Does Rationality Give Life Meaning? (Kierkegaard) - 8-Bit Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2014
- Join Wisecrack! ►► bit.ly/1y8Veir
Press Start for "Does Rationality Give Life Meaning?" by 8-Bit Philosophy, where classic video games introduce famous thinkers, problems, and concepts with quotes, teachings, and more.
Buy Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments here on Amazon ►► amzn.to/1dZE7wd
Buy Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments here on iBooks ►►apple.co/1MQofHB
Oh what you never played Shatterhand? Get on that!
Episode 7: Does Rationality Give Life Meaning?
(Kierkegaard: Truth is Subjectivity)
More 8-Bit Philosophy:
Is Capitalism Bad For You? ►► bit.ly/1NhhX2P
What is Real? ►► bit.ly/1HHC9g1
What is Marxism? ►► bit.ly/1M0dINJ
Thug Notes:
Lord of the Flies ►► bit.ly/19RhTe0
Of Mice and Men ►► bit.ly/1GokKHn
The Great Gatsby ►► bit.ly/1BoYKqs
Earthling Cinema:
Batman - The Dark Knight ►► bit.ly/1buIi1J
Pulp Fiction ►► bit.ly/18Yjbmr
Mean Girls ►► bit.ly/1GWjlpy
Pop Psych:
Mario Goes to Therapy ►► bit.ly/1GobKCl
Batman Goes to Therapy ►► bit.ly/1xhmXCy
Santa Goes to Therapy ►► bit.ly/1Iwqpuo
Email Alerts: eepurl.com/3l8qH
Facebook: / 8bitphilosophy
Twitter: / 8bitphilosophy
Homepage: www.8bitphilosophy.com
Check out our Merch!: www.wisecrack.co/store
Written & Directed by: Jared Bauer
Narrator: Nathan Lowe
Animation Producer: MB X. McClain
Original Music & Sound by: David Krystal (www.davidkrystalmusic.com)
Academic Consultant: Mia Wood
Producer & Additional Artwork by: Jacob S. Salamon
© 2014 Wisecrack, Inc. -
I love all the militant atheists come here who have no idea what Kierkegaard is talking about. He isn't saying reason is meaningless. In fact he says that doubt is an important part of faith. He is just saying you can't live your life on pure reason alone, and that's something that goes back to Kant. There are some ethical stances in life that can't be reduced to pure reason alone. If I see an old lady on the street who's about to be hit by a bus, my pure rational instinct might be to not do anything to save my own skin. But my passion(which is what he is appealing to) might be to save that person and put my life on the line, regardless of what reason might say. If you're someone like Nelson Mandela pure reason might say not to protest again Apartheid because it might land you in jail for 27 years with a broken family life and personal life. But your passion might lead you to make a leap of faith than involves a sacrifice for the good of your country men. If you're Dietrich Bonhoeffer, protesting against the Nazis, pure reason might say not to do so because you're fight a totalitarian regime that might execute you. But your passion says that you have to take a stand in defense of the innocent and it might involve taking a leap of faith that might include sacrificing your life for others. That's what he's speaking about here.
People who think they can reduce life down to either pure reason or pure empiricism should go try being a relationship or try having kids and then telling them you only love them because of some rational calculation you did in your mind.
So well put!
Well he specifically said you should not take reason as an answer so the argument is invalid. And one has his own opinion so morality does differ (Nietzsche). What most people are getting to is they don't like beliving in nothing. What is considered rational? If I wanted to die badly, would sacrificing myself for a little girl be rational?
I understand the statement but you assume everyone is completely rational, they just strive to be more rational, a trait that you cannot deny to be good, they strive to know why, when, what ect. that makes their life meaningful. *No hate*
Edit: Reason is dictated by Morality
We can all be more rational in our daily lives, like when it comes to our jobs or education, what food we eat and how we spend our money. The point is though that makes our own personal lives meaningful isn't knowledge of the universe or having an interesting job or passion for scientific knowledge. You can study the universe all that you want, and it might be very interesting and good for humanity, but knowledge for knowledge sake doesn't make life meaningful. Kierkegaard would argue that meaning comes from living life with other people, loving and experiencing love. Kant and Hegel were basically trying to boil human existence down to a system of thought and action, in which everything could be forseen, because everybody were acting the same way because they were following a set of rules of what to do. Kierkegaard argued that they were just making life easy for themselves by making a list of rules of what to do in certain situations. Kierkegaard doesn't want us to do good because it has been rationalised to be good. He wants us to do good out of love for each other, knowing that all people are different.
so in essence, religion is necessary for a meaning to life. that's his argument and its flawed simply on the basis that there exists a society like the piraha that are the happiest people on earth that dont actually have a religion or creation story whatsoever.
This was extremely well written! I wholeheartedly agree!
I agree with a lot of what Kierkegaard has to say. Reason cannot be an end unto itself, otherwise, life serves no purpose. Example: I eat to live, I live to work, I work to get money, and I use money to eat. There's no end purpose, so it makes no difference whether I die today or never. However, if at some point I do something that serves no rational purpose, but which gives my life meaning in my own mind, such as creating a piece of art, then my life has served a purpose, and everything else supporting my life becomes justified.
Shawn Ravenfire The desire to create art can still be justified rationally. You can peel away the psychological layers back to the point where you discover that expressing yourself makes you happy. If you peel away even further, you'll be able to trace how it makes you happy all the way back to satisfying a primitive need, the same need which made humans from thousands of years ago do the same. Then you'll be armed with all the data necessary to justify your behavior on logical premises in terms of a goal as seemingly remote as "survival".
We usually don't apply that level of introspection and it's easier to simply accept these things for granted as acts of passion and humanity, but there's still a deep-rooted machinery driving all of us. The desire to attribute meaning itself has a deep-rooted psychological cause and recurses back to a deep-rooted primitive goal.
One of the things about us that might seem "irrational" is that we're more driven by the anticipation of a reward than the reception of it. We're programmed to be motivated into action by the "hunt" more than the "meal", so to speak. It seems irrational yet there are rational reasons behind why this is useful to our survival.
Understanding this can be a bit depressing so it's usually better to take it for granted. It's uncomfortable taking such a deep, hard look in the mirror. Yet what we label as "irrational" is usually the result of either complexity or bad data. When it comes preferential behavior that eludes our ability to justify it, it's merely the result of complexity.
