I found this thread after searching for further views on Kierkegaard.
I guess the original poster is no longer here...but it is still a worthwhile question to consider.
This is part of my preparation for reading K's Concept of Anxiety. A book proposed by Valentinus here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5676/next-book-for-reading/p1
A useful starter thread which inspired thoughts on how best to read a philosophy book.
Thanks to Wallows.
To find the joy of the writer - Valentinus and others advise to read the book straight without secondary material which can 'fail to represent a joy Kierkegaard takes in representing his own experience.'
Valentinus continues:
'Some writers ask you to find them in your attempts to understand what is being said. Others confront you and call upon you to do stuff. Kierkegaard is writing in the second way.'
----------
My purpose is not to start a book discussion, more a conversation which might lead to an improved understanding of any therapeutic value.
I am not yet convinced of this, but then again I haven't read him. I am sure others have.
According to Valentinus, the book 'explores the psychology of sin while looking at the limits of such an endeavor. On the way, he makes observations about adolescence and child rearing that are interesting in themselves, even if the reader rejects many of his premises.'
In addition, Valentinus suggests that 'Kierkegaard is mostly interested in pushing people (including himself) to accept a responsibility for themselves that goes well beyond any narrative they or bystanders could produce. There are only clues or excuses. Explanations can only serve one purpose or the other. No one gets out alive...
...So, in thinking about contrasting points of view, there are a number of theorists of developmental psychology that look hard at what he observed.'
I would be interested to hear more, if anyone else has a similar, or opposite, informed view then I would be glad to hear it.
When I say 'informed', I mean views gleaned from reading the actual writings of Kierkegaard.
To support any views, it would be helpful to reference and provide quotes.
As someone else said:
'Consulting the secondary literature can be helpful, but it can also be misleading, especially in cases like this where the text is being used as authoritative.'
Also helpful would be any knowledge, or criticism, of any theorists of developmental psychology who might have used his work to develop therapeutic practice ? *
'...since possibility and freedom are only possible with anxiety present, we would be wise to heed Kierkegaard’s advice, and learn to be anxious in the right way. Or as the psychologist James Hollis explains:
“Thus we are forced into a difficult choice: anxiety or depression. If we move forward, as our soul insists, we may be flooded with anxiety. If we do not move forward, we will suffer the depression, the pressing down of the soul’s purpose. In such a difficult choice one must choose anxiety, for anxiety is at least the path of personal growth; depression is a stagnation and defeat of life.” (James Hollis, Swamplands of the Soul )'
The only "improvement" I expect from any philosophy is a more accurate view of what's the case.
Yes. I think you need to know what is the case before any progress can be made.
A careful assessment is the base-line.
This can formed from both a subjective ( feelings, tastes and opinions/thoughts ) and objective perspective ( impartial, not influenced by beliefs but on fact and observation ). The difficulties lie in the accuracy of the perceptions.
Amongst other things, I am looking to understand how Kierkegaard's writings can be thought of as being therapeutic, as a way to improve self.
Kierkegaard's Theological Sociology
Prophetic Fire for the Present Age
Hmmmm.
My current impression:
I think his writing appeals more to believers, people of faith. I would need to use the Principle of Charity to the nth degree.
Terrapin StationMay 05, 2019 at 13:10#2857990 likes
The point is that I'm looking at philosophy to try to "improve myself." In my view philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with that . . . at least not aside from increasing knowledge.
The point is that I'm looking at philosophy to try to "improve myself." In my view philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with that . . . at least not aside from increasing knowledge.
You mean you're not looking at philosophy for that purpose.
Fair enough.
So, what kind of knowledge are you looking to increase, and to what end ?
Terrapin StationMay 05, 2019 at 13:36#2858090 likes
It's the whole nut of what philosophy is. What were you thinking philosophy is?
Curiosity and looking for increased knowledge about the facts of the world is fine. But it is too broad with regards to this particular topic I wish to follow.
So, here it is about a certain aspect of humanity, i.e. anxiety, related to ideas and beliefs of Kierkegaard.
As @Amity has said, there is considerable therapeutic value to be found in Kierkegaard's work. Although, the determination of the who, what, when and so on of therapy is not an individual process, and according to Kierkegaard's philosophy comes through the everlasting grace of God.
His views contrive greatly with modern day postmodernist thought, I think, so there is that issue to deal with in the present day and time.
Absurdity of faith
Truth is subjective
Leap of faith
what comes to mind for me
Interesting trio of tenets which spring to your mind.
Earlier I suggested that it would be helpful to have references or quotes to support any views.
However, I realise that when we read and then been filled with enthusiasm, then this can simply be absorbed. Like a sponge we can take up inspirationsl ideas as beliefs to practise or be a part of everyday life. And we don't necessarily remember where or when...we don't all take notes.
So, having looked up 'trio of tenets' ( just for fun), I found this:
----------
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Kierkegaard
3 key concepts:about how a person could lead their lives.
1. Aesthetic
2. Ethical
3. Religious
"The Knight of Faith” is perhaps the most discussed concept in Kierkegaard’s philosophy. It is best expressed in his book Fear and Trembling...
...This idea of Kierkegaard’s seems to be a fundamentally radical idea and a fundamentally practical idea all at the same time. He is urging readers away from “hard agnosticism” which would probably ultimately lead to a life in the Aesthetic Sphere and encouraging them to choose either dedication to God or the life of a rational non-believer in the Ethical Sphere. While Kierkegaard believes that the choice to follow God is the better one, he knows he has no real proof of this claim. The individual most make the choice while never knowing that he had chosen the right one.'
----------
So, given your 3 tenets, do you think they can answer the second question as posed in OP:
As Amity has said, there is considerable therapeutic value to be found in Kierkegaard's work. Although, the determination of the who, what, when and so on of therapy is not an individual process, and according to Kierkegaard's philosophy comes through the everlasting grace of God.
To clarify, I have not made this strong claim. I could only do this, after I have read K. This is the point of my current project as explained above.
My purpose is... [ to have ]... a conversation which might lead to an improved understanding of any therapeutic value.
I am not yet convinced of this, but then again I haven't read him. I am sure others have.
