When millions of people accept an idea ,it becomes easy to stand by it. And if that idea turns out to be wrong, we won't be alone in being responsible. We can say that everyone believed this, but if we stand alone ,we will also have to answer for our position.
Perhaps this is why the crowd doesn't just give e us company ,it also divides our responsibility. By following others' opinions, we escape from examining our own decisions. We get support and also a place to hide when we make a mistake.
Perhaps the deeper question is not whether the crowd is right or wrong but why we find it so difficult to stand by our own understanding.
The nineteenth century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard raised this very problem in his essay The Crowd is untruth. His argument was not merely that the majority can be wrong.
He says that when the crowd is made the final judge of a question, the individual's own responsibility becomes weak.
For him ,the crowd didn't simply mean a lot of people gathering in one place. The problem arises when numbers begin to decide whether something is valid and a person hands over the responsibility for their own decision to the group.
Inside a crowd ,a person can do things they would hesitate to do if they had to take full responsibility alone.
Today, this same question comes up on social media. When thousands of people are sharing an idea,it is easy to go along with it.
But following popularity does not remove our need to examine our own decisions.
Before accepting any idea ,it is important to ask yourself, Am I believing this because I have tested it, or because standing with it gives me security, support, and acceptance?
If you had to take responsibility for your opinions alone,would you still believe what the crowd believes?
I'm new to Kierkegaard, and I'm currently reading an introductory book on his philosophy (The Philosophy of Kierkegaard by George Pattison).
There's a particular section about his critique of Hegel that I'm struggling to understand (and I'm not very familiar with Hegel either).
The passage I'm having trouble with is:
"Kierkegaard, however, wants to know "How does the System begin with the immediate? That is, does it begin with it immediately?" (9 95/CUP1 111-12, original emphasis), to which he gives the "unconditional" and un equivocal answer: no.
There seem to be two reasons for this emphatic reply. The first is that, as we have seen, the logical system presupposes a world of experience from which, subjectively speaking, it is abstracted. Even if one could carry this process of abstraction through to the point at which all the "mediations" of Being found in life as it is lived are suspended, logic nevertheless "does not therefore begin immediately with the immediate with which existence began" (9 95/CUP1 112). But, secondly, even this second or more primary imme diacy, the immediacy of existence itself, cannot be made into the starting point of anything "since immediacy never simply is, but is transcended as soon as it is" (9 95/CUP1 112). In the very moment in which we become aware of existing at all, our immediacy is no longer that of a merely existing entity in the world (a stone, a plant, or even an animal): we have become thinking or conscious beings, beings conscious of their existence in a reflexive way and not simply beings. The immediacy with which the system claims to "begin" is therefore a derived immediacy, an immediacy, Kierkegaard says, that has been "reached by a process of reflection" (9 95/CUP1 112, original emphasis).'"
What I don't understand is the difference between the first and second arguments.
As far as I understand, the first argument is that, in order to arrive at the idea of pure being, we have to go through a process of abstraction. But this means that pure being is already mediated, since we have to arrive at it through abstraction. So it cannot really serve as an immediate starting point.
However, I'm confused about why existence itself suddenly enters the discussion in the second argument. What exactly does Kierkegaard or the writer mean by the "immediacy of existence itself," and how is it different from the immediacy discussed in the first argument?
I have a few possible interpretations, but I'm not sure whether any of them is correct.
First interpretation:
Does Kierkegaard mean that even if we manage to arrive at pure being through abstraction, the very moment we arrive at it and begin reflecting on it, it becomes an object of thought and is therefore mediated at the end also?
In other words, it seems like a kind of loop: we try to begin with pure being in order to avoid mediation, but as soon as we take pure being as our starting point and begin thinking about it, we have already mediated it. So the supposedly immediate starting point ceases to be immediate.
Second interpretation:
Or is Kierkegaard making a more general argument about the limitations of human thought?
Perhaps he means that, regardless of whether we use abstraction to arrive at pure being, we can never genuinely begin from pure being itself in general(either by abstraction or even directly in itself ), because we are already existing, conscious subjects.
In that case, we can never completely escape our own situated existence and consciousness to reach an absolutely immediate starting point. We are, in a sense, always confined within the conditions of our own existence and consciousness. but if so, it seems that this is related also to the first argument that, like that, the abstraction at the level Hegel wants would not be possible at all.