As intelligent beings, we build enormous layers of abstractions to obscure those underlying needs. It's why it's easier to understand happiness and your own behavior as a much simpler construct as child, for example. You haven't developed the experience and reasoning capabilities yet to build such complex abstractions away from your primitive needs and desires to obscure them to the point of becoming no longer obvious.
It's that accumulated complexity that makes happiness and meaning and purpose out to be such a complex notion puzzling philosophers. The difficulty scales with the complexity. It boils down to simple sources but we build so many abstractions on top of them as a result of the complexity of our own reasoning multiplied by the complexity of the environment we live in (finding happiness in a civilized society is more difficult than in a jungle because that kind of environment multiplies this fundamental complexity driving all of our behaviors). It's why depression is largely a civilized notion, because that multiplication of complexity can lead you to abstract away your primitive goals to a point where you construct such obfuscated and indirect ways to fulfill those goals that they no longer effectively do so.
We take a lot of pride in that complexity, believing human behavior is mysterious and capable of acting completely unconstrained ("free will"). Yet we forget that there was a point in our lives when we were just babies crying for our mother's milk and being happy when we received it with behaviors even simpler and reasoning capabilities even less sophisticated than a dog. We may build enormous complexity throughout our lifetimes, yet our driving force isn't so different from that baby we all started out being.
Sir Simplexton A+ Comment. Read all of it and agree with most of it. I do think that depression also comes from out physiological needs not being met. I mean, if you don't exercise enough, sleep enough and spend enough time in nature. I feel like a lot of our mental heatlh issues arise because we have striven so far from our natural environment. You can think of yourself as a zoo keeper that has to care for the animal called human being.
I also think that one of the leading causes of unhappiness is that we are biologically inclined to be unsatisfied and stuck in this endless cycle of 1. struggle 2. get something you wanted 3. enjoy it for a moment 4. it becomes status-quo and no longer desired 5. repeat. We are stuck suffering from a feeling of unfullfilledness, a constant nagging feeling that you need just one more thing to be happy. The Buddha saw this and called it Dukkha and he based his philsophy around it. I've started practicing Zen Buddhist meditation and every day I try really hard to enjoy the things I have and focus on living in the moment and finding good in all the little things.
+Sir Simplexton insightful and pretty impressive example of connecting primitive man and modern man through angles of happiness,art,food...
+Sir Simplexton there is only one little problem and that is life is supposed to be a struggle :) ! and depression is a just next level shit ! and thats just the way it is
+nevermind Proof? You have no evidence that life is supposed to be anything other than what living is. It can be a struggle for some and not for others. Struggle does not equate living and living alone does not equate struggle. While there are needs that must be fulfilled, nothing expressly dictates that humans must struggle to acquire it.
Well everyone in the comments is an expert on Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard is saying something a lot more specific than what the video does justice to. First, he's not saying you have to choose between reason and emotion (objectivity and subjectivity), and he's not arguing against reason. He's saying that even if you choose reason you'll realize almost immediately that your life is basically meaningless. Nature is trying to kill you. The Universe doesn't care. There is no meaning to life. Nothing about reason (such as the laws of physics or the Universe) gives your life any sense of purpose or meaning. That is, in order to give your life meaning you more or less have to do so subjectively (reason doesn't really help because it's not saying anything). What you decide your life's purpose and goal should be is mainly up to you and it is mainly an emotional response that comes from introspection.
Superb summary of this philosophy of the man (who is, without question, a notoriously difficult read).
It seems as if at least one person here in the comments has studied Kierkegaard - and philosophy in general!
Your comment is a balm amongst barbs.
Nietzsche said that trying to give life meaning through rationality is like trying to get from 0 to 1 by multiplying. Glad to see a Christian and an Anti-Christian coming to the same conclusion.
Contemplating a discovering the complexity, mystery and aesthetic of universe can be one good meaning :)
@@mur4s4m3BETA, pathetic pick a better meaning😎☝️
You know, for so-called Philosophers, there's a lot of closed-minded people on this comment section.
If I could give you 42 thumbs up I would ;)
I love how it seems nobody was listening to the actual words being said in the video. It was said, repeatedly, that he advocated "not using *just* reason", and not "don't use reason and rationality at all!"
Most of the comments here are based on a misunderstanding of Kierkegaard.
+Moses Mikheyev what misunderstandings?
+Moses Mikheyev Well, the video is too short and designed to be entertaining, it's not nor do I think was it intended to be a thorough, detailed explanation of all his works.
Kierkegaard is one of the great thinkers of humanity. He's personally my second favourite philosopher after Wittgenstein. I just find language fascinating, im not expert on either of them.
PEOPLE! You shouldn't be so damn quick to judge the father of Existentialism! Seriously, many of the objections you guys are throwing in his face only serve to demonstrate you ignorance of his thoughts, especial when you are not taking the historical context into account. Existentialism, is about making something of yourself, rather than just being the product of your religion or culture. Don’t take the easy way out of life, and just be a mindless drone that just follows the crowd. Don’t be a sheeple, in other words. Instead pick the road less traveled and make something of yourself! THAT is what he means by a “leap of faith.” Furthermore reason is a tool for making decisions, but it has its limitations. He doesn’t think the biggest questions in life, can really be answered by reason alone. “Who should I marry? What will make me happy in life? How important are my kids? How important is family? Who should I love and who should I hate?” Many of the most important ideas in your life involve a great deal of passion. Life should be lived, passionately. Look at the time, philosophers were still thinking like Kant and Descartes. Descartes is the “I think, therefore I am” guy. The philosophers of his day were so overly focused on developing reasoning skills. The debated topics like “What do we really know?” or “What is true” and stuff like that. The kinds of problems that philosophers were interested in at the time, were completely inapplicable, to people lives. One of the central aspects of philosophy is to give meaning to life; which is something that his contemporaries forget. Ultimately, he didn’t think there was a logically objective meaning to life. The meaning of life, therefore must be a subjective question left to the individual. There may not be a meaning to life, but there can be a meaning to your life, if you decided to make something of yourself. If you take a change on yourself and passionately commit yourself to something, then that is a good way to give meaning to your life.
