Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.89 AVERAGE
3.89 AVERAGE
Some interesting ideas here that actually rekindled my appreciation for what religion in its purest form can really mean--i.e., acknowledging one's own frailties and humbling oneself before something greater. But Kierkegaard fails to make a truly convincing defense of Christianity (indeed, claims that to defend Christianity is foolish--which is true to an extent, but is a real hamper on dialogue), relying on a whole array of unexamined presuppositions and occasionally baffling lines of reasoning rooted in a lexicon that he concocts yet does not fully explain, leaving his whole system to be at best madly ambiguous and at worst untenable.
Kierkegaard makes a big deal about how a spiritual "physician" has a more objective view of the spirit than everyone else, which is why true Christianity (the physician) is authorized to speak of it. That's all fine and good, but anyone can call themselves a physician--what's the metric by which one determines who is and is not a qualified arbiter of spiritual realities? Kierkegaard doesn't discuss this at all. Similarly, he celebrates the fact that Christianity does not require comprehension, only belief--he hails this as a great virtue, and yet if I were to apply that same metric to any other religion or, worst, mindless cult, I could achieve the same result: a comfortable self-assurance in my own beliefs regardless of how much sense they make, with absolutely no need for dialogue or corroboration. I see his point--it's faith, after all, and faith must be, well, taken on faith--but he doesn't offer any way to distinguish between healthy faith in what's true and dangerous faith in what's false. He merely begs the question that he has already answered for himself.
Other contentions I had with the text: 1) Near the end he emphasizes the Christian notion of "thou shalt" or "you shall"--I found myself wondering about good ole' "timshel," "thou mayest"; where does that fit into Kierkegaard's framework?; 2) He refers several times to the idea that the individual human being constitutes more than the human species, that "it is a perfection to be the single individual"; really his entire framework depends upon this notion of the individual individually sinning and being individually judged before God--and yet this obviously isn't the whole picture. As another reviewer on Goodreads, Kate Maver, points out, "we are socio-historical animals who swim in relationships and in cultures built on generations upon generations of relationships, and even the Christian faith that he parses, analyzes and ascribes would be nothing without its social fabric." Kierkegaard ignores the basic truth that inasmuch as we are separate we are also all connected; there are two sides to that coin, and he ignores one side of it completely--perhaps because if he actually acknowledged the myriad of interconnectedness it would be a lot less easy to assert 100% individual responsibility for one's personal reality, a reality that is never entirely in our hands but is affected by the hands of every person we ever come in contact with; and 3) Probably the most irresponsible thing Kierkegaard does in the book is condemn uncertainty; he argues that when someone says they're not sure or that they don't/can't know the truth about God or Jesus, that they're somehow "pretentiously" ignoring God. But how is admitting uncertainty more pretentious than feigning the opposite?
All of that being said, I do realize his main point would probably still hold; that even in the face of all that aforementioned interconnectedness and the many ways in which one's life has perhaps been somewhat "determined" by its surrounding circumstances, etc... that it's still that single individual's responsibility to, well, take responsibility for his spiritual being and choose right over wrong, faith over sin, transparency-in-God over despair, etc. I just think the human condition is so much more complicated than what Kierkegaard puts forth; I think his philosophy is too Christocentric to accommodate the real complexities of human life--which is a shame, because there really is a lot of good stuff in it. For example, I love when he gets downright sarcastic about things--it's not often that I get to laugh out loud at a book about despair.
Overall: a decent read, probably an essential one, but a bit too narrow-minded to really be life-altering for anyone who's not already a Christian.
Kierkegaard makes a big deal about how a spiritual "physician" has a more objective view of the spirit than everyone else, which is why true Christianity (the physician) is authorized to speak of it. That's all fine and good, but anyone can call themselves a physician--what's the metric by which one determines who is and is not a qualified arbiter of spiritual realities? Kierkegaard doesn't discuss this at all. Similarly, he celebrates the fact that Christianity does not require comprehension, only belief--he hails this as a great virtue, and yet if I were to apply that same metric to any other religion or, worst, mindless cult, I could achieve the same result: a comfortable self-assurance in my own beliefs regardless of how much sense they make, with absolutely no need for dialogue or corroboration. I see his point--it's faith, after all, and faith must be, well, taken on faith--but he doesn't offer any way to distinguish between healthy faith in what's true and dangerous faith in what's false. He merely begs the question that he has already answered for himself.