I mean, it seems that the first and second are actually the same thing; no matter how I think about them.
Or is he making an entirely different argument?
I'm especially confused about why the author introduces the "immediacy of existence itself" after discussing abstraction and pure being. I thought the discussion was about whether abstraction could provide logic with an immediate starting point , so I'm struggling to understand how this second kind of immediacy fits into the argument.
I'd appreciate any clarification, especially an explanation of how the two arguments differ and what Kierkegaard is trying to establish with each one.
When I first read Either/Or, I was 100% on board with almost everything the judge said. However, since reading some of K's other works and thinking about it, I have realized something that I think gets at the shortcomings of the objective worldview; the judge is an extremely lucky individual. Think about it. His job alone puts him in an unusually well-off position in society. He is paid well, respected by others, never has to worry about his future security. How many people, be in 19th-century Denmark or today, could say the same? He married his first love. How many people can say they have never experienced heartbreak? This is a man for whom the world has never failed him. He has never been driven by despair to turn away from objective meaning and towards God.
And yet, I am wondering, if one were as lucky as the judge, is there any reason why they shouldn't base their lives on the objective as he does? Why shouldn't they remain content with being privileged members of society?
One reason I could think of is that the judge's security in the objective may eventually fail him, as the objective does not care for the good of the individual in the way that a subjective relationship with God can. But I find this explanation unsatisfying, because it basically says that the objective works until it suddenly doesn't.
I am pretty new to philosophy, at the moment I am reading Plato and I have already read the dialogues with Socrates on trial and I’m almost finished with symposium. And I was wondering if it is already a good move to read fear and trembling by Kierkegaard. He seems interesting and good to me. I have already read the book of genesis in the Bible. If I read fear and trembling right now/soon then I would maybe even read it later twice.
Sorry if the question is a bit dumb but I’m a bit new to this.
Thanks already.
Hey. I've always gone back and forth on Kierkegaard's Abraham in Fear and Trembling. Sometimes the teleological suspension of the ethical feels infinitely deep, and other times I feel like the paradox that sort of siolves. I tend to see Abraham as facing two conflicting normative demands: the ethical says killing the innocent is wrong, while God commands the sacrifice. Faith seems to mean following the theological above the ethical. But if God is the ultimate Good, doesn't that distinction start collapsing?
I recently discussed this on my podcast with Alexander Jech, a Kierkegaard scholar who recently translated FR. His interpretation hinges partly on translating vil as "intend" rather than "want." Abraham does not want Isaac to die. He loves him. But he genuinely intends to sacrifice him, while believing God's promise through Isaac will somehow still be fulfilled. Practical reason sees no connection between sacrificing Isaac and still receiving him, yet Abraham believes without knowing how it will work.
From my point of view, Abraham would be choosing what he takes to be the highest Good over the ethical order human reason can currently understand. Is the ethical genuinely being suspended, or is he following a higher ethical reality whose connection to the act he cannot comprehend? Would that relocate the paradox to humanly intelligible ethics versus an ultimate Good that exceeds practical reason? Or does this already misunderstand what Johannes de Silentio means by "the ethical"?
I gave a talk about Kierkegaard last month and brought up his concept of despair (all 3 forms of it ) as discussed in his Sickness unto Death. Many in the group objected to my bringing up the notion of despair because they found it “too depressing and not life-affirming. Guess one has to read the whole book to realize what he is really talking about. What are your thoughts reactions to this quote ?
Does anyone have an opinion regarding translations?
I know Walter Lowrie and the Hong couple are considered the best ones. But I found a cheap copy of Literary Review, and it is from the Penguin Classics and translated by someone else from those two.
I think it's safe to say he has a strong following within this subreddit. His ideas resonate with a lot of people. But how can one be a 'follower' to him (or any other similar figure) in a way that he would condone?
Kierkegaard, Soren. Provocations, Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard. Compiled and Edited by Charles E. Moore. Plough Publishing House. Walden, NY. 1999. p. 259
From Works of Love, Chapter 14: B. Love Is a Matter of Conscience:
When the couch of death is prepared for you, when you go to bed never to get up again and they are only waiting for you to turn to the other side to die, and the stillness grows around you—then when those close to you gradually leave and the stillness grows because only those closest to you remain, while death comes closer to you; then when those closest to you leave quietly and the stillness grows because only the most intimate ones remain; and then when the last one has bent over you for the last time and turns to the other side because you yourself are now turning to the side of death—there still remains one on that side, the last one by the deathbed, he who was the first, God, the living God—that is, if your heart was pure, which it became only by loving him.
