying that it is. Most people escape out of loneliness to form a bond solely because they will connect with a social group rather than actually have strong feelings of love and respect for their partner. They often play games with one another to keep things going when there is an underlying hostility or disregard, stay silent and accept their foolishness to a point of even sacrificing ones own identity and self just to survive, cheating and committing sexual immorality to make one feel momentarily alive. How tragic is such self-deceit, this public show.
We become disillusioned, but the latter does not mean it doesn't exist and most likely there is a strong percentage of couples that remain bound together by genuine affection.
No. I was once madly in love with a melancholic. It didn't help at all that I am myself and so understood. It's kind of like this:
I am not sure whether there is a masochistic perfection to loving someone when you are down (and you are down all the time), but I hardly this this is true if you say once, which is past tense.
You may be right. I have to admit that though I had Sickness Unto Death at my bedside for years, and both Fear and Trembling and Repetition both made permanent marks on me, I haven't really thought a whole lot about what actually happened between K and Regine. I partly don't think it's any of my business. :)
K claimed to be a very "inward" person, which I take to mean introverted (in the way Jung meant it, not the popular meaning of shyness). An extremely introverted person sometimes deals with representations of people more so than the real people themselves. It's a condition that can result in really bizarre behavior.
Did he ever arrive at the faith he would need to marry Regine? I think he might have wanted to find out if he could float in that water that is "70 fathoms deep." Obviously fate had other plans. My assessment: fate had the right idea. K would have made Regine's life cold and hollow.
All this quote tells me is that K. had an ambition to land in history, and because he loved R., he's happy take her with him into the pages of history books. Perhaps as a way of making up for breaking his engagement with her.
Quoting TimeLine
I spent today running around - what are you doing at draining conferences?
Quoting TimeLine
Then don't type on your phone - think about it till you get to a computer :P
Quoting TimeLine
I see nowhere in the citations that you give that K. thought that he shouldn't have broken off the engagement. He did have a reason for doing it, and that was that an attachment to a woman would not have allowed him to be completely devoted to God. What do you think of monks? Monks must forfeit erotic love in order to love God more fully. Similar to how Abraham had to give up his son Isaac (or be willing to) in order to have him.
And no, I don't think an attempt at forgiveness necessarily means regret about the action. For example, I may regret hurting X, but not regret breaking up with her. K. clearly regretted the suffering he caused his beloved - but he did not regret his decision.
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
:-} Thou shalt not steal rules out of Agustino's playbook.
With regards to the first citation, for example the fact he dedicated his work to Regine and took her with him in history - that represents his love for her.
With regards to the second citation you seek, I refer you to the passages from Works of Love I quoted before.
Quoting TimeLine
Well yeah, I do, cause you go around shouting them left and right when you post on the forum, no wonder!
Quoting TimeLine
I appreciate your praises, but please deliver them to the one True God who alone is Worthy of Praise.
Quoting TimeLine
Maybe - but some, in certain circumstances, would disagree.
Quoting TimeLine
>:O >:O yeah, it certainly must be 'cause you're a lady. I see. Why would I have something against you because you're a woman, for real now?
Quoting TimeLine
Spinoza thought that the one true love - the Love of God - wasn't reciprocal. That's just one example of someone who disagrees with you.
Quoting TimeLine
On the same day all this is happening? :o K. proposed in 1840, he retracted in 1841, and she remarried in 1847. That's a big gap right there. She only properly stopped talking to him once she got married.
Quoting TimeLine
I never knew happiness is terrifying.
Quoting TimeLine
Pff. This is just a modern prejudice. A great philosopher is just as capable as a great ruler. And no, he wasn't merely a "humble philosopher from Denmark". Why do you consider someone who writes an earth shattering work - like your baby Kant - inferior to someone who creates a giant Empire like Alexander? Clearly they're not inferior.
Don't forget the story. Alexander goes to meet Diogenes, who was a great philosopher but otherwise a beggar on the streets. Diogenes says "get the fuck out of my sunlight". Alexander's men laugh. Alexander rebukes them and says: "Truly if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes". Why? Because Diogenes was as great as Alexander was, despite lacking an empire. It's the character that counts, not the possessions. While Alexander's men were cowering and bowing their heads to him merely out of fear, fearing for their lives, there was one man who didn't give a damn and had the courage to stand up to him. That was worthy of respect, and Alexander was no idiot. He knew it.
Quoting TimeLine
Why the same sensual experience?
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah yeah yeah, stop serving me stuff I agree with, it's boring :P
Quoting TimeLine
Riiiight. And you know that that physics lecturer's love for his wife is authentic? Did you stalk them? :P
Quoting TimeLine
Wrong. Mature love says I love even if I am not loved back.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't think peeps cheat to "momentarily feel alive" and any such thing. These are too high feelings for the majority of them. They cheat out of boredom and lust. Read the paper and fornicate - that's the modern man as Camus said ;)
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah so why you tellin' me? I already agree with that.
Quoting TimeLine
:s check the stats please. A perfect relationship is as rare as Alexander's Empire, as rare as Kant's Critique. Most people don't reach up to those heights, neither in their relationships, nor in their achievements.
Nothing that can't be cured by just quitting to think, and going to do. I meet similar self-talk alllll the time. Even in martial arts, when I have to spar someone bigger than me, I always feel "I'm too weak, I can't do it, I'll get my ass kicked, it's gonna be nasty" etc. But sometimes I just don't give attention to those thoughts. Just fuckin' do it. Then it works much better. One of my sifus always said "no thought please, no thought". I'm also an introvert.
Maybe. It's about accepting yourself. You don't like large groups, parties, etc. simple - don't get yourself there. Most people give in to peer pressure, or otherwise feel bad about not doing what others are doing. I used to be like that. Now - I just can't be fucked about what others think.
Quoting Mongrel
Yeah, frankly I don't either lol :P