THE UNETHICAL ETHICIST well, not using reasoning is actually being a mindless drone in my opinion . Maybe I can use my reasoning and see that the "road less traveled" is the best one without making any leap of faith. As to your next point, all that passion has its own logic, though not accessible directly to your mind, otherwise, it would be random, in any case, our neural networks are programmed in specific patterns of activation connecting inputs to appropriate outputs. The whole idea this philosopher discuss seems wrong to me, he using his reason to conclude you can't answer questions by reasoning ,all that seems to me a way to blindly justify has faith
dementiamaster12 (Sigh) that’s because of 8-bit philosophy is not representing him very well. It’s not your fault. This is just a very poor explanation for his philosophy. He is not using the term, “reason” in the same way that we do now. He is NOT saying that we ought to just be illogical and just do whatever feels right. He is not “using his reason to conclude you can't answer questions by reasoning.” That’s a complete strawman. Kierkegaard was just trying to answer a different kind of question, than the other philosopher of his day. And without the historical or philosophical context, I don’t blame you for interpreting him as saying that we shouldn’t be rational. I really wish 8-bit would another rendering of him, but I don’t have the time to explain it to you. Sorry, if I had the time, I would.
THE UNETHICAL ETHICIST Thank you! This was well explained and it's great that you also brought in the historical perspective.
+THE UNETHICAL ETHICIST One of the best comments I've seen in a while.
It's philosophy. Philosophy is basically disagreeing with the other person almost exclusively. You challenge them to defend their point, even if you agree with it. You challenge every aspect of it and dismiss conventional thoughts on it. For a philosopher to NOT disagree with another is practically an insult. ...though it's rather unfair that he can't debate his point himself. The best thing about philosophy is that everyone is equally qualified to debate it. The "greats" of philosophy were simply surrounded by too many idiots who failed to tell them how wrong they were about everything they thought.That's why I can't say that you make great points defending his position, but instead say that while reason has it's limits... most people are nowhere near the point of those limits and are using emotional reactions to dictate decisions that REALLY need a rational decision to be made. And also... "who should you hate" is "no one". There is no need to hate anyone. If you do, it means you failed to understand them.I think the objective meaning to life is to realize that "you" are simply a tool by which DNA uses to continue IT'S existence. "you" are nothing but a pattern of neurons in a collective entity witch serves this purpose. This does not mean that you must personally have children necessarily, as it's not YOUR DNA that matters, but DNA itself... which includes all DNA. If you want humanity to spread to other planets... you don't need to get a human there, but simply any form of life that might perpetuate itself there and continue itself. These classifications of life are arbitrary divisions we created to help examine the pros and cons of each form.
My interest, my "passion", has always been to see the world through the clearest lens possible, to try to clear away the fog between my mind and the outside world (taking for granted that it exists, of course). It's a special kind of ecstasy to understand a little more about the world, to make a connection that renders something out of reach finally comprehensible. Even though Kierkegaard's ideas are more nuanced than this, I've always turned my nose up at the idea that "reality is what you make of it", "truth is subjective", etc. That's the way madness lies.
+PeacefulDrago
Isn't the decision to believe in God sufficient to demonstrate there is a true perspective, and wouldn't that allow truth to be part of the universe?
+Gootman Boats Yes, but it would be inconcievable by human beings.
R0DisG0D Why?
PeacefulDrago But what if the universe is merely an abstract concept?
And even if the universe isn't an abstract concept, there might be things in the universe that are abstract.
And I don't really understand how the way we model the universe is arbitrary.
PeacefulDrago "Most of our progress and discovery relies on and indicate the opposite."
Part of the reason it might indicate that the universe isn't an abstract concept is that it assumes the universe isn't abstract from the beginning.
"Everyone makes basic assumptions."
I'm pretty sure for any assumption anyone has, I can find at least one person who doesn't believe that assumption. Thus, in theory it would be possible to reject all assumptions.
"communication is formulated from the author's meaning and interpreted by the recipient into meaning"
Well, that is true, but I don't understand what communication has to do with whether or not we can have a true perspective.
This series is great. Keep em comin
I subjectively choose to choose objectively.
the objective decision would be make no decision.
You can use math!
Then you will live for others and you are more likely to never be satisfied
+Ricardo Santos the choice can in fact be made objectively in any scenario with any amount of time based on the fact that you can make a decision using the 'elements' which you do have and even if you perceive the outcome to be the unintended one you can use the knowledge you gained from your decision to improve your odds of success should a similar situation unfold in the future. Also, living your life subjectively is a form of rationality which justifies poor decision making and discourages pro activity.
Living objectively is impossible. We all have different reasoning, and are therefor not living objectively. Kierkegaard's criticism is of the other philosopher's of his time, who all said that there is one way to live, and by gathering empirical evidence we can find out exactly one must act throughout his life, and therefor everybody will be alike. This is especially true of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, who all thought that you could create a system of human action and thought, which would lead to the perfect world, where everyone were rational.
Kierkegaard says that this is actually not rational at all, because people aren't perfect and therefore can't create a perfect and rational world. He also states that by creating a system of action, you are just making it easy for yourself, instead of making the decision that might hurt, but that you thought was right. This can of course not be applied to politics and science, but only to the decisions of the individual when interaction with other people.
Subjectivity is best to be used when it comes to your loved ones, because you might very often get into dilemmas where no choice seems rational, and you can't reason yourself out of the situation. The choice you make might make other people angry, and it might not be very rational, but the most important decisions in life are the dilemmas. We must therefor act out of love and choose happiness, either our own or that of others, instead of pure reasoning.
These are amazing. Explaining philosophy with familiar 8-bit sprites really simplifies things. Its a shame they don't have more views, the net could learn a few things from them.
Love these videos. Keep up the good work Wisecrack!
Been looking forward to more of these.
For those of you who didn't get it:
If one were to live only by a means of pure rationality, or always making logical choices, these choices would no longer actually be "choices" because any and all like-minded rational persons would make the same choices. The instrument of reason would become the dictate of all things you do.
You may object that there are many logical choices you can make per situation, but there is a problem. Assume that rationality is defined by a function "f(x)" which contains x values as "prompts to make choices" and f(x) values as the "logically coherent choices" corresponding to the x values. If you know anything about functions, there is only one possible f(x) value per x value. Only one logical choice per prompt of choices. Only one rational choice is not a freedom of choice.
Now you may say that the world cannot be defined as a function. But if the world could not be defined as such an expression, then it could not be logically defined. Using logic in a non-logical world as a means of making choices is futile. Assume this place is deterministic and if we knew everything we would be able to reason out all the right answers.
Granted the world is a logical place, we can and should use reason as an instrument to understand our choices, but use our "will" as the dictate of our choices.
No religion was used in the posting of this comment.
Maybe something colloquial can help:
-You do not need to rationally define as to why you love your spouse. You must simply recognize that you love that person out of your "inward" will, or simply-your desire.