Other contentions I had with the text: 1) Near the end he emphasizes the Christian notion of "thou shalt" or "you shall"--I found myself wondering about good ole' "timshel," "thou mayest"; where does that fit into Kierkegaard's framework?; 2) He refers several times to the idea that the individual human being constitutes more than the human species, that "it is a perfection to be the single individual"; really his entire framework depends upon this notion of the individual individually sinning and being individually judged before God--and yet this obviously isn't the whole picture. As another reviewer on Goodreads, Kate Maver, points out, "we are socio-historical animals who swim in relationships and in cultures built on generations upon generations of relationships, and even the Christian faith that he parses, analyzes and ascribes would be nothing without its social fabric." Kierkegaard ignores the basic truth that inasmuch as we are separate we are also all connected; there are two sides to that coin, and he ignores one side of it completely--perhaps because if he actually acknowledged the myriad of interconnectedness it would be a lot less easy to assert 100% individual responsibility for one's personal reality, a reality that is never entirely in our hands but is affected by the hands of every person we ever come in contact with; and 3) Probably the most irresponsible thing Kierkegaard does in the book is condemn uncertainty; he argues that when someone says they're not sure or that they don't/can't know the truth about God or Jesus, that they're somehow "pretentiously" ignoring God. But how is admitting uncertainty more pretentious than feigning the opposite?
All of that being said, I do realize his main point would probably still hold; that even in the face of all that aforementioned interconnectedness and the many ways in which one's life has perhaps been somewhat "determined" by its surrounding circumstances, etc... that it's still that single individual's responsibility to, well, take responsibility for his spiritual being and choose right over wrong, faith over sin, transparency-in-God over despair, etc. I just think the human condition is so much more complicated than what Kierkegaard puts forth; I think his philosophy is too Christocentric to accommodate the real complexities of human life--which is a shame, because there really is a lot of good stuff in it. For example, I love when he gets downright sarcastic about things--it's not often that I get to laugh out loud at a book about despair.
Overall: a decent read, probably an essential one, but a bit too narrow-minded to really be life-altering for anyone who's not already a Christian.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Dạo này mình lảm nhảm về Kierkegaard ở những chỗ khác nhiều rồi nên tạm thời có lẽ không nên nói thêm gì ở đây nữa. Chỉ có điều là đọc những quyển thế này lắm lúc thấy khả năng đọc bằng tiếng Anh bị thử thách kha khá. Kiểu trong một câu từ riêng lẻ nào cũng biết, trong một đoạn câu riêng lẻ nào cũng hiểu, nhưng đọc xong cả đoạn lại đếch hiểu nổi mình đang đọc cái quái gì. Thực ra xét cho cùng nguyên nhân chắc cũng không phải là do kỹ năng đọc tiếng Anh nữa.
Tiêu đề của cuốn sách dựa trên Kinh Thánh (John 11:4), khi Chúa hồi sinh Lazarus và tuyên bố sự ốm yếu bênh tật của Lazarus không dẫn đến cái chết (The Sickness is not unto death). Đối với Anti Climacus (hay Kierkegaard), the sickness unto death không phải là sự ốm yếu bệnh tật về thể xác. The sickness unto death là cơn bệnh mang yếu tố tinh thần tâm linh, là sự hoàn toàn không ý thức được về bản ngã, là sự không ý thức được về ý nghĩa của sự tồn tại độc lập như một con người, là sự chối bỏ bản ngã khi ý thức được về nó, là sự chối bỏ bản ngã để tạo ra một hình ảnh của bản thể chỉ dựa trên các thành tựu và mục tiêu cá nhân chủ quan. Trên tất cả, với Kierkegaard (hay Anti Climacus), the sickness unto death là sự chối bỏ các các giá trị tinh thần tâm linh của Christianity. Bạn có thể không đồng ý với Kierkegaard vì bạn không tin vào các giá trị Thiên Chúa, thậm chí tự nhận mình là người vô thần, nhưng có lẽ bạn khó có thể phủ nhận rằng, một thời điểm nào đó, bạn nhận ra rằng trong xã hội hiện đại, càng với các tiến bộ tột cùng của khoa học kỹ thuật và đời sống vật chất, con người dường như càng hoang mang và lạc lối trong đời sống tinh thần, càng cảm giác thiếu đi một giá trị tâm linh nào đó cụ thể để bấu víu. Giữa một xã hội công nghiệp và thương mại hóa, con người dường như càng không dễ trả lời cho câu hỏi mình thực sự là ai và giá trị gì của bản thân thực sự là riêng biệt và thực chất giữa hàng trăm nghìn các tài khoản mạng xã hội ảo thật giả lẫn lộn. Mình có thực là con người mà mình trưng lên facebook, instagram, goodreads...cho mọi người chiêm ngưỡng. Và nếu không tin vào giáo lý Christianity, vậy thì bạn chọn cho mình điều gì là mục tiêu của cuộc sống tinh thần tâm linh nếu không đơn thuần chỉ là sự thỏa mãn về vật chất và dục vọng? Đối với Kierkegaard, sự thất bại cho việc trả lời các câu hỏi đó