Is this claim, bolded above, one you would make yourself ?
If so, can you say what have you read or absorbed that might support it ?
Re : ' the determination of the who, what, when and so on of therapy is not an individual process, and according to Kierkegaard's philosophy comes through the everlasting grace of God.'
I think the excellent questions of 'who, what, where, who, when and how' provide a good basis for both general enquiry and also as a mind mapping tool for self development.
For example, see: Terrence Melz article 'The 5 W's of Life' ( and an H ) on Selfgrowth.com.
Even if we assume that anyone sees therapeutic value in philosophy, why would we even begin to point them in the direction of K ? Can we really say that K was working toward that end ?
Why would he, if the emphasis is on faith, whatever that means for K ?
If so, can you say what have you read or absorbed that might support it ?
As a Tractarian, I suppose the gist of the issue is finding one's place in a scary world. So, the all-important Who, What, When, Where, and How, is pertinent to the discussion. Ya?
I think the excellent questions of 'who, what, where, who, when and how' provide a good basis for both general enquiry and also as a mind mapping tool for self development.
Yes...
MerkwurdichliebeMay 11, 2019 at 03:20#2883080 likes
Amongst other things, I am looking to understand how Kierkegaard's writings can be thought of as being therapeutic, as a way to improve self.
— Amity
My purpose is... [ to have ]... a conversation which might lead to an improved understanding of any therapeutic value.
I am not yet convinced of this, but then again I haven't read him. I am sure others have.
If you haven't read him then you need to begin to do so. You will see the charge he puts on you as an existing subject. His perspective is, in many ways, insurmountable.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 11, 2019 at 03:23#2883090 likes
If you haven't read him then you need to begin to do so. You will see the charge he puts on you as an existing subject. His perspective is, in many ways, insurmountable.
I will be starting on 'The Concept of Anxiety' soon.
I will generously share any difficulties or questions I may have with others.
Be prepared to be so used :wink:
In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your views on the questions posed in the OP.
Also, what do you see as his perspective and why would it be insurmountable ?
probably the most underrated philosopher of all time, maybe after Diogenes.
Why do you think that is the case ? I am interested because I have a theory that many here have Wittgenstein or Nietzsche as their favourite. Kierkegaard is barely mentioned. I think due to the religious aspect.
I am not entirely thrilled at the the subtitle ' A Simple Psychologically Orientated Deliberation in View of the Dogmatic Problem of Hereditary Sin'.
However, it still intrigues me...
If so, can you say what have you read or absorbed that might support it ?
I meant anything you have found in Kierkegaard's work where you have found therapeutic value, considerable or otherwise. [ edited ]
This would be a minimal requirement to support such a claim.
Perhaps this is asking too much.
I meant anything you have read by Kierkegaard in relation to therapeutic value.
This would be a minimal requirement to support such a claim.
Perhaps this is asking too much.
Yes, I suppose I haven't read enough Kierkegaard. My apologies.
Yes, I suppose I haven't read enough Kierkegaard. My apologies.
Thanks, I like to be clear- all the better to see another's perspective. I find this interesting.
What have you read so far ?
Will you be reading ' The Concept of Anxiety ' ?
[ edited to add ]
Even if you haven't read enough Kierkegaard to support that strong claim, would I be right in saying that you think reading K might offer some therapeutic value ?
BTW, no need to apologise if it's about not reading enough of K. Who has ?
However, I appreciate an apology regarding misreading or misrepresentation - only if it is followed by a change. Do not let it happen again or I will have your head :100: :party: :naughty: :halo:
Seeking advice on approach to reading Kierkegaard if one has no religious beliefs.
Can we still find value, or wisdom, as in e.g. the Serenity Prayer by bracketing out the 'God' word ?
[God ] grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
We can see the benefit of the advice without any reliance on a God figure.
Or would we still want to think of what it means to have a certain kind of faith ?
The abstract below tells us about K's insights into anxiety and despair which have influenced certain psychotherapists with some ignoring the 'religious stuff'.
'What can therapists learn from Kierkegaard ?'
- Lippitt, John
The author argues against this ignoring.
The final sentence might appeal to those reflecting on contentment and self-acceptance.
https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/handle/2299/18081
'Why should therapists read Søren Kierkegaard? In our largely secular age, in which the latest generation of religion’s “cultured despisers” often seem to speak for the cultural mainstream, what has psychotherapy to learn from an unorthodox nineteenth century Lutheran with an uncompromising view of the importance of a proper “God-relationship”?
There can be no denying the influence of Kierkegaard on important psychotherapeutic figures as diverse as Ludwig Binswanger, Rollo May, Carl Rogers and Ernest Becker. His insightful diagnoses of anxiety and despair have been a significant influence on existential psychotherapy. As one therapist recently told me, Kierkegaard is a source of great insight provided we “ignore the religious stuff”.
Yet therapists who insist on taking their Kierkegaard safely secularised are missing a trick. In this article, I shall argue that it is in some of his less well-known, explicitly “religious” writings, that Kierkegaard offers some of his most important insights for therapeutic practice. I have argued elsewhere (in my Kierkegaard and the Problem of Self-Love) that Kierkegaard offers a rich conception of “proper self-love” that I believe has important implications for therapy.
Central to this account is the application to ourselves of the trust, hope and forgiveness that are central to his accounts of love of God and neighbour. But here I shall concentrate primarily on a perhaps surprising theme from this famous diagnostician of anxiety and despair: what the reflections on “the lilies and the birds” in Kierkegaard’s Upbuilding Discourses can teach us about contentment and self-acceptance and their relation to gratitude and patience.'
MerkwurdichliebeMay 11, 2019 at 20:10#2885030 likes
In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your views on the questions posed in the OP.
Also, what do you see as his perspective and why would it be insurmountable ?
One of my favorite quotes from K is: "it is the misfortune of our age to have acquired too much
knowledge and to have forgotten what it is to exist."
Historically, K's philosophy represents the cry of the individual against collectivism and speculative system building, particularly as it was presented in Hegelianism.
