Man Chapter 3 goes so hard. I'm on my tenth listen and it still is revealing itself to me. Also dude sounds like he is on the verge of laughter, like he can't believe what he is reading. Well done.
This book made me sick unto death. So I took myself a Kierky, stuck-stuck me in a Dorky and couldny find me funky cuz the way was angry punky. So again I turned my Kierky and opened up my Dorky, swung me up a monkey and painted me aflunky. But then I caned a junky but gain I turned my Kierky, and though a little clunky, I revved myself up spunky. So my little Kierky, thank ye what ye taughty, for though a wee bit naughty I've looed me jagger haughty.
To be certain, if even ONE moves closer to God, on account of these acts, it has been worth EVERY effort. I hope you are not speaking about worldly "riches". It's an oxymoron Such things are NOT _real._ Do not deceive yourself in this matter. _Peace, Joy & Light_
Kierkegaard speaks of the relation of the self, that is, its dynamic essence, or, as he puts it, a self in relation to itself. In other words, I can think I am cold, hungry, happy, angry, resentful ugly, etc. And it is this reflection on oneself or, if you like, judgement, which is the dynamic relationship of 'self'. It's no coincidence Kierkegaard in his writing speaks of despair. For that is the ultimate misery of a 'self' reflecting upon itself . In modern terms, depression and introspection both point more or less equally to being states of mind which are psychologically tormenting to one(self). Without God in the corner of the mind despair is the inevitable consequence. Kierkegaard uses the term despair... and the potential to despair.... as the fundamental reality of man which forces if not constantly invites him to take the 'leap of faith' in Jesus. Once in Christ ....authentically ...not merely affecting Christianity ....the self is, quote, 'ground transparently in the power that established it (The self) . It is is reassuring that Kierkegaard lived in a time where religious affectation was evident everywhere in Copenhagen. He seemed to see like I suspect most of us can the hypocracy of professed Christianity. In his works Kierkegaard uses the terms 'authenticity' to hammer home this last point. He was a very great man living I suspect like a lot of us are abandoned on our own resources in a world that is alien to the authentic Christian spiritual life.
I contemplate God, Heaven and Hell. My will is toward God and Heaven and away from death. I lose self in thoughts of others. Are they comfortable? Are they well clothed? Well fed? Well sheltered? Are they in a hospital, prison, foreign country, foreign war? Are they driving, flying, walking, drawing near, coming to visit? At times I think of self. Am I accomplishing enough? Am I learning, growing, reading, conversing, loving, influencing, leading, inspiring, teaching? Is God pleased with me? Why not? Too much self absorption?
I appreciate this a ton. I listened to it as I read along in the book and it helped me to stay focused. *HOWEVER* there were way too many malapropisms i.e. where a word was not just pronounced incorrectly (with the emphasis on the wrong syllable of an unfamiliar word) but the wrong word was said. For example at 2:27:20 when instead of reading "self-deification" you read "self-defecation." While this particular malapropism made me laugh, I can only wonder what listeners who do not read along would make of this. This is already a confusing and hard to follow book, these kind of mistakes that could have been avoided probably don't help listeners. That being said, I hope you can record more works sometime. I'm off now to listen to part 2.
Haha my apologies! As you said, these books are really hard to read. I try my best with his long run on sentences and unfamiliar/uncommon words. It’s mainly why I stopped doing Kierkegaard audiobooks. I mainly did this one because there wasn’t one available on UA-cam.