-You do not need have logical reason to aspire to become a musician. Assuming logic says you should stay in school and become an engineer, you should not have to make the safe and logical choice.
Logic should be used as a means, not an ends.
Keep em coming,i love these vids
This video has a beautiful message. Thanks for doing this!
love this series!
Love the 8 Bit Philosophy series as much as Thug Notes! Great work bros.
Nice summary. Great work.
I LOVE THESE KEEP MAKING!!!
These 8-bit philosophy shorts are some of the best videos on youtube
this is hands down my favorite channel of 2014
I have to say that my personal philosophy is directly opposed to Kierkegaard. It has been my observation that "choosing passionately" (or living by your emotional whims) has caused far more harm than good to the human race. It would behoove us to use logic more often than we do. My 2¢.
Personally, I think it's foolish to buy into the false dichotomy being presented by Kierkegaard and pretty much all the western thinkers since the Greeks that there is some strict divide between a person's rational faculties and their intuitive or non-rational faculties, or to believe that one is better than the other. We give these aspects names and pretend we have to choose between them, but really the 'rational' and 'intuitive' intertwine and cooperate to give you the tools you need to understand and interact with the world. Don't hamstring yourself by thinking you have to choose one or the other.
A purely intuitive worldview is incomprehensible, a purely rational worldview is empty.
Musical Fifths Thank you for bringing up one of the major flaws with many philosophic theories. People get too passionate about one idea they reject the validity of others. I really think there is more of a gradient to ideas that is not presented in this video. I do not know enough on Kiekegaard's work to know if he considers this idea though.
Edit: Just looked into more of his work, it appears he explored competing ideas through pseudonyms. He would write on an idea as one person then critic it as if he was another person. I actually really like that it shows he could really think on a subject and not just focus on his ideals.
I don't think that Kierkegaard is actually suggesting that we let emotions take the reigns so much as he is suggesting that in the end, our final decisions on the meanings of our lives is going to have a subjective element we ultimately cannot remove.
Therefore, we don't decide our 'meaning of life' with rationality but with a 'leap of faith' instead, where we treat something subjective like it is objective in our worldview. He applied it to Catholicism, but I think it still makes sense no matter what view of life you subscribe to.
To many existentialists, myself included, a life devoted to something you are passionate about has much more meaning and fulfillment than the alternative...that doesn't equate to making your decisions with your emotions.
If you lived strictly by reason and not being afflicted by emotion. You in the case of the princes and old men, would let both die. You would only do everything that is essential to live and have no hobby, mood, close ones or the need to see this video. So liking it or not, you are still guide by your passions as told by Kierkegaard. They are only more strict in your case.
Well, that would be extreme, wouldn't it? Just living for ONLY reason. No, that would not be good, either. But we as a species could use far more reason than we do right now. So many people live their lives simply reacting to the emotion of the moment, rather than really thinking things through.
Amazing Videos! Thanks!
It seems Kierkegaard was more interested in the individual's feeling than in the overall communal benefit. To reject rationality for subjectivity is to reject a normally widely beneficial outcome for a normally selfish outcome (i.e. "I feel good or meaningful, despite the consequences to others").
I love these!
I really enjoy your videos, is there anyway to access them without the background music?
I'm so happy I found this channel because of the Fine Bros. Got a lot of catching up to do. :D
Something tells me that a lot of people decided to be hatin' on my man Soren the moment they heard he's from the christendom part of town, without actually bothering to pay attention to the video. They see me christian philosophizin', they hatin'.
I don't know that he agrees with all of the philosophies he makes videos about. It seems more like he's merely making videos about interesting philosophical ideas.
brilliant work
this videos are so dope, man ti makes philosophy just that bit more fun
It seems that Kierkegaard shows the subjectivity of certain religious ''philosophers'' towards the objectively measurable reality which they can not accept.
That which he can not fathom or accept in real life becomes ''irrational'' or ''something that must be decided subjectively'' from his perspective.
This is an excellent example of what we in the West must be wary of: a philosophically inspired but religiously motivated ''straw man'' intended to debunk actual science in favour of religious lies.
If I may make a suggestion for a future episode, how about an episode based on Bertrand Russell?
Love these.
Many commentators are saying it's bad reasoning for Kierkegaard to believe in God through this 'subjective' way of thinking. I hope I can clarify a bit what he means:
Kierkegaard is responding is Hegel, who said that history is following a rational path that eventually and inevitably leads to a fully rational state of things. He also is not fond of institutionalized Christianity, which he says prescribes dogmatic ways of living.
Rather, Kierkegaard believes that the only way to be fully 'human' is to act in accordance with human passions and choice (free will). This leads one to sometimes act irrationally. However, the alternative Hegelian view meant that there were no 'free' choices to be made, as one in the fully rational state MUST always obey the most rational choice. Therefore, Subjectivity, and choices which are not determined by rationality must be a part of the mixture of human activity if it is to be free at all.
Kierkegaard chooses to believe in God, taking a 'leap of faith', but he most certainly does not believe in the dogmatism of the bible, God, or Christianity. He believes God gave us free will, and we must therefore use it even on those teachings he bestowed.
Please, do an episode on The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka!
I love this channel.
Man you guys just ask all the right questions
It's called 'Concluding UNscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments'
Nice to see the true kindness atheists show to religious people in the comment sections of videos like these.
faith = belief without evidence. People believe that faith is a virtue and there has to be at least some people who ridicule or mock as a means to attack a silly position
ThePharphis ridiculing and mocking are NOT how you get people to change their minds. It makes you seems like a douche and solves nothing. Nice rational thinking....
TheMrWreckz This isn't always true. If we were all polite about every disagreement a lot less would change. There is always a need for ridicule. I'm not saying ALL people arguing should ridicule or mock, but there is certainly a need for it.
look at Colbert and Jon Stewart... they mock and joke about everything and they're doing a BETTER JOB at teaching people politics than ANY news network they were compared to. Yes, there stuff is set out to sound more friendly but it's mocking nonetheless
ThePharphis there stuff is more friendly because it is done comically, and last i checked both of them have their religious beliefs and are wonderful members of society.
TheMrWreckz I wasn't saying they poke fun at religions specifically (though they do) I meant politically.
There is still room for mocking in some areas of disagreement. Holocaust denial, for example
I'd love to see an episode on Thomas Aquinas.
Kierkegaad - "Don't *just* use reason. Be passionate!"