For K, 'existence' is finality, it is never reducible to an idea. Moreover, It is the subject that does the actual existing. K's entire philosophy seeks to focus his reader from existence as an abstraction, and back into himself as the existing subject - what he calls inwardness.
He is known for using pseudonymous authorship to indirectly communicate the paradoxical nature of the existing subject. And of course, he is most well known for the stages of life: aesthetic/ethical/religious (as we all know).
By placing all importance on the decisiveness of the existing subject, he calls on the reader to realize, to become, himself as a unique individual. In this sense, K's philosophy is insurmountable because to reject it essentially amounts to a denial of one's own existence. While it is reasonable to argue that other subjects have no existence, to deny one's own existence as subject seems to be a crucial error.
K's entire philosophy seeks to focus his reader from existence as an abstraction, and back into himself as the existing subject - what he calls inwardness.
OK, now I can see what he means to address (by proxy) anxiety, dread, sin, and other labile emotions through explication of this concept of inwardness. Every other religion tends to address the issue through a pseudo-positive affirmation of the existence of God in a collective and organized manner. His method seems to be inverted. Do you agree with this assessment?
MerkwurdichliebeMay 11, 2019 at 20:37#2885130 likes
Absolutely. The subject is dialectical middle term. It is the negative, and to speak about it directly, positively, is a negation.
I can't but feel as though Kierkegaard is drawing out the subject/object divide here between God and the individual. In of itself, this can cause anxiety by highlighting our distance from God, as if he/she/it didn't exist in everything around us including ourselves, which are modeled in the image of God him/her/itself. It's almost as if he's denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 11, 2019 at 22:58#2885310 likes
I can't but feel as though Kierkegaard is drawing out the subject/object divide here between God and the individual. In of itself, this can cause anxiety by highlighting our distance from God, as if he/she/it didn't exist in everything around us including ourselves, which are modeled in the image of God him/her/itself. It's almost as if he's denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.
Kierkegaard says that "God is subject". And he also says that objective or direct evidence of God is pagan idolatry. He does draw out the divide dialectically, to show that the more objective one is, the farther they are from God, that is why he torches modern speculation.
He does not cause the anxiety, but points to the cause of it - viz. existing sin (a separation from self, and self from God), and he seeks to intensify the reader's awareness of his own anxiety and sin. The greater the intensity of one's anxiety, the deeper one's inwardness, and the closer one is moving toward faith.
In the language used in the Philosophical Fragments, the Teacher changes the condition of the student. This is presented as the alternative to Socrates appealing to Recollection as why one can learn what is true.
So, if the way to understanding is dependent upon changing because the quality that makes it possible is outside of oneself, that agency that can change a person better be around or the person is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 11, 2019 at 23:35#2885340 likes
The first two terms "being" and "thought", constitute the existing subject. While the pagan/philistine stops at existence, K wants to stop at the existing subject. For K, becoming for the individual only occurs in faith, and his entire philosophy is geared towards this. But everyone seems to want to "go further": into speculative understanding, into faithlessness and knowledge, where the existing subject becomes an abstraction, no longer the "I am" but the "I am-I".
MerkwurdichliebeMay 11, 2019 at 23:56#2885360 likes
Never read that, but it is on my list after "Stages of Lifes Way". Any chance you have that caption on hand? In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, K writes:
Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p173-74 :Socratically, the eternal essential truth is by no means in itself paradoxical; it is so only by relating to someone existing. This is expressed in another Socratic proposition, namely, that all knowing is recollecting[*bold added]. That proposition foreshadows the beginning of speculative thought, which is also the reason why Socrates did not pursue it. Essentially it became Platonic. Here is where the path branches off and Socrates essentially accentuates existing, while Plato, forgetting the latter, loses himself in speculation. The infinite merit of Socrates is precisely to be an existing thinker, not a speculator who forgets what it is to exist. For Socrates, therefore, the proposition that all knowing is recollecting has, at the moment of his leave-taking and as the suspended possibility of speculating, a two-fold significance: (1) that the knower is essentially integer and that there is no other anomaly concerning knowledge confronting him than that he exists, which anomaly, however, is so essential and decisive for him that it means that existing, the inward absorption in and through existing, is truth; (2) that existence in temporality has no decisive importance, since the possibility of taking oneself back into eternity through recollection is always there, even though this possibility is constantly cancelled by the time taken in inner absorption in existing.
The unending merit of the Socratic was precisely to accentuate the fact that the knower is someone existing and that existing is what is essential. Going further through failing to understand this is but a mediocre merit. The Socratic is therefore something we must bear in mind[...]
The way I interpreted it, K's philosophy considers faith and understanding to be antithetical, and in this light, he praises Socratic Ignorance.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 12, 2019 at 00:15#2885370 likes
I would say that K's most significant contribution to philosophic tradition was the power of retraction (given K's disdain for speculation, combined with his indirect approach and pseudonymous authorship, he seems to be the only prominent modern philosopher who never shat where he ate.)
MerkwurdichliebeMay 12, 2019 at 00:31#2885400 likes
Even if we assume that anyone sees therapeutic value in philosophy, why would we even begin to point them in the direction of K ? Can we really say that K was working toward that end ?
Why would he, if the emphasis is on faith, whatever that means for K ?
K was doing therapy for himself. But what he did strikes deep into the spirit of the individual, and in that sense it is relevent as therapy for others.
(Nietzsche says he is the first psychologist. That is false, K was the first psychologist, as well as the first existentialist, although I suspect he would reject such accusations.)
The way I interpreted it, K's philosophy considers faith and understanding to be antithetical, and in this light, he praises Socratic Ignorance.
Maybe it would be be helpful to compare Kierkegaard's efforts to Pascal's. Both worked to express the difference between faith and reason as ironic. Pascal said the absurdity of the Christian view was a better description of the human condition than more logically consistent structures. That is an example of presenting the matter as antithesis.
But Kierkegaard is doing something different. The thing called faith is never given.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 12, 2019 at 01:04#2885470 likes
K said that faith was unintelligible, and to communicate it was to speak in tongues
Yes, but he also went to great efforts to relate our experiences to a breaking point. That experience of ourselves is only information under certain conditions. He continues to reason about that.