I thought you might appreciate this video essay I recently made on the anime series 'Cowboy Bebop'. I applied a few different philosophical lenses to the media, but one of the main philosophers I apply is Kierkegaard. I look at the characters of Spike and Vicious as the Knight of Resignation and the Knight of Faith, while also exploring other ideas put forth by Kierkegaard. I also get into Taoism and Buddhism a bit as well.
Most of section two and part of section four focus on Kierkegaardian ideology.
Let me know what you think! I hope you enjoy. You can also check out my bibliography for the essay in the video description.
I did not use AI to create this video. I did all the writing and the research, the video editing, the speaking, and the music production.
Hello! Lately I've started to read philosophy, I think I covered most things to get a general idea (Plato, Descartes, Kant, a bit of Hegel, and so on). Having read all that, I want to take a more concrete direction, and Kierkegaard (and most existentialism) caught my attention. I've read Fear and Trembling and now want to go deeper in his philosophy, what do you recommend me to read? I have "The concept of anxiety" but I've heard that it's very difficult. On top of that I don't find a lot of Kierkegaard's books in my country.
Hello,
I’ve been slowly tackling Postscript and I’m wondering how helpful it would be to read Fragments.
I have Vol. 1 of the Hong translation of Postscript and so I’m also wondering whether it is worth purchasing Vol. 2.
I understand that the actual text is fully contained in vol. 1, but all the explanatory notes are in vol. 2. But these editions are rather expensive, so I’ve been holding off.
So maybe I could frame it this way: which do you think is more important for understanding Postscript: Fragments or Hong’s vol. 2?
I would also be open to totally wildcard answer like some discourses or something.
I havent read kierkegaard for a year, but its 1:28 am in my country and I randomly came across Kierkegaard, so I wanted to write something to express my deep love for this man. sadly I have read only 3 books by him, but im planing to read others, even tho its really hard for me to read his more dense and hard works.
He was one of the turning point for me. When I read “Gospel of suffering” it was really fascinating, I deeply loved and appriciated the man, who really didnt have to do anything with me, but still explained things to me like I was a child, whom he really loved. Maybe he is the reason why I dont believe that salvation only comes through the Catholic Church. He was the one who taught me to look beyond the denomenation and critic it when it deserved. I find it pretty hard to understand some of his concepts, even tho I dont really get what or why he thinks that way, I still agree with many things, because my relationship with God is really private as his and I want to keep it that pure way.
I appreciate you guys, we have gathered here solely for the love of Kierkegaard. What do you think: can a catholic be a kierkegaardian? thanks and God bless! thanks for reading.
I’m curious what you all who’ve read this introduction have to say about this introduction. I found it quite cumbersome to fully analyze what he was trying to get at with this introduction and I still don’t quite believe I fully get it. Regardless it was still rewarding to read through and make an attempt to understand.
What I believe he is trying to get across is that he wants to use psychology as a means to observe the concept of sin, more specifically how sin becomes possible within the human spirit. This task is given to psychology and not ethics because ethics is far more concerned with destroying sin rather than understanding sin. But it needs to be aware of sin before it destroys it, and so psychology observes the concept to understand it before dogmatics takes this understanding and scales it up to the point where the second ethics in particular can finally notice sin and destroy it.
This is the general idea of how I believe he is trying to frame this book going forward. I would like to hear what others who have read this book feel about and perceive this introduction.
Might be a bit of a weird question, but I have read the Hirsch translation of "Pholosophical Fragments" amd liked it well enough, even though it is pretty clunky at times.
I want to read more (specifically fear and tremling and anxiety) but I have heard that the Hirsch translations are fairly controversial.
I guess the question I have is does anyone here know of a translation (preferably German, but can also be English) that is close to the original text?
I would just read the Hirsch versions still, but I'm a bit afraid that his dogma (and sentence constructions) influence the vibe too much or distort the argument.
Thanks in advance to whoever is as obsessed with translation """accuracy""" as I am