Comments - HE DOESN'T WANT US TO USE REASON! RADDA RADDA RADDA RELIGION IS STUPID RADDA RADDA!
Sounds to me that the people in the comments are passionately choosing to be irrational.
My passion tells me to go burn down the nearest house and steal the valuables from the rubble in order to afford drugs and prostitutes. Reason meanwhile says yeah lets not to that and just do things in a way that won't cause massive downsides even though its boring.
+Viking the Shambling it could be argued that reason would make one weigh pros vs cons in this instance and that, if not for the rules and laws set by man the pro to arson theft outweigh the cons.
Moghamed Solarie Laws won't be factored in. Nobody can enforce the law when they're all burning or getting an ax in the mouth.
+austin waterhouse Or a human being with an inability to douse the urges of your ID with the Super ego
Dweliq And you're much better talking down to someone over the internet where you know you're safe from a physical retort?
Even then thats just pointing out how fucking bad and idea listening to passion is because some people have shit like that as their dream.
Viking the Shambling Ive beaten up four people in my life. When I threaten them, it has 100% success rate. The reason why I clearly know that youve never been in a real fight is that you talk about it over internet. Real fighters dont talk about fighting, they fight.
While I do not *completely* agree with Kierkegaard, I differ with the majority of comments. I do not think that rationality gives life meaning. It is, instead, a tool for understanding the truth and making better decisions.
I identify as an atheist and a Hedonist, and I consider happiness to be the highest good, exceeding even truth. Most of the time, truth, rationality, logic, and happiness are not particularly in conflict, and, in fact, truth, logic, and rationality can be very effective in the pursuit of happiness, but I only value these things to the extent that they do promote happiness. In rare cases where they conflict, I would rather be happy, content, and utterly, objectively wrong than to be right and miserable.
My happiness is a complex thing, though. I gain happiness not only from immediate pleasure, but more so from self-esteem, from feeling that I am a good, loyal person doing good things, helping others, and increasing my understanding. For that reason, I *almost never **_consciously_* eschew reason for happiness. However, if a discussion or community becomes too much to bear, even if I am learning from the experience, if that learning comes at the cost of misery, then I will make the choice to remove myself from that environment and simplify my life somewhat to improve my happiness.
That said, this is my choice, not one I demand or even expect of others. I believe that it is up to each of us to determine the meaning of our own lives, and I am _happier_ when I internally "allow" everyone to follow their own path with minimal criticism and judgment on my own part.
I welcome your reactions and thoughtful critique! Have a wonderful day! :)
+agiar2000 What a thoughtful discussion. It's so rare to read someone who even recognizes that our values follow a hierarchy. I value truth above happiness, but there's nothing objectively better about the decisions I make over someone who feels the opposite.
I also identify as an atheist, but I feel that it's strange that you are as well. While I don't find the truth claims of theists compelling, I think a good case can be made for the benefits of belief. As Kierkegaard claims, religion can one to meaning, and meaning to happiness. Often when I confront theists about belief, they assume I'm a nihilist based on the premise that I must not have meaning -- and they're right about my lack of "meaning".
I feel that "meaning" is the output of the "left-brain interpreter" that tries to explain why we do what we do. Split-brain patients have been given instructions such as "walk", and when asked why they're walking, they make up an excuse such as "I was going to get a drink". In the absence of a reason for doing what they're doing, they feel they have to justify it. So when people find that they're living, despite the fact that they never chose to be born or live, they still feel the need to justify their life with a reason. I accept that it was beyond my control that I was born, and I don't feel that I need a reason for having been born, or "meaning" for life.
So have you found "meaning" without religion, or do you (like me) just not feel a need for it?
Supernova Kasprzak
Thank you for your reply!
To answer your question, I would say that I have decided that the meaning in my life is happiness. This feels to me slightly like an independent choice, since I could select a more specific goal to which to devote myself, such as wealth, rank, or the approval of a specific person or group of people. However, this decision about happiness being my meaning also seems somewhat like a simple, objective observation of what motivates me as a happiness-seeking entity, an evaluation, rather than a choice.
As for _why_ I was born in the first place, I asked my mother that once, since she chose to become pregnant with me, and she had little insight to give me. It simply felt to her and to my father like time for another baby, as I recall. The personal reasons my parents had for intentionally conceiving me do not really specify anything about to what I ought to devote myself, though. I am responsible for deciding that myself. Even if, by some meta-physical belief system, I _had_ "chosen" to be born for a specific reason, that would not restrict me to living by that reason for my entire life. I can always change my mind and decide that I should do something else with my remaining life.
Whether it is a choice or, instead, a description of objective reality, having happiness as my life's meaning is important to me because without some basic principle to guide me, I feel that my life strategies might be more instinctual and less reasonable than if I take conscious control. When faced with a big life choice, I may need to think to myself "Is this going to make me happier?" If I do not ask myself that question consciously, my choice might, instead, be based on the answer to a subconscious question such as "Do I feel like doing this?", "Do I feel as though I am _expected_ or _ought_ to do this?", "Am I afraid of missing out if I do not do this?" or even "Is this part of the plan I am already following?" Each of these questions can be helpful in an overall thought process, but taken alone, they are less likely to inform the happiest path than the question "Will this make me happier?"
The game of life is an open-ended one with many different strategies and no single generally-accepted objective. Some choose to explore as much as possible, some choose to follow a specific path as closely as possible, et cetera. I choose to go for the happiness high-score. :)
Have a wonderful day!
agiar2000 Thanks for responding. It's nice to see so much thought put into your position.
While I do value truth above happiness, I do rank happiness very highly. I have a theory (and I put up a video arguing) that there are four values that decide political affiliation. I think that liberals value happiness most above freedom, justice, and security in that order. Conservatives have those same values in the opposite order. Libertarians value justice most, then freedom (and maybe happiness third? I'm not so sure about that one). I base this on the values each side defends when arguing their position. In the video, I used the example of abortion: liberals care about the happiness of the mother and the freedom of choice, while conservatives argue for the security of the baby's life and the fairness to the innocent child. Another example could be taxes, where liberals want the most people possible to be happy and to be able to move upward, while conservatives want their money to stay in their pocket and feel that people should only get paid for their productive output. Of course not every single liberal or conservative fits in these boxes, but I see them as a general trend.
All of that is to say that if my hypothesis is true, then you are a liberal. I myself am a liberal. I do find a lot of value in happiness, more than freedom, and freedom more than justice, and justice more than security. Are you a liberal? Do you agree with my argument? Do you see a flaw (or flaws) in it?