That experience of ourselves is only information under certain conditions. He continues to reason about that.
Of ourselves? How about myself, or yourself? If your self does not find importance in what Kierkegaard says, what Kierkegaard says is bullshit, and why would you care what he says? He only reasons about his thoughts, he requires nothing of no one, other than himself, obviously.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 12, 2019 at 03:08#2885580 likes
I retract what I said. Instead, I say: Under the existential constant that Kierkegaard posits, the subset variables that he enumerates are sufficient, so that he can reason about his disdain for speculation, as paradoxical as it is.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 12, 2019 at 04:00#2885640 likes
Philosophy helps you acquire facts about the world? i.e it helps you see "what the world is like factually"?
I respectfully disagree. It can justify your belief in facts, but not help in the in their acquisition. And it helps you understand what the world is, rationally, not factually. But that is digression off the OP.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe I agree with you. That is why I asked Terrapin Station to clarify his position, for it seems to me he asserted that the purpose of Philosophy is to gain more knowledge about "what the world is like factually" and thus philosophical writings cannot be used in a therapeutic manner.
I hold that they can be, and often are and have been, used in such a manner. In helping you "understand what the world is, rationally", they can radically change your belief system, the way you think, help you see things more clearly. They can help you "better yourself".
MerkwurdichliebeMay 12, 2019 at 04:53#2885700 likes
Kierkegaard, CA:
It is not my desire to use big words in speaking about the Age as a whole. However, you can hardly deny that the reason for its anxiety and unrest is because in one direction, “truth” increases in scope and in quantity – via science and technology – while in the other, certainty and confidence steadily decline. Our age is a master in developing truths while being wholly indifferent to certitude[...]Eternity is a very radical thought, and thus a matter of inwardness. Whenever the reality of the eternal is affirmed, the present becomes something entirely different from what it was apart from it. This is precisely why human beings fear it (under the guise of fearing death). You often hear about particular governments that fear the restless elements of society. I prefer to say that the entire Age is a tyrant that lives in fear of the one restless element: the thought of eternity. It does not dare to think it. Why? Because it crumbles under – and avoids like anything – the weight of inwardness
.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 12, 2019 at 04:55#2885710 likes
Even if we assume that anyone sees therapeutic value in philosophy, why would we even begin to point them in the direction of K ? Can we really say that K was working toward that end ?
Why would he, if the emphasis is on faith, whatever that means for K ?
— Amity
K was doing therapy for himself. But what he did strikes deep into the spirit of the individual, and in that sense it is relevent as therapy for others.
(Nietzsche says he is the first psychologist. That is false, K was the first psychologist, as well as the first existentialist, although I suspect he would reject such accusations.)
Thanks for answering this question. I thought it had been missed in the ongoing conversation.
I will follow this now with interest. Careful, informative exchanges with others are much appreciated.
K said that faith was unintelligible, and to communicate it was to speak in tongues
— Merkwurdichliebe
Yes, but he also went to great efforts to relate our experiences to a breaking point. That experience of ourselves is only information under certain conditions. He continues to reason about that.
Again, thanks for continued clarification of Kierkegaard.
I will be following this conversation wherever it might lead. However, I have a certain book to attend to.
I now know where to come with any questions or difficulties. Or comments as to finding any of the joy you referred to earlier. Cheers.
[quote="Zosito;288569" ]I asked Terrapin Station to clarify his position, for it seems to me he asserted that the purpose of Philosophy is to gain more knowledge about "what the world is like factually" and thus philosophical writings cannot be used in a therapeutic manner.
I hold that they can be, and often are and have been, used in such a manner. In helping you "understand what the world is, rationally", they can radically change your belief system, the way you think, help you see things more clearly. They can help you "better yourself".[/quote]
Appreciate you getting back to TS. I was a bit dismissive in my earlier response, wanting to focus and get on with the purpose of the thread's OP.
I think many come to philosophy as a way to understand what the hell is going on. It is this curiosity, I think, that TS speaks of. Some try to figure stuff out on their own, searching in a variety of boxes until they find what suits them.
In philosophy there is so much to choose from and it's not an either/or between K's aesthetics, ethics or religion. However, this is where we are - discussing the OP. Some clearly see therapeutic value in K, others not so much. The latter have a voice too.
It would offer a good balance to hear views from non-fans of K. Or those who have tried and struggled with his writing.
Have you read any of K's work ?
Terrapin StationMay 12, 2019 at 12:41#2886220 likes
One more thing you'll find out about K, is that, unlike most other philosophers, his writing is very intense. His books: 'Fear and Trembling', 'Sickness Unto Death', and 'Purity of Heart' are prime examples.
[quote="Merkwurdichliebe;288944"...]his writing is very intense.[/quote]
Yes. My preparation for reading has included looking at this intensity and from where it sprang.
Given, as you say, that K wrote as therapy for self, for me that means looking at his life.
K was doing therapy for himself. But what he did strikes deep into the spirit of the individual, and in that sense it is relevent as therapy for others.
I agree that there is the possibility that a reader might find solace, or joy, in the sharing. A better understanding of what it is to be human perhaps? The decisions we make and take. For better or worse.
The anxiety some might have of getting it right...for self as well as others.
Like K's choice to break off his engagement with Regine. The defining event of his life.
As C.S. Lewis didn't say but could have::'We read to know that we are not alone.'
That actually comes from Shadowlands, a film about C.S. Lewis.
So, thought I'd share this book review by Ray Monk - ' Kierkegaard's ways to be human'
'Carlisle’s analysis of Fear and Trembling contains the essence of her view of Kierkegaard’s life and work. It is fascinating, but, in my view, unsatisfying. The book centres on the story told in Genesis 22 in which God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of his faith...
...Kierkegaard agrees with Kant that the sacrificing of Isaac is morally wrong, but he draws from this the conclusion that what the story shows is that religious faith lies beyond, and therefore outside, ethics.
...Either/Or. This is a weird compendium of different texts, written by four fictitious authors, that includes letters, essays, a sermon, and, most notoriously, the “Seducer’s Diary”, that we are to imagine having been written, not by Kierkegaard, but by “Johannes”. In this diary, Johannes chronicles in great detail his pursuit of a young girl, whom he seduces and then abandons, remarking, “I am intoxicated with the thought that she is in my power.” According to Carlisle, Kierkegaard saw the book as part of “his attempt to feign callous indifference to Regine”.