The self is a shit which shits itself on its own self, or it is that in the shit which accounts for it that the shit shits itself on its own self. If this shit that shits itself on its own is constituted by another, the shit is doubtless the third term, but this shit (the third term) is in turn a shit shitting itself on that which constitutes the whole shit
God cannot make something that is logically impossible. C.S. Lewis has a good quote on the topic. C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle"; that it is not logically coherent in terms of power to think that omnipotence includes the power to do the logically impossible. So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both. This is justified by observing that for the omnipotent agent to create such a stone, it must already be more powerful than itself: such a stone is too heavy for the omnipotent agent to lift, but the omnipotent agent already can create such a stone; If an omnipotent agent already is more powerful than itself, then it already is just that powerful. This means that its power to create a stone that is too heavy for it to lift is identical to its power to lift that very stone. While this does not quite make complete sense, Lewis wished to stress its implicit point: that even within the attempt to prove that the concept of omnipotence is immediately incoherent, one admits that it is immediately coherent, and that the only difference is that this attempt is forced to admit this despite that the attempt is constituted by a perfectly irrational route to its own unwilling end, with a perfectly irrational set of 'things' included in that end.
I'm not sure but I'm going to be doing a summary/analysis soon so I'll see if I can help understand everything. It's a really complicated book though so it might take me 2 weeks.
I think because to have a danish means to eat a pastry and in English to eat pastry is a borrowing from the Danish. I know this because I am a monk. And no one can make me speak (not the strong, nor the weak) unless I want to. And it is true I rang the Samaritans the other day (12 hand dozens of them the other day) and I told them half-dying while lying in the melancholy hay that I was a monk; and then said nothing. Later the telephone did not stop it’s ring ring ringing. For I am a punk monk. I wear a pink punk frock (that stinks like a skunk) and I have a blue-eyed tye-dyed Mohawk bristling bulwark under the thunder of my hood. But (but should the but be should?) there is one thing I will say, and it is: “Hey! Buddy! You sure sound like a king to me, and one not to miss. And a good king too, velvety chocolate through and through. But I am a monk. A punk monk who’s always stunk like a punk skunk. And you are a king. And one day we shall know everything. And we shall meet and greet each other like freshly-washed feet to celebrate the feast of Rubenstein. For thy kingdom will come, and thine be the rum-ti-tum-tum of men as it is a final trumpet. Amen!
im only a few minutes in and i have no goddamn idea what he's talking about. im sorry but im trying to get into nihilism more to be smarter and such i feel stupid for not understanding what kierkegaard is saying. someone help..
I have done summaries of all of his major works on my channel. He isn’t a nihilist but he is an existentialist. A true label would be a Christian existentialist while someone like niche would be a existential nihilist.
Don't feel stupid. This book is just absurdly complex, and frankly it's poorly written. There's good _content_ in the book, but being able to comprehend the ideas that Kierkegaard is putting forth is difficult because of how poorly it's written.
Man Chapter 3 goes so hard. I'm on my tenth listen and it still is revealing itself to me. Also dude sounds like he is on the verge of laughter, like he can't believe what he is reading. Well done.
i've lost count. I keep listening to it. ❤️
No you’re not sit tf down
@@TheBellCurve_what, bro?
This is probably the most difficult book I’ve ever tried to get into. And I’ve tried reading Finnegan’s Wake and Being and Nothingness…
I did a summary on it if you need some help. Something that might help is Kierkegaard's definitions of words like, 'self' and 'despair.'
@@freeindeed08 studying Christ’s teachings definitely helps
@@PraetorClaudius Thank you Joshua. Without listening to the word of Jesus Kierkegaard simply bewilders.
This book made me sick unto death. So I took myself a Kierky, stuck-stuck me in a Dorky and couldny find me funky cuz the way was angry punky. So again I turned my Kierky and opened up my Dorky, swung me up a monkey and painted me aflunky. But then I caned a junky but gain I turned my Kierky, and though a little clunky, I revved myself up spunky. So my little Kierky, thank ye what ye taughty, for though a wee bit naughty I've looed me jagger haughty.
Is that you, Lil Wayne?
@@rockycomet4587 nope, it's you Lil Willy
"not everyone possess the capacity to follow it" you can say that again
Well read. Difficult book to read out loud.
His run-on sentences are sometimes entire paragraphs.
Second!