Supernova Kasprzak
Thank you again for your response! It is rare to see a thoughtful, courteous conversation in UA-cam comments!
Yes, I identify as liberal.
The way that you describe the ranking of these values corresponding to different political affiliations reminds me of how I saw it described in a political science course in college ten years ago:
My instructor described it as a two-dimensional grid with one axis being freedom versus order and the other axis being freedom versus equality. My instructor then stated that liberals tend to value equality over freedom and freedom over order, which does match my own values, conservatives value order over freedom and freedom over equality, libertarians value freedom over both order and equality, and communitarians value both order and equality over freedom. These descriptions make sense to me.
I would rank those four values you mentioned in the following way:
1. Happiness
Tied for 2nd: Freedom & Security
4. Justice
Freedom and security are sometimes at odds, but there is a great spectrum between them, so it is really hard to rank them. I am okay with giving up some freedoms for some securities, and vice versa, but not others. Which freedoms I am more comfortable giving up are partly determined by my own personal biases, based on my own predispositions and personal experiences. A hypothetical person, for example, might happily accept strict gun controls in the belief that it brings greater security against mass shootings but strongly oppose government surveillance, seeing that as a deep violation of privacy and freedom of speech not worth the benefit of easier government investigations of suspected threats.
As for the last of those values in your list, I feel that I value justice less than most people. I am less concerned with people getting what they deserve and more concerned with people getting what they need or with people getting what will make them happy. I do understand that punishment can be valuable to the general good as a deterrent when applied properly, but its value to me is limited to "how will this make the future better" rather than having direct value in giving the guilty what they deserve, per se.
Of course, I think that we both recognize that all of these descriptions, rankings, and "rules of thumb" are oversimplifications. One of the flaws is that these words mean different things to different people. "Justice" is an excellent example. To some, it means punishment of the guilty. To some, "justice" means better treatment for traditionally oppressed groups. "Freedom" can also be open to some level of interpretation. In some ways, I see political affiliation similar to the difference in species. There are some general ideas of what "defines" a species, and that species will tend to stay roughly the same generation to generation due to the limited gene pool, much as someone in a given political sphere will tend to fall in line with the others with whom they already agree mostly, since we like to be like those with whom we associate, and when we spend much time in echo chambers, the assertions we hear repeated over and over start to seem like they are obviously true. However, there will also be edge cases and oddballs that defy clear delineation, and these, as in the process of speciation, may sometimes be the beginning of a new branch splitting off from a previous one, or it may turn out to be a dead-end. Labels can be very helpful in getting the broad strokes, having a general impression of the values to which to appeal when speaking to a broad audience, but too much emphasis on specific labels can lead to failing to see the nuance that exists in the complex reality beneath them.
Thanks again for the stimulating discussion, and have a great day! :)
agiar2000
Thanks for the response. It's nice to look forward to seeing a comment rather than dread that someone has disagreed with a statement I've made... even though you've disagreed. ;) At least I don't feel like I'm talking to a wall.
I like your instructor's grid. It makes a bit more sense than my hierarchy. Also, I've confronted the problems with different words meaning different things that you brought up. For example, on the issue of gun control, conservatives tend to want guns because they want to defend themselves against home intruders and an oppressive government. It's easy to call this an appeal to "security". However, liberals tend to not want guns in the hands of violent or crazy people. Isn't this also an appeal to "security"? If I really wanted to, I could shape it as an appeal to "happiness", and that slipperiness makes the whole argument a little too artful and subjective. I didn't get this criticism from my comments section, though, which is why it's nice to have a rational person to discuss thoughts with.
This discussion has little to do with Kierkegaard anymore, but I'd still like to be able to write to you. My email address is starcrash6984@gmail.com if you'd like to keep up the conversation.
Have a great day!
Wish UA-cam had more channels with thought-provoking materials and viewers with interesting reflections on those materials.
Awesome!
dat helix fossil reference doe
Whenever I invest time in learning about philosophy I feel like my responsibilities and the capitalist system I live in will crush me if I don't immediately do something productive now from the viewpoint of that system.
Derp.
This sounds a lot like Immanuel Kant's view of morality. He bases morality on autonomy (making choices for yourself). Great video guys!
Could you do an episode on Camus please?
I highly recommend the "Giants of Philosophy" series of audiobooks on youtube if you really want to learn about philosophers.
The narration and graphics remind me so much of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
I miss this series
Yo, I am drinking Long Island iced tea, taking pictures of baby rabbits, and now watching this video.
That’s real meaning right there
2:10 was a pretty good point.
the first philo video which i have problem understanding... could you have 2nd channel for more detailed explanation?
''He said religion therefore his argument is invalid...'' (?)
Yes, arguing with others about the existence of God is invalid.
Having read plenty of Kierkegaard myself, I can say without a doubt that he believed that reason is bad because it disproves religion (and he outright says that several times across some of his works). In his words, logic and belief don't mesh. However, being a religious man, he choses to go down the nonsensical road rather than go where all the evidence points, because to him, that id the correct choice. It's no wonder that Kierkegaard's arguments rarely make sense to the nonreligious, because Kierkegaard himself swore off reason in favor of religion in almost every aspect of life.
I've never understood people desire for 'meaning' in life, why does it have to mean something, why can't we just try be happy
"If you want meaning in your life then simply do something meaningful" -Sagan. There is no conflict with having meaning in your life and being rational. In addition rationality, therefore skepticism, does offer a satisfactory answer to god's existence in nature, its called being an agnostic atheist.
"Truth is subjective", amazing he figured it out without a double slit experiment.
FINALLY! A comment that actually made me laugh!
You got the title of the book wrong. I went to purchase it--it's "concluding unscientific postscript to philosophical fragments"
On the issue of ethics and morality, I tend to agree with Kierkegaard. I have never been able to buy objective/universal ethics. However, I also believe that meaning cannot be found through objective or subjective means. No matter what your avenue, no meaning in life exists.
Speaking of which, you should do an episode on Camus and Absurdism.
+Richard Rominger On the topic of objective ethics, what if one were to say that certain desires are universal amongst all humans (e.g. desire for personal freedom of speech, long-term happiness, e.t.c). And that since these desires are universal, then any action I commit against another that fulfils none of their universal desires (and, in fact, diminishes their ability to fulfil them) is objectively wrong?