...Kierkegaard was not indifferent to her, he was madly, obsessively in love with her and remained so for the rest of his life. So why did he break off the engagement? The answer, Carlisle suggests, lies in Fear and Trembling, for the story of Kierkegaard’s engagement to Regine is in some respects analogous to the story of Abraham. Kierkegaard, Carlisle says, “feels he has sacrificed a life with Regine, and with it his own honour and his family’s good name, for the sake of something that is difficult to explain”.
----------
Monk's final paragraph is highly critical:
' I think many people, even if they do not disapprove of the way Kierkegaard behaved towards Regine, would resist the theological spin that he and Carlisle put on his decision to break off his engagement. It is a fault of this book that Carlisle seems unaware that the person she presents as providing deep solutions to the problems of life would just as naturally be viewed as insufferably self-absorbed, as obsessed with his own sufferings as he is indifferent to those of others.'
----------
About intensity and Regine
'...Her father told him that she was “in despair, utterly desperate”,
while she, according to his account, :
“took out a small note on which there was something written by me which she used to carry in her breast; she took it out and quietly tore it into small pieces and said:
‘ So after all, you have played a terrible game with me.’
----------
Intensity: can be a high degree of emotional excitement, depth of feeling. Or great energy of thought, inward passion or obsession...or anxiety. It will be fascinating to read what K has to say for himself.
But still, a doubt will remain as to how much of it is playing a game...
MerkwurdichliebeMay 13, 2019 at 09:08#2889710 likes
To begin, I noticed you referencing the interpretations of others. Reading what another says about Kierkegaard is not the same as reading him directly. His words have an effect, and in no writer prior to him are you presented with that which is known as, "stream of consciousness". He is truly a madman.
Intensity: can be a high degree of emotional excitement, depth of feeling. Or great energy of thought, inward passion or obsession...or anxiety. It will be fascinating to read what K has to say for himself.
But still, a doubt will remain as to how much of it is playing a game...
He is quite adamant about "seriousness". He speaks of it repeatedly. But his "shit talking" is on par with Nietzsche, so I can get why his seriousness can be doubted.
MerkwurdichliebeMay 13, 2019 at 09:13#2889770 likes
Reply to Amity
I know you know that. But I said it anyway. :grin:
MerkwurdichliebeMay 13, 2019 at 09:15#2889780 likes
Like K's choice to break off his engagement with Regime. The defining event of his life.
That is definitely a defining moment for K. But, it propelled him to do something very unique, to publish ideas that focus your attention back upon yourself. Something rarely done in modern philosophy.
Like K's choice to break off his engagement with Regime. The defining event of his life.
— Amity
That is definitely a defining moment for K. But, it propelled him to do something very unique, to publish ideas that focus your attention back upon yourself. Something rarely done in modern philosophy.
Some TPF members speculating about K and Regine, here:
Very underrated philosopher. And one extremely useful for those who pooh pooh existential personal religion and worship the intellect.
Its no surprise the materialists don't mention or engage with this guy.
Comments (63)
I guess the original poster is no longer here...but it is still a worthwhile question to consider.
This is part of my preparation for reading K's Concept of Anxiety. A book proposed by Valentinus here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5676/next-book-for-reading/p1
A useful starter thread which inspired thoughts on how best to read a philosophy book.
Thanks to Wallows.
To find the joy of the writer - Valentinus and others advise to read the book straight without secondary material which can 'fail to represent a joy Kierkegaard takes in representing his own experience.'
Valentinus continues:
'Some writers ask you to find them in your attempts to understand what is being said. Others confront you and call upon you to do stuff. Kierkegaard is writing in the second way.'
----------
My purpose is not to start a book discussion, more a conversation which might lead to an improved understanding of any therapeutic value.
I am not yet convinced of this, but then again I haven't read him. I am sure others have.
So, what do you think ?
Quoting Ibn Sina
According to Valentinus, the book 'explores the psychology of sin while looking at the limits of such an endeavor. On the way, he makes observations about adolescence and child rearing that are interesting in themselves, even if the reader rejects many of his premises.'
In addition, Valentinus suggests that 'Kierkegaard is mostly interested in pushing people (including himself) to accept a responsibility for themselves that goes well beyond any narrative they or bystanders could produce. There are only clues or excuses. Explanations can only serve one purpose or the other. No one gets out alive...
...So, in thinking about contrasting points of view, there are a number of theorists of developmental psychology that look hard at what he observed.'
I would be interested to hear more, if anyone else has a similar, or opposite, informed view then I would be glad to hear it.
When I say 'informed', I mean views gleaned from reading the actual writings of Kierkegaard.
To support any views, it would be helpful to reference and provide quotes.
As someone else said:
'Consulting the secondary literature can be helpful, but it can also be misleading, especially in cases like this where the text is being used as authoritative.'
Also helpful would be any knowledge, or criticism, of any theorists of developmental psychology who might have used his work to develop therapeutic practice ? *
*
from:
https://academyofideas.com/2018/02/soren-kierkegaard-psychology-anxiety/
'...since possibility and freedom are only possible with anxiety present, we would be wise to heed Kierkegaard’s advice, and learn to be anxious in the right way. Or as the psychologist James Hollis explains:
“Thus we are forced into a difficult choice: anxiety or depression. If we move forward, as our soul insists, we may be flooded with anxiety. If we do not move forward, we will suffer the depression, the pressing down of the soul’s purpose. In such a difficult choice one must choose anxiety, for anxiety is at least the path of personal growth; depression is a stagnation and defeat of life.” (James Hollis, Swamplands of the Soul )'
Yes. I think you need to know what is the case before any progress can be made.
A careful assessment is the base-line.
This can formed from both a subjective ( feelings, tastes and opinions/thoughts ) and objective perspective ( impartial, not influenced by beliefs but on fact and observation ). The difficulties lie in the accuracy of the perceptions.
