Søren Kierkegaard's "The Concept of Anxiety" (Part 1/2)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лют 2021
- In this episode, I present the first half of Søren Kierkegaard's "The Concept of Anxiety," which, when coupled with "Sickness Unto Death" that I will present in a couple of weeks, presents a good introduction to Kierkegaard's existential philosophy.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/
Image cred: Royal Danish Library
Thanks for this thorough explanation of Kierkegaards work. I was able to sort of understand the book but not in a way where I could speak in concise language about it. I think it’s important to recognize the Kierkegaard was opposed to the church and the mainstream dogma of Christianity. He felt the true religious life was something very personal and subjective, and he makes that very clear throughout his works. I am no Christian but Kierkegaards interpretation of Christianity is profound and there is incredible wisdom in it even for those who are atheists.
For atheists? Not so sure of that but definitely theistic Satanist. As for K; most Christians are just talk. Not so with him. Infinite being is nondenominational. God is an anarchist but God, i.e., infinite being, is a reality. You don't have to call it 'Jesus' to know that.
Kierkegaard was not opposed to dogma. On the contrary, see Sickness Unto Death
This is great work, man! You've earned a donation. People should support creators like you who are putting in serious effort to bring these thinkers to wider audiences.
Man you really make kierkegaard easy for me! i am a total outsider to philosophy and i m glad to find your podcasts to help me do my learnings in my leisure
Really really nice with this content! Super grateful for your work!!
Thank you! Was planning to read some of Kierkegaard's works but thought I needed to have an idea or a background about him. This was really helpful. :>
These are great!! Very well done
Underrated content creator
Weird how I started thinking about Kierkegaard after trying to understand Kant's 1st critique just yesterday. And now your post.
Listen to you was great . My first time knowing about Kierkegaard …. Thank you
Liked the way you present it.
Awesome podcast. Thank you for posting! Just one thought on your characterization of the qualitative leap:
At 19:15, you describe the qualitative leap as the "leap of faith", that Adam was in sin prior to committing his first sin. In section 6 of Chapter I, Kierkegaard writes: "...Sinfulness moves in quantitative terms, while sin constantly enters through the individual's qualitative leap." It strikes me that the qualitative leap is the underlying potential of possibility characterized by anxiety ("...freedom's actuality as the possibility of possibility" Ch. I, sec. 5). In contrast, faith (or the "leap of faith") is the "courage to believe that the state itself is a new sin, courage without anxiety to renounced anxiety..." (Ch. IV, Sec. 1). In other words, the leap of faith has a relation to sin and the qualitative leap that makes sin possible, but is not itself the qualitative leap. Curious to hear your thoughts!
Excellent summation David, truly agree Kierkegaard's avenue to existentialism is through religious faith. I also though, when looking at this deeply can draw many parallels with this to everyday living, which in essence what Philosophy is for me and what I share to others who seek answers in life. Appreciate your work and will keep in touch. JZ (John)
Thank you for this
Great video sir! Thanks!
Tx a lot from Brasil. This explanation helped very mych more than several others in my own language.
the definition you gave of anxiety "the self awarness of the finite as finite" and the distinction between anxiety/fear is actually given by paul Tillich in his work "the courage to be" which is actually quite similar to Kierkegaard's work here... for Tillich the courage to be is grounded on the god above god when god disappears in the anxiety of doubt
thanks for the summary! i feel i got enough from the text and don’t need to dive deeper.
i couldn't agree with you more, regarding Kierkegaard being used outside of his Christian context. The greatest irony in dealing with the Danish ironist, is the fact that so many so called experts in Kierkegaard totally miss the point of his writing.
Excellent
Meaning lives in the Goldilocks zone between the harmonic regularity of truth and the chaotic dynamics of self referential noise.