An example of an objective moral value would be "torturing people for fun is wrong". It fulfils none of the universal desires of the person affected by the decision (i.e. the tortured), and in fact diminishes their freedom and happiness, e.t.c. Would that be a sufficient proof that ethics (at least some of it) is objective?
Sideeq Mohammad If you assume that utilitarianism, which is not objective morality, is correct and any action which maximizes happiness and freedom for everyone, then yes. But who's to say that the feelings of others have intrinsic value? What if you're a hedonist?
My point is that morality and ethics is a grey blob of values, variables and decisions. Any attempt to draw stark lines in this grey blob to create a side of "right" and "wrong" are futile and contrived.
Richard Rominger "But who's to say that the feelings of others have intrinsic value?"
Well... people, in general. After all, I think we can agree that morality is a SOCIAL theory (meaning it relates to how people treat 1 another). Morality, I believe, arose as a social theory to help people get along with each other for mutual safety and benefit.
And if some1 just says that "why are others' feelings important?", I would just say... Because that's what morality is based on. If humans were just emotionless robots unable to feel pain, morality wouldn't even exist.
And if some1 says "I don't care about others. It's ok to torture others", I would just say... since that goes against the fundamental basis of morality, u r just immoral.
P.S. I didn't mean my original comment to be interpreted in a strictly utilitarian sense, although u could take a utilitarian approach to it if u want.
"Nobody is here on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere and we are all going to die" - Morty
Nice!!!
Sick intro :D
Okay, Kierkegaard has convinced me to sacrifice myself to the alien gods on Haley's comet.
It says Helix Fossil under the Cross statue
I'm very much disappointed in how many people are throwing away this philosophy merely because the philosopher chose something different from them. The main point is to passionately choose without the constraints of rationality and take a leap of faith. The ones who chose science as their leap of faith are doing it the same way as Kierkegaard chose God as his leap of faith.
Shatterhand. An underrated classic in my own opinion.
Um.. did anyone notice at 1:13, I quote hegel, "the owl of minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" lol
I like the attention given to the "leap of faith" part.Although when the vid said "meaning",I would personally have picked "purpose" instead but I'll give it an okay if it was direct quoting from Kierkegaard that was being done.
1:20-1:42
"those who live solely by the dictates reason areunder the illusion that they are living meaningful lives..'or nothing can define the meaning in my life for me
not even reason truth cannot be mediated by society, science or authority..
I must orient myself towards these things"
Makes me think about how if hypothetically *everyone* was consistently doing things and going by some high-tuned reasoning and logic then we would risk as much conformity and complacency as we do when we go wholly on intuition,emotional appeal or the "appeal to authority" in the "ultimate authority" we all live among,ppl;who would be getting feedback to every whim via opinion results and administrators if you don't have mediating factors. Ideals like preferring to always minimize harm to life and letting it emerge,justice,love, equality,peace,flourishing knowledge, acceptance etc esp.when they intermingle with emotions and reason,what motors the are :D! .
I'm curious to see if a vid on Derrida and his topics will ever be made and I'm more curious to see a vid on Heidegger done.Someone who you have to know how to "read politically" b/c as nice as some of his ideas may be he lived to let them be used in Nazism which brings to question the weight of the responsibility he had for having let that happen and how his apologies were like.
Thug Notes, these are so great. Thank you.
isnt it called 'concluding UNscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments' ?
Hot damn, was that Solbrain at 0:39?
Didn't know you guys are into tokusatsu lol
Artists subjectively choose their passions; not objectively the money.
Do a video on Kant and moral law
Kirkegaard's POV compromites the difference between philosophy, which makes it way to the ultimate trtuh about ontoligal reality through rationality and the religuous way to reach the same with the means of irrationality.
Isn't it ironic how many passionate and/or irrational comments are written here?
Well played, Kierkegaard.
2:46 151 helix fossil......i love it
This reminds me of why I joined the Marines. It would totally make sense to go to college after high school and get a job. It would also make sense to join any other branch besides the Marines for benefits. But I joined the Marine Corps knowing that I would have the shittiest lifestyle. I guess it's because it had the most meaning to me.
Two things: this is a great, succinct video for this who have issues moving beyond Kierkegaard's personal experience of God when ascending to the "religious" state, as he only speaks of such in relation to God.
Second: there are more comments explaining Kierkegaard because there are too many people commenting misinterpretations of Kierkegaard than there are comments misinterpreting Kierkegaard.
To those who don't believe in Subjective truths, I give you this: "What destroys a person more quickly than to think, to feel without inner necessity, without a deep personal choice, without joy - as an automaton of 'duty'" "A virtue has to be our invention, our most personal defence and necessity."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Each one of us should devise his own virtue, his own categorical imperative. A people perishes if it mistakes it's own duty for the concept of general duty. If we ask "goodness for what purpose?", so must we also ask "knowledge for what purpose?". The scientist too often behaves as the servant of knowledge; instead, let knowledge be the servant of man. By science what we have achieved are descriptions of greater and greater complexity and sophistication. But we have explained nothing. Such phenomena remains as magical to us as they did to the most primitive human beings.
my eyes are looking at my hands hard
Complex indeed;
reason is what allows us to measure the meaning of things. You take experiences and use them to guide your next action, a risk vs reward. If I where to make a leap of faith and the worse that can happen to me is that i fall 4ft I would be more willing to take that leap vs is the fall where 400ft.
i concur, in the end, it all comes down to you
The only thing I agreed with Kierkegaard here was that truth is subjective. Most of it sounds like a zealot justifying his own fanaticism and trying to tell everyone else that they can't rationally come to a conclusion that they're living a meaningful life. Also, there is an assumption that rationality and faith cannot work together. A rational human being can decide to bet on the outcome of an unlikely event and know that, despite the low probability of a favourable result, the risk is worth the reward. His rhetoric is built to fit the mould of a person who finds meaning in the form of a personal deity; A rational secular person can come to an existentialist absurdist conclusion and decide that even if there is meaning, one can never know it and the search for it would be meaningless, and as such one should simply create their own meaning.
I think someone said in another comment that rationality does not necessarily give life meaning, and I completely agree with this statement, I do think rationality is a tool. However, it can provide someone with a path to either finding or creating meaning; Therefore, rationality is instrumental to giving life meaning.