Amongst other things, I am looking to understand how Kierkegaard's writings can be thought of as being therapeutic, as a way to improve self.
Kierkegaard's Theological Sociology
Prophetic Fire for the Present Age
Hmmmm.
My current impression:
I think his writing appeals more to believers, people of faith. I would need to use the Principle of Charity to the nth degree.
The point is that I'm looking at philosophy to try to "improve myself." In my view philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with that . . . at least not aside from increasing knowledge.
You mean you're not looking at philosophy for that purpose.
Fair enough.
So, what kind of knowledge are you looking to increase, and to what end ?
I'm curious about what the world is like factually.
And philosophy helps with this how ?
I realise we are getting away from particular topic of Kierkegaard but this interests me...up to a point.
It's the whole nut of what philosophy is. What were you thinking philosophy is?
Curiosity and looking for increased knowledge about the facts of the world is fine. But it is too broad with regards to this particular topic I wish to follow.
So, here it is about a certain aspect of humanity, i.e. anxiety, related to ideas and beliefs of Kierkegaard.
Thanks for input.
.
Truth is subjective
Leap of faith
what comes to mind for me
His views contrive greatly with modern day postmodernist thought, I think, so there is that issue to deal with in the present day and time.
Interesting trio of tenets which spring to your mind.
Earlier I suggested that it would be helpful to have references or quotes to support any views.
However, I realise that when we read and then been filled with enthusiasm, then this can simply be absorbed. Like a sponge we can take up inspirationsl ideas as beliefs to practise or be a part of everyday life. And we don't necessarily remember where or when...we don't all take notes.
So, having looked up 'trio of tenets' ( just for fun), I found this:
----------
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Kierkegaard
3 key concepts:about how a person could lead their lives.
1. Aesthetic
2. Ethical
3. Religious
"The Knight of Faith” is perhaps the most discussed concept in Kierkegaard’s philosophy. It is best expressed in his book Fear and Trembling...
...This idea of Kierkegaard’s seems to be a fundamentally radical idea and a fundamentally practical idea all at the same time. He is urging readers away from “hard agnosticism” which would probably ultimately lead to a life in the Aesthetic Sphere and encouraging them to choose either dedication to God or the life of a rational non-believer in the Ethical Sphere. While Kierkegaard believes that the choice to follow God is the better one, he knows he has no real proof of this claim. The individual most make the choice while never knowing that he had chosen the right one.'
----------
So, given your 3 tenets, do you think they can answer the second question as posed in OP:
'How can he improve our lives ?'
To clarify, I have not made this strong claim. I could only do this, after I have read K. This is the point of my current project as explained above.
Quoting Amity
Quoting Amity
Is this claim, bolded above, one you would make yourself ?
If so, can you say what have you read or absorbed that might support it ?
Re : ' the determination of the who, what, when and so on of therapy is not an individual process, and according to Kierkegaard's philosophy comes through the everlasting grace of God.'
I think the excellent questions of 'who, what, where, who, when and how' provide a good basis for both general enquiry and also as a mind mapping tool for self development.
For example, see: Terrence Melz article 'The 5 W's of Life' ( and an H ) on Selfgrowth.com.
Even if we assume that anyone sees therapeutic value in philosophy, why would we even begin to point them in the direction of K ? Can we really say that K was working toward that end ?
Why would he, if the emphasis is on faith, whatever that means for K ?
Depends on the philosopher. Some find solace in Christianity and eternal salvation. I'm not much of a religious person, so I digress.
Quoting Amity
As a Tractarian, I suppose the gist of the issue is finding one's place in a scary world. So, the all-important Who, What, When, Where, and How, is pertinent to the discussion. Ya?
Quoting Amity
Yes...
If you haven't read him then you need to begin to do so. You will see the charge he puts on you as an existing subject. His perspective is, in many ways, insurmountable.
Btw...probably the most underrated philosopher of all time, maybe after Diogenes.
I will be starting on 'The Concept of Anxiety' soon.
I will generously share any difficulties or questions I may have with others.
Be prepared to be so used :wink:
In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your views on the questions posed in the OP.
Also, what do you see as his perspective and why would it be insurmountable ?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Why do you think that is the case ? I am interested because I have a theory that many here have Wittgenstein or Nietzsche as their favourite. Kierkegaard is barely mentioned. I think due to the religious aspect.
I am not entirely thrilled at the the subtitle ' A Simple Psychologically Orientated Deliberation in View of the Dogmatic Problem of Hereditary Sin'.
However, it still intrigues me...
Appreciate your input.
Well, here we are talking about Kierkegaard. The question concerned your misreading or misrepresentation of my words as a strong claim:
Quoting Wallows
You seemed to be in agreement with this.
So I asked, Quoting Amity
I meant anything you have found in Kierkegaard's work where you have found therapeutic value, considerable or otherwise. [ edited ]
This would be a minimal requirement to support such a claim.
Perhaps this is asking too much.
Yes, I suppose I haven't read enough Kierkegaard. My apologies.
Thanks, I like to be clear- all the better to see another's perspective. I find this interesting.
What have you read so far ?
Will you be reading ' The Concept of Anxiety ' ?
[ edited to add ]
Even if you haven't read enough Kierkegaard to support that strong claim, would I be right in saying that you think reading K might offer some therapeutic value ?
BTW, no need to apologise if it's about not reading enough of K. Who has ?
However, I appreciate an apology regarding misreading or misrepresentation - only if it is followed by a change. Do not let it happen again or I will have your head :100: :party: :naughty: :halo:
Can we still find value, or wisdom, as in e.g. the Serenity Prayer by bracketing out the 'God' word ?
[God ] grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
We can see the benefit of the advice without any reliance on a God figure.
Or would we still want to think of what it means to have a certain kind of faith ?
The abstract below tells us about K's insights into anxiety and despair which have influenced certain psychotherapists with some ignoring the 'religious stuff'.
'What can therapists learn from Kierkegaard ?'
- Lippitt, John
The author argues against this ignoring.