Brilliant vocals
Hi, great presentation on The concept of Anxiety on Kierkegaard. I was wondering if you could possibly make clearer for me the condition of Adam prior to making the decision to eat from the tree of good and evil. Are you, or more specifically Kierkegaard, suggesting that Adam was already in a state of sin prior to the actual fall? If this is the suggestion then how does this fit into the broader context of Adam being created by God in God's image. I would also appreciate some clarity on what Kierkegaard means by quantitative and qualitative actions regarding the original sin. I have been grappling with some of the works of Kierkegaard and slowly his philosophy is gaining traction, However, as you rightly say some commentators leave one further frustrated and don't always give clear and accurate explanations. Many thanks. Dave Drape. England Uk.PS. do you have an email address?
🎁SØREN KIERKEGAARD MERCHANDISE🎁
Unisex t-shirts with an exclusive illustration: ‘Stages on Love’s Way, Søren Kierkegaard’
💲SIGN UP WITH YOUR EMAIL FOR A £5 DISCOUNT💲
Pick a colour and order straight to your door 👇👇👇
www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/merchandise
Hi there, I've just started to listen to this series and it's great. I read the concept of anxiety recently and I felt that it's really a self-help book, much like sickness unto death. I'm toying with the idea that kierkegaard can be viewed as a hegelian (although, I've never been able to understand Hegel directly so rely on others). The gist I get from reading about hegel is that history/time is the inevitable culmination of everything to become perfection/God. I think kierkegaard agreed with this theory but he thinks that Hegel skipped over how difficult this "inevitability" would be ie. Not inevitable. I think he was actually saying that the outcome was closer to being impossibly hard and people should just worship God instead (God as the idea of possibility in a dialectical sence). I think that if kierkegaard was around today he would, perhaps, refer to anxiety, and the sickness unto death, as cognitive dissonance. The only helpful/non-self-help info I got from concept of anxiety, was understanding sin in relation to the original sin rather than ethics. Meaning, the act of doing anything other than worshipping/fear and trembling is sin. I think that he thinks Hegel was right while being absurdly wrong at the same time. I think Kierkegaard was telling us that only fear and trembling was the appropriate course of action. Concept of anxiety and sickness unto death seemed to be self-help for those finding this too hard. What do you think?
Sin expanded the universe? or compressed it? or both through a division?
I could write volumes about Anxiety.
Jesus! This is EXCRUCIATING convoluted! How does this help anyone?
The subtitle of the book in question by Haufniensis is: "A Simple Psychologically Orienting Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue of Hereditary Sin"
What is more simple than Dogma?
Maybe the author had theologians and philosophers in mind when he was writing it...
@@Nowhy Maybe
How can you say Adam was pure? To what relation? Before Adam or after Adam?
Nobody ever said the fruit was an apple...
I'm very drawn to him.
I liked this🙃
Why is kierkagaard so cute
You didn't mention the serpent!
this is just my personal opinion, and I havent read his texts, but I think he is slightly off/ wrong in saying anxiety stems from a dizzyiness of freedom. I think in it's true essence, it stems from a knowledge of a lack of choice like at all when faced with the absurdity of awareness that is life, or existence, the idea that anything can really truly happen at any given moment. i think personally that the dizzyiness of freedom comes from this visual that when aware of this, we become anxious because we're purely aware that life is like walking across a tight roped bridge connecting two mountains, and a gust of wind from either direction could knock us over. Our dizzyiness so to speak is basically our awareness of that, and our knowledge that we don't have a choice but to keep walking - regardless of how we choose to do it - is the ultimate acceptance of it, of having faith in "life", in this world where we know that even though we choose to keep walking, we still don't have the ultimate freedom of choice. I say this because if it weren't the case, we wouldn't fret over the idea of choice as much as we do -- and the reason we do (i personally think) is just us trying to unviel the future, or predict where the next gust of wind will come, bc standing still on the rope is terrifying.