Thank you for this, friend! Such hard work on your part...I pray the LORD blesses you richly for your labors.
To be certain, if even ONE moves closer to God, on account of these acts, it has been worth EVERY effort.
I hope you are not speaking about worldly "riches". It's an oxymoron Such things are NOT _real._ Do not deceive yourself in this matter.
_Peace, Joy & Light_
Kierkegaard speaks of the relation of the self, that is, its dynamic essence, or, as he puts it, a self in relation to itself. In other words, I can think I am cold, hungry, happy, angry, resentful ugly, etc. And it is this reflection on oneself or, if you like, judgement, which is the dynamic relationship of 'self'. It's no coincidence Kierkegaard in his writing speaks of despair. For that is the ultimate misery of a 'self' reflecting upon itself . In modern terms, depression and introspection both point more or less equally to being states of mind which are psychologically tormenting to one(self). Without God in the corner of the mind despair is the inevitable consequence. Kierkegaard uses the term despair... and the potential to despair.... as the fundamental reality of man which forces if not constantly invites him to take the 'leap of faith' in Jesus. Once in Christ ....authentically ...not merely affecting Christianity ....the self is, quote, 'ground transparently in the power that established it (The self) . It is is reassuring that Kierkegaard lived in a time where religious affectation was evident everywhere in Copenhagen. He seemed to see like I suspect most of us can the hypocracy of professed Christianity. In his works Kierkegaard uses the terms 'authenticity' to hammer home this last point. He was a very great man living I suspect like a lot of us are abandoned on our own resources in a world that is alien to the authentic Christian spiritual life.
Yes, but he's speaking of despair positively. That's the paradox.
He didn’t just say Soren “Kai-kegaard”-not the best omen
This book is amazing
I contemplate God, Heaven and Hell. My will is toward God and Heaven and away from death. I lose self in thoughts of others. Are they comfortable? Are they well clothed? Well fed? Well sheltered? Are they in a hospital, prison, foreign country, foreign war? Are they driving, flying, walking, drawing near, coming to visit? At times I think of self. Am I accomplishing enough? Am I learning, growing, reading, conversing, loving, influencing, leading, inspiring, teaching? Is God pleased with me? Why not? Too much self absorption?
Imagine dieing and somebody brings you back to life and you didn't want to be brought back to life..
Man how angry would you be then
Imagine dying and Jesus calls your name because he loves you, and your response is anger. A generation of vipers
Thank you so much for your work in producing this! If I may ask - what edition/translation are you using?
Thank you for this. 2nd listen.
Most excellent reading!
I appreciate this a ton. I listened to it as I read along in the book and it helped me to stay focused. *HOWEVER* there were way too many malapropisms i.e. where a word was not just pronounced incorrectly (with the emphasis on the wrong syllable of an unfamiliar word) but the wrong word was said. For example at 2:27:20 when instead of reading "self-deification" you read "self-defecation." While this particular malapropism made me laugh, I can only wonder what listeners who do not read along would make of this. This is already a confusing and hard to follow book, these kind of mistakes that could have been avoided probably don't help listeners. That being said, I hope you can record more works sometime. I'm off now to listen to part 2.
Haha my apologies! As you said, these books are really hard to read. I try my best with his long run on sentences and unfamiliar/uncommon words. It’s mainly why I stopped doing Kierkegaard audiobooks. I mainly did this one because there wasn’t one available on UA-cam.
@@freeindeed08 Fair enough. Thanks again for doing an otherwise solid job.
The self is a shit which shits itself on its own self, or it is that in the shit which accounts for it that the shit shits itself on its own self. If this shit that shits itself on its own is constituted by another, the shit is doubtless the third term, but this shit (the third term) is in turn a shit shitting itself on that which constitutes the whole shit
He has a very kaleidoscopic writing style
Brilliant thinker, despite being a Christian.
I get a chuckle every time I think about this comment
Very good work
What translation is this? It isn’t the Penguin Classics edition as pictured.