The final sentence might appeal to those reflecting on contentment and self-acceptance.
https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/handle/2299/18081
'Why should therapists read Søren Kierkegaard? In our largely secular age, in which the latest generation of religion’s “cultured despisers” often seem to speak for the cultural mainstream, what has psychotherapy to learn from an unorthodox nineteenth century Lutheran with an uncompromising view of the importance of a proper “God-relationship”?
There can be no denying the influence of Kierkegaard on important psychotherapeutic figures as diverse as Ludwig Binswanger, Rollo May, Carl Rogers and Ernest Becker. His insightful diagnoses of anxiety and despair have been a significant influence on existential psychotherapy. As one therapist recently told me, Kierkegaard is a source of great insight provided we “ignore the religious stuff”.
Yet therapists who insist on taking their Kierkegaard safely secularised are missing a trick. In this article, I shall argue that it is in some of his less well-known, explicitly “religious” writings, that Kierkegaard offers some of his most important insights for therapeutic practice. I have argued elsewhere (in my Kierkegaard and the Problem of Self-Love) that Kierkegaard offers a rich conception of “proper self-love” that I believe has important implications for therapy.
Central to this account is the application to ourselves of the trust, hope and forgiveness that are central to his accounts of love of God and neighbour. But here I shall concentrate primarily on a perhaps surprising theme from this famous diagnostician of anxiety and despair: what the reflections on “the lilies and the birds” in Kierkegaard’s Upbuilding Discourses can teach us about contentment and self-acceptance and their relation to gratitude and patience.'
One of my favorite quotes from K is: "it is the misfortune of our age to have acquired too much
knowledge and to have forgotten what it is to exist."
Historically, K's philosophy represents the cry of the individual against collectivism and speculative system building, particularly as it was presented in Hegelianism.
For K, 'existence' is finality, it is never reducible to an idea. Moreover, It is the subject that does the actual existing. K's entire philosophy seeks to focus his reader from existence as an abstraction, and back into himself as the existing subject - what he calls inwardness.
He is known for using pseudonymous authorship to indirectly communicate the paradoxical nature of the existing subject. And of course, he is most well known for the stages of life: aesthetic/ethical/religious (as we all know).
By placing all importance on the decisiveness of the existing subject, he calls on the reader to realize, to become, himself as a unique individual. In this sense, K's philosophy is insurmountable because to reject it essentially amounts to a denial of one's own existence. While it is reasonable to argue that other subjects have no existence, to deny one's own existence as subject seems to be a crucial error.
OK, now I can see what he means to address (by proxy) anxiety, dread, sin, and other labile emotions through explication of this concept of inwardness. Every other religion tends to address the issue through a pseudo-positive affirmation of the existence of God in a collective and organized manner. His method seems to be inverted. Do you agree with this assessment?
Absolutely. The subject is the dialectical middle term. It is the negative, and to speak about it directly, positively, is a negation.
I can't but feel as though Kierkegaard is drawing out the subject/object divide here between God and the individual. In of itself, this can cause anxiety by highlighting our distance from God, as if he/she/it didn't exist in everything around us including ourselves, which are modeled in the image of God him/her/itself. It's almost as if he's denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.
Kierkegaard says that "God is subject". And he also says that objective or direct evidence of God is pagan idolatry. He does draw out the divide dialectically, to show that the more objective one is, the farther they are from God, that is why he torches modern speculation.
He does not cause the anxiety, but points to the cause of it - viz. existing sin (a separation from self, and self from God), and he seeks to intensify the reader's awareness of his own anxiety and sin. The greater the intensity of one's anxiety, the deeper one's inwardness, and the closer one is moving toward faith.
In the language used in the Philosophical Fragments, the Teacher changes the condition of the student. This is presented as the alternative to Socrates appealing to Recollection as why one can learn what is true.
So, if the way to understanding is dependent upon changing because the quality that makes it possible is outside of oneself, that agency that can change a person better be around or the person is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
@Amity
K's dialectic, is important to understand.
The first two terms "being" and "thought", constitute the existing subject. While the pagan/philistine stops at existence, K wants to stop at the existing subject. For K, becoming for the individual only occurs in faith, and his entire philosophy is geared towards this. But everyone seems to want to "go further": into speculative understanding, into faithlessness and knowledge, where the existing subject becomes an abstraction, no longer the "I am" but the "I am-I".
Never read that, but it is on my list after "Stages of Lifes Way". Any chance you have that caption on hand? In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, K writes:
The way I interpreted it, K's philosophy considers faith and understanding to be antithetical, and in this light, he praises Socratic Ignorance.
I would say that K's most significant contribution to philosophic tradition was the power of retraction (given K's disdain for speculation, combined with his indirect approach and pseudonymous authorship, he seems to be the only prominent modern philosopher who never shat where he ate.)
This is an appropriate example of K's dialetic.
I would blame this on Nietzsche, who makes many comments that are awfully similar to K's narrative.
K would reject postmodernism for the simple fact that it is concerned with understanding, and not with the inward passion of faith.
(I would love to see the thread: "postmodernism vs analytic philosophy".)
K was doing therapy for himself. But what he did strikes deep into the spirit of the individual, and in that sense it is relevent as therapy for others.
(Nietzsche says he is the first psychologist. That is false, K was the first psychologist, as well as the first existentialist, although I suspect he would reject such accusations.)
Maybe it would be be helpful to compare Kierkegaard's efforts to Pascal's. Both worked to express the difference between faith and reason as ironic. Pascal said the absurdity of the Christian view was a better description of the human condition than more logically consistent structures. That is an example of presenting the matter as antithesis.
But Kierkegaard is doing something different. The thing called faith is never given.
I am not acquainted much will Pascal. But I'm willing to hear his contribution to the topic as you will present it.
K said that faith was unintelligible, and to communicate it was to speak in tongues
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Yes, but he also went to great efforts to relate our experiences to a breaking point. That experience of ourselves is only information under certain conditions. He continues to reason about that.
Philosophy helps you acquire facts about the world? i.e it helps you see "what the world is like factually"?
Of ourselves? How about myself, or yourself? If your self does not find importance in what Kierkegaard says, what Kierkegaard says is bullshit, and why would you care what he says? He only reasons about his thoughts, he requires nothing of no one, other than himself, obviously.