As a nonbeliever of religion, in my opinion, spirit is the connector of all us in the same way he says that we're endowed both to ourselves and to humans. basically, spirit, awareness, is this vast thing that's in all of us at once, and our endowment to other humans is our recognition of this spiritness in one another from different dimensions. it makes sense if you think about it like that bc this is probably why we humans can't stand to be all alone, or live on an island on our own. we need the recognition of another spirit, another human, in order to recognize ourselves, and thus, grow. this is my perspective from a nonreligious standpoint. spirit in my mind is conciousness and when we grow, we're not growing towards god as much as our knowledge is just becoming vast. and going back to my original point about where anxiety stems from, it makes sense again bc this vast knowledge so to speak, if attained, can help us feel less anxious about our ultimate lack of choices, bc we have other peripheries to look towards.
also, in my mind, sin is just another for this capality for choice we have. or literally just our awareness of it. but this is something that we dont really come to terms with until we accept the ultimate lack of choice. what he refers to as sin is having that faith, or like moving past the ultimate anxiety of no choice. and as far as sex being sinful goes, I think that is the case bc it's something we not only choose, but something that gives us pleasure in a world where we're aware it's really an absurd one that we couldn't, or shouldn't derive pleasure. idk tbh. I personally think I'm on to something but I haven't actually read him! feel free to let me know if I'm wrong.
I didn't read your whole paragraph, but I think that the pseudonym wrote: "Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom". I can't recall the whole sentence or context, except that it was about looking down into an abyss (the reason is in the abyss as much as it is in the eyes of the one looking down) and how ambivalent the possibility itself is, that one can jump down, not the falling down and hitting the ground itself (not fear of death). Fear and anxiety aren't synonymous in the text.
No no no! Slow down! Back it up to about 14:25 where the editors got it right: "Nothingness is not an object." It is NOT a feeling or a thought. It is inherent. Kierkegaard taught that we ARE anxiety, even if we're having a great day without a care in the world.
All material interpretations are bounded by metaphysical presuppositions.
And what is more basic, matter or energy?
@@Nowhy There is no matter without energy, there is no energy without matter.
@@RickDelmonico Kudos!
i've tried to get into nihilism & philosophy but this is too goddamn confusing. my field is filmmaking
If anxiety is nothingness, must it not come from the beginning, when there was nothing?
Is there nothing before there was something or not?
Introduce yourself & then go for the “like/share/subscribe” -- just a small tip 😘
💋
You talk of the "contradiction" at about 21m so I'll see if I can't explain.the way I see it is when Adam ate of the tree he gained THE knowledge of good and evil, vs before they had A knowledge of good and evil as demonstrated when God said that you can eat of any fruit but not the tree of good and evil. He said I'm good everything else is good but here's something that evil.
It;s quite a Thing to think that Adam had no conception of good and evil. This is where faith was born as well. Faith began with Adam.
Innocence is multidimensional.
There is the harmony of reason and the purity of perception.
And what about the sensual and not the perception of it?
@@Nowhy Innocence is unfiltered perception, a belief system is unnecessary. Innocence is also perfect action in a system. Experience and expression.
Humans do not qualify for this level of awareness and operation.
Knowledge gives birth to anxiety. The antidote is faith. But what is faith?
For Kierkegaard it is "an objective uncertainty held fast in the infinite passion of inwardness".
Of course this could still be resting upon an idol too.
@@MAX-tw3qzis that a sentence from one of his pseudonyms?
@@Nowhy
Concluding Unscientific Postscript
Originally it was to be Johannes Climacus but I believe it was eventually under his own name.
@@MAX-tw3qz ahh that is also the book that I was thinking it could have beeb from..
It wasn't under Kierkegaard's name, but Kierkegaard was the publisher of an pseudonymous work for the first time and Climacus, in a humorous way of course, "exposed" the other pseudonymous books and also wrote something about his knowledge of some books by a certain Magister Kierkegaard...
I'm really trying to understand Kierkegaard but my Anxiety is not caused by Hereditary sin.
It is in one way or another. May not be your's in a personal sense but the impact of broken behaviors/thinking can easily impact future generations
@@foodforthought8308 Say what?
@@hanskung3278 Sorry, I know what I wrote wasn't clear! I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept of anxiety myself
@@foodforthought8308 My feeling is Keirkagard is over complicating.