This is the Walter Lowrie translation
How to resolve a simple contradiction like this...
With God, all things are possible.
God can make a married bachelor?
God cannot make something that is logically impossible. C.S. Lewis has a good quote on the topic.
C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle"; that it is not logically coherent in terms of power to think that omnipotence includes the power to do the logically impossible. So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both. This is justified by observing that for the omnipotent agent to create such a stone, it must already be more powerful than itself: such a stone is too heavy for the omnipotent agent to lift, but the omnipotent agent already can create such a stone; If an omnipotent agent already is more powerful than itself, then it already is just that powerful. This means that its power to create a stone that is too heavy for it to lift is identical to its power to lift that very stone. While this does not quite make complete sense, Lewis wished to stress its implicit point: that even within the attempt to prove that the concept of omnipotence is immediately incoherent, one admits that it is immediately coherent, and that the only difference is that this attempt is forced to admit this despite that the attempt is constituted by a perfectly irrational route to its own unwilling end, with a perfectly irrational set of 'things' included in that end.
Can God go against Logic?
Thank you. Very worthwhile work.
Does Danish not have enough words in the language to distinguish the various "self"?
I'm not sure but I'm going to be doing a summary/analysis soon so I'll see if I can help understand everything. It's a really complicated book though so it might take me 2 weeks.
or does english not have enough words, since it's a translation
Pretty sure there's the same words as in English. Danish and English are very similar.
I think because to have a danish means to eat a pastry and in English to eat pastry is a borrowing from the Danish. I know this because I am a monk. And no one can make me speak (not the strong, nor the weak) unless I want to. And it is true I rang the Samaritans the other day (12 hand dozens of them the other day) and I told them half-dying while lying in the melancholy hay that I was a monk; and then said nothing. Later the telephone did not stop it’s ring ring ringing. For I am a punk monk. I wear a pink punk frock (that stinks like a skunk) and I have a blue-eyed tye-dyed Mohawk bristling bulwark under the thunder of my hood. But (but should the but be should?) there is one thing I will say, and it is: “Hey! Buddy! You sure sound like a king to me, and one not to miss. And a good king too, velvety chocolate through and through. But I am a monk. A punk monk who’s always stunk like a punk skunk. And you are a king. And one day we shall know everything. And we shall meet and greet each other like freshly-washed feet to celebrate the feast of Rubenstein. For thy kingdom will come, and thine be the rum-ti-tum-tum of men as it is a final trumpet. Amen!
Is this translation in the public domain?
yeh. dude's bin dead for 168 years(to the year 2023) copyright law exists for 70 years after the auther's death.
33:54 ice spice
Lmaaoooo
im only a few minutes in and i have no goddamn idea what he's talking about. im sorry but im trying to get into nihilism more to be smarter and such i feel stupid for not understanding what kierkegaard is saying. someone help..
I have done summaries of all of his major works on my channel. He isn’t a nihilist but he is an existentialist. A true label would be a Christian existentialist while someone like niche would be a existential nihilist.
Don't feel stupid. This book is just absurdly complex, and frankly it's poorly written. There's good _content_ in the book, but being able to comprehend the ideas that Kierkegaard is putting forth is difficult because of how poorly it's written.
Same
It’s not “Kai”kegaard. It’s “Keeir”kegaard.
Honestly I’ve said his name 10 different ways and have heard it said 10 different ways. Idk who the authority is on these things.
@@freeindeed08 I’ve heard PHD level philosophers pronounce it “KIERKegaard” and “kierkegore” and even “kaigore”
@@freeindeed08 Danes are. He is Danish. His name means grave yard
The way the narrator pronounced his name is blasphemy
Tbh I've heard it in like 10 different ways from different lecturers and I've probably said it 10 different ways myself throughout all my vids lol
@@freeindeed08 you did great man, seriously, you have great cadence too
Haha 😄
What tripe.