I find this interesting, the thing about us humans, that makes us different, a high level of reasoning ability, makes us want a meaning to life, or life with meaning. It creates these questions. If you could poll the rest of the animal kingdom, it'd probably be, pass their genes on. Very simple, but for us, we've made it difficult, and it only seems like as society progresses, it'll get more complicated. Survival isn't enough. And what would the meaning be anyway? Impress something, admiration of society, personal goal? Maybe just bigger versions of stuff we seem to need already, cause we're social creatures, with inherent needs, that drive us to be social.
But if you think about it, everything we do is to survive. We form societies so we can continue existing individually. We have kids just so our genes(part of ourselves) can continue existing. We have life philosophies and believes just to make sense of the world and continue living in it(even irrational explanations like religion follow this principle, it all makes sense, since everything is created by God).
Of course, from where I stand, everything looks pointless and meaningless. That's the tragedy of intelligence, at the end, you start to understand that everything up to this point has led to nothingness.
The thing that makes me happy as a person is that since nothing has a point, then every argument is equally valid. Why would I do anything in life and not just kill myself? This philosophy is just as true as the contrasting one. It makes surviving easier.
The two best ways to not be insane are these- you either live like an animal, never questioning anything and riding the current, or to find your own individual way. The first one is easier, the the second is better. What lies between is often madness.
asendimchev1996 For me at least, I think there is a sweet spot, between the two. There are a lot of things you should question, and create your own views and answers to, and certain things, just go with it, or let it go. You can spend your whole life looking for the meaning to life, only to find, you forgot your life along the way. Some of the questions we create, may not have answers, because the only place they are meaningful, is in our minds. Nature will have no concept of such things, and therefor no meaningful answer to be found in it.
For me personally I answer it with, the "meaning" would just be, survival, try and leave the world a better place, so there is a future for my species. It's an opinion based off nature, which gave me this life, I figured i can owe it that much. So in a way, I didn't just let it go, and nature had an answer for me, which was a requirement for a satisfactory answer, for me. But it helped not expecting an answer at all, and leaving that option open to any question I may have. I know a lot of people seem to be looking for a lot more complicated answer than that. Maybe it actually is all just me in control, and realizing occasionally, for your own sake, you got to just go with your instincts.
Certainly is a tough topic, anytime you're dealing with the human mind, so many possibilities, and at some point, it seems to shift from philosophy, to life advice, with so many more possibilities. It is easy to become obsessed with it, needing to know. So it is just a hobby for me, I'm just here for a good time, it keeps me sane. Important to find that balance.
There's a lot of Passion in these comments.
wade adakai Great comment! Thumbs up! :)
It kind of sounds like... if he was a cell he would be informing others cells in which would become cancer. How do you say to someone who is a left/right/[blank] extremist "Follow your heart." ?
Oh, so that's why Neo choses Trinity over the entire human race in the matrix Reloaded :D
Quem diria, ver o famoso salto da fé de Kierkegaard representado em video-game 8-bit!
Kierkegaard and Rand are more or less opposites. While Kierkegaard chooses to subjectively, Rand chooses objectively, Kierkegaard says follow God, Rand says there is no God, Kierkegaard hounds logic for its ease and pleasure it builds, Rand promotes logic because it creates ease and pleasurable materials. Kierkegaard says logic masks a drive for meaning and purpose, Rand says logic allows one to find meaning and purpose by creating. How wonderful would it be to sit both of them in the same room and watch.
+Alexander Saladin unfortunately we would soon be disappointed to discover that Rand would probably refuse to speak to Kierkegaard whatever and would denounce any sense in having a debate with someone who doesn't believe there is an objective answer to the question being debated XD
+Enrich Your Life Yeah that's the problem with Rand, she was nowhere near as rational in reality as she would have liked to be. Maybe she is proof that human nature entails only a kind of limited capacity for rationality anyway.
+Rachael Lefler Rachael I believe that humans - as individuals - have a limited capacity for rationality in that they tend towards supporting their own beliefs, but as a group they have a far better capacity to reach rationality if they challenge one anothers opinions. This is the problem with Rand's approach - the echo chamber effect.
You need to have people around who think differently from you do but who are very well versed in their views and well educated - debating an idiot will give you false confidence. Debating a smart person will challenge you.
Indeed :)
Rand was barely even a philosopher. Her arguments were poor, she didn't understand her opponents, and her ideology was both unsustainable and morally bankrupt. Fuck Ayn Rand.
If I live in the illusion my life has meaning, doesn't it?
yep, forever
So why exactly would being irrational give life more meaning...
Not really being irrational, just doing what you want to do. If you are in the position to safe the young girl or the man you shouldn't choose saving the man just because you want to act irrational but save him if that is what you really want to do even though society would call that choice irrational. Well, that's my interpretation I guess, or the interpretation I'd appreciate
* And that would mean you lived the way you wanted to and not the way you're told to and that is more meaningful. Just in my opinion of course :D
MrOreo2010 But the choice is totally irrational if the only info is there ages and gender. I don't really get it. It seems like the only reason you'd chose the old man in that situation is "for the hell of it".
Idk maybe he is your dad. If I had to choose between 10 kids and my mother for example, ehll I'd choose my mother, even though society wouldn't appreciate my choice or question the moral behind that act. In the end it's not REALLY irrational to choose to save your mom instead of 10 kids cuz it's your mom and there is a reason but I'm sure most people would think it's a bad choice.
OR again the man and girl scenario you should just follow your feelings ( that's what the video says) and if they really tell you to save the man just do it. I said you shouldn't just do it to act irrational, or like you said for the hell of it. I'd probably choose the girl but that's not relevant because we're talking about a fictive scenario.
It's more like your life is already irrational or "absurd" if you're into Camus.
I kind of want to read Kierkegaard now. I always want to read people that I disagree with so starkly, and I love how the old school religious practitioners can put rationality and piety in their proper place as antipodes. Faith is, after all, nothing more than the willing suspension of logical thought
Given that I am a budding Kierkegaard scholar, I must point out the HUGE error at 1:44. The title of his book is Concluding UNscientific Postscript.
Noted Nietzsche scholar Robert Solomon has come out to say that the Postscript is the "Bible of Existentialism" because of its exposition on subjectivity. Kierkegaard finds meaning through religion, others not. We can debate the core of this ad infinitum. The point of this video--regardless of how you feel about Kierkegaard--is that he was one of the first philosophers to recognize that rationality is not the end-all of human existence.
Rationality can only make sense of so much until you're left with a sense of bewilderment over what you should actually *do* with yourself (that is, what you should *choose* and *why* you should choose it). This is the emphasis existentialism places on subjectivity: it focuses on freedom, not ideology.