@@hanskung3278 He may be! But I think he could be on to something. General angst may point to a deeper disconnect between spirit and body
People get kierkegaard completely wrong. Leading scholars! They completely miss that this book is profound as an analysis of the possibilities of misfortune, whereas the sickness unto death is about forms of desperation. Misfortune has to do with historical progression, where he who does not work can get millions while he who works may not get any of the reward. In the world of spirit, and despair, all start from the start. How essential this is in appreciating the systematic genius of reading this book alongside sickness unto death! And yet thete is no mention of this in leading scholars' intros to th3 book. Its like theyve never had the experiences of misfortune that help one appreciate a systematic analysis of responding to this. And how anomie is this inherited anxiety, this normlessness. They completely miss this beca7se they don't appreciate kierkegaards christianity that emphasizes gods providential norm of charity takinh care of all creation. Incredibly blind!
14:18 Why does that trouble you?
Why do you even ask? It is pretty much obvious that a philosophy which would only hold if christianity is the true faith is dubious. You'd like to build philosophical theories on solid grounds, not only on human myths, even tho they can be extremly nice tools to help thinking.
@@leodarkk Well, what if Christianity is the true faith? (spoiler alert: it is) Then you aren't building philosophical theories on solid grounds, but on self-deceptions and misconceptions. If philosophy ignores reality, how can it progress towards the truth (which in the end is the Christian God/Jesus Christ)?
And that's why I asked. The longer you'll ignore Christianity and push it aside as just a mere human myth or just one of the religions, the longer it'll take for you to arrive at the truth.
And since we're talking about solid grounds and whatnot: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (Matthew 7:24-27)
@Caedmon Kline I can only demonstrate to you the veracity of my faith to a certain extent. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that if you'll adhere to it and live by the teachings and commands of Jesus Christ, the creator of the universe, the quality of your life, the life of people around you, and for humanity, in general, will increase exponentially. It's also our only real chance at instituting a communist society that you so desperately desire.
Fair. I didn't see the Mario dress and only saw Stalin lol. That's why I assumed you were a Communist. I've been thinking a lot lately about how people living by Christian values is the only way to a Communist society (it's a pretty great system to live under if done right, and I say that as a right-winger). So sorry about that.
Interesting that life improved for you after you went from a Christian to an agnostic. I don't disbelieve that one bit tho. My life path has been this: Christian (childhood) --> atheist --> agnostic --> Christian. And with each step I made, I became happier. I think it has something to do with thinking for yourself and arriving at the truth because you yourself want to. Not because others impose it on you (I'm not saying my parents did that, because they didn't) or because you want to fit in. So here I disagree with you that happiness depends on the community. Because many communities can be very toxic (and that holds true especially for Christian communities; they are usually very arrogant and that arrogance stems from them knowing the truth, while others don't). Can I just ask you in what ways you were trying to live according to the Bible?
I'm not surprised about that increased happiness statistic one bit. Any person that lives his life according to the values of any religion (be it Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, etc) is living closer to the values of the Creator. If you don't live according to those values, you are ridden with guilt (hence the increased happiness). Socrates talked about in The Republic how you need to live righteously to calm your soul. The only difference between Christianity and all other religions is that Christianity is founded directly by the Creator himself, while all other religions are man-made. This means that the values of Christianity are put in place directly by God. And IMO that provides people with two very important things that other religions can't: certainty and the potential for unity. Because people can only unite under one thing: the truth. All of humanity can't unite under Mohammed because he is not the Messiah. Some can force themselves or be forced to believe in Mohammed. But humanity can unite under Jesus Christ because He is the only savior of humanity. But these are only my thoughts and I can't really prove them, just throwing it out there. I can also provide some proof as to why Jesus is indeed the Messiah.
I already kind of addressed the community argument but I will say it again: I don't think it's mainly about living in a community (but it certainly does play a part), but it's about living according to the truth. But these are only my thoughts and I would be interested in what you think.