(Ok, sorry I was being reactionary.)
I retract what I said. Instead, I say: Under the existential constant that Kierkegaard posits, the subset variables that he enumerates are sufficient, so that he can reason about his disdain for speculation, as paradoxical as it is.
I respectfully disagree. It can justify your belief in facts, but not help in the in their acquisition. And it helps you understand what the world is, rationally, not factually. But that is digression off the OP.
I hope more members can join us.
:up:
I hold that they can be, and often are and have been, used in such a manner. In helping you "understand what the world is, rationally", they can radically change your belief system, the way you think, help you see things more clearly. They can help you "better yourself".
.
Nice! :wink:
Now you and me can talk Kierkegaard. :nerd:
Thanks for answering this question. I thought it had been missed in the ongoing conversation.
I will follow this now with interest. Careful, informative exchanges with others are much appreciated.
Again, thanks for continued clarification of Kierkegaard.
I will be following this conversation wherever it might lead. However, I have a certain book to attend to.
I now know where to come with any questions or difficulties. Or comments as to finding any of the joy you referred to earlier. Cheers.
I hold that they can be, and often are and have been, used in such a manner. In helping you "understand what the world is, rationally", they can radically change your belief system, the way you think, help you see things more clearly. They can help you "better yourself".[/quote]
Appreciate you getting back to TS. I was a bit dismissive in my earlier response, wanting to focus and get on with the purpose of the thread's OP.
I think many come to philosophy as a way to understand what the hell is going on. It is this curiosity, I think, that TS speaks of. Some try to figure stuff out on their own, searching in a variety of boxes until they find what suits them.
In philosophy there is so much to choose from and it's not an either/or between K's aesthetics, ethics or religion. However, this is where we are - discussing the OP. Some clearly see therapeutic value in K, others not so much. The latter have a voice too.
It would offer a good balance to hear views from non-fans of K. Or those who have tried and struggled with his writing.
Have you read any of K's work ?
Yes, and I'd have zero interest in it otherwise.
Anytime.
One more thing you'll find out about K, is that, unlike most other philosophers, his writing is very intense. His books: 'Fear and Trembling', 'Sickness Unto Death', and 'Purity of Heart' are prime examples.
Yes. My preparation for reading has included looking at this intensity and from where it sprang.
Given, as you say, that K wrote as therapy for self, for me that means looking at his life.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I agree that there is the possibility that a reader might find solace, or joy, in the sharing. A better understanding of what it is to be human perhaps? The decisions we make and take. For better or worse.
The anxiety some might have of getting it right...for self as well as others.
Like K's choice to break off his engagement with Regine. The defining event of his life.
As C.S. Lewis didn't say but could have::'We read to know that we are not alone.'
That actually comes from Shadowlands, a film about C.S. Lewis.
So, thought I'd share this book review by Ray Monk - ' Kierkegaard's ways to be human'
https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/03/Kierkegaard-philosopher-of-the-heart-clare-carlisle-review
'Carlisle’s analysis of Fear and Trembling contains the essence of her view of Kierkegaard’s life and work. It is fascinating, but, in my view, unsatisfying. The book centres on the story told in Genesis 22 in which God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of his faith...
...Kierkegaard agrees with Kant that the sacrificing of Isaac is morally wrong, but he draws from this the conclusion that what the story shows is that religious faith lies beyond, and therefore outside, ethics.
...Either/Or. This is a weird compendium of different texts, written by four fictitious authors, that includes letters, essays, a sermon, and, most notoriously, the “Seducer’s Diary”, that we are to imagine having been written, not by Kierkegaard, but by “Johannes”. In this diary, Johannes chronicles in great detail his pursuit of a young girl, whom he seduces and then abandons, remarking, “I am intoxicated with the thought that she is in my power.” According to Carlisle, Kierkegaard saw the book as part of “his attempt to feign callous indifference to Regine”.
...Kierkegaard was not indifferent to her, he was madly, obsessively in love with her and remained so for the rest of his life. So why did he break off the engagement? The answer, Carlisle suggests, lies in Fear and Trembling, for the story of Kierkegaard’s engagement to Regine is in some respects analogous to the story of Abraham. Kierkegaard, Carlisle says, “feels he has sacrificed a life with Regine, and with it his own honour and his family’s good name, for the sake of something that is difficult to explain”.
----------
Monk's final paragraph is highly critical:
' I think many people, even if they do not disapprove of the way Kierkegaard behaved towards Regine, would resist the theological spin that he and Carlisle put on his decision to break off his engagement. It is a fault of this book that Carlisle seems unaware that the person she presents as providing deep solutions to the problems of life would just as naturally be viewed as insufferably self-absorbed, as obsessed with his own sufferings as he is indifferent to those of others.'
----------
About intensity and Regine
'...Her father told him that she was “in despair, utterly desperate”,
while she, according to his account, :
“took out a small note on which there was something written by me which she used to carry in her breast; she took it out and quietly tore it into small pieces and said:
‘ So after all, you have played a terrible game with me.’
----------
Intensity: can be a high degree of emotional excitement, depth of feeling. Or great energy of thought, inward passion or obsession...or anxiety. It will be fascinating to read what K has to say for himself.
But still, a doubt will remain as to how much of it is playing a game...
To begin, I noticed you referencing the interpretations of others. Reading what another says about Kierkegaard is not the same as reading him directly. His words have an effect, and in no writer prior to him are you presented with that which is known as, "stream of consciousness". He is truly a madman.
(There is more . . .)
I know that.
He is quite adamant about "seriousness". He speaks of it repeatedly. But his "shit talking" is on par with Nietzsche, so I can get why his seriousness can be doubted.
I know you know that. But I said it anyway. :grin:
I also must point out that he regarded all his writing as a thought experiment, so in a way, everything he said was indeed a game.
That is definitely a defining moment for K. But, it propelled him to do something very unique, to publish ideas that focus your attention back upon yourself. Something rarely done in modern philosophy.
Some TPF members speculating about K and Regine, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1480/kierkegaard-and-regine-olsens-love/p1
Thanks for the link. :up:
Its no surprise the materialists don't mention or engage with this guy.