@@arovium Why would one's life improving after starting to believe something suggest the belief is true? Does that follow? People who accept the popular ideology of their community will tend to have an easier time in life, completely independent of whether that ideology reflects what's true. You already demonstrated your lack of proper epistemology by falsely assuming the beliefs of the guy you're talking to based on one picture. With such a propensity to jump to conclusions, not to mention the mess of non-sequiturs in your post, is it any wonder that you're not convincing anyone? Ask yourself: "What constitutes sufficient proof that my ideas about reality are correct?" If you don't do this fundamental work first, then it's actually you who's philosophically/logically built their house upon the sand.
What people need to understand is that many of Kierkegaards works are pseudonyms, in which he uses to employ irony. Not everything that he wrote under each pseudonym is essentially what he believes. They are sort of like, different characters. I also don't believe that there is a universally essential understanding of Kierkegaard without some personal or subjective commitment to his writings. What I am not convinced of, is anyone who states he wanted to be a teacher or leader, although on the surface that kind of contradicts his passionate incursion to abolish the empty standards that infected christiandom society. He said so himself that he got a lot of entertainment out of paradoxes which he considered great thoughts to be born from, so he was by no means a simply understood man.
My aversion to Christianity has steered me away from Kierkegaard, up until recently. Having gained some basic understanding of his philosophy now, and I don’t believe he advocates Christianity in the typical or standard tradition, especially in the way he talks about “sin”. He seems to me to be describing sin as error, in contrast to the Catholic or Protestant notion that sin is a failure to live in strict accordance with God’s many rules, from the way you treat other people to the food you eat, and so on.
Kierkegaard doesn’t seem to me to regard God as the petty dictator most of Christendom makes God out to be. I think his understanding of God is more esoteric and even Gnostic, though he wouldn’t have been familiar with Gnostic doctrine, since most of the Gnostic texts wouldn’t have been available to him.
Most of the Christians I know wouldn’t agree with Kierkegaard’s definition of God, sin, and other Christian concepts, and in fact I think a lot of Christians might even see his ideas as being heretical, because Kierkegaard doesn’t present God as the controlling, narcissist alpha-male figure they’ve been taught to fear.
I disagree with your assessment of Kierkegaard as someone advocating standard Christianity, though like you, I struggle to reconcile his God-centered philosophy with the philosophy of other existentialists.
I think you're talking about a minority group in Christianity, maybe some calvinists who put a huge emphasis on predestination and foreknowledge. But what points do you think christians would not agree on with Kierkegaard? As Christian I don't see a conflict and it's clear Kierkegaard holds scripture with enormous respect, though I've only read a few of his works.
As a Christian, I'm definitely a fan of Kierkegaard. From your comment I'd venture to say that your issue isn't with Christ Himself, but with inaccurate culturally Western expressions of the faith.
Who came here from "Another round" ?
Infinity is constrained by fractal geometries.
Adam"s sin came from nothing as much as the universe was created from nothing.
You seem to think that you have a better grasp of Kierkegaard than, say, Sartre or Heidegger (pretty big shoes to fill). I don't think that people have 'misrepresented' Kierkegaard. Rather, they have chosen to take from him certain ideas and reject others - a perfectly normal and acceptable practice in philosophy. The existentialists saw that Kierkegaard was illuminating a certain kind of subjective or existential dilemma, but they rejected his solution. That is not a misrepresentation, but a typical philosophical processes of drawing upon ideas to struggle with one's own sorts of solutions. In simple terms, Kierkegaard saw a subjective/existential dilemma in human existence and looked to God or faith as the solution. Sartre, on the other hand, didn't think this solution made sense so he looked at it from an atheist point of view. That seems totally fair to me and not a misrepresentation at all.
I was digging at other, more popular, UA-cam channels and podcasts, not Heidegger or Sartre lol
You tried to smuggle in the post modern horseshit known as 'gender'. To Kierkegaard, like evary intelligent person today with a basic knowledge of biology, we have 2 sexes, period, Kierkegaard never mentiones 'genders'. Genders are found in languages and there alone. Otherwise your podcast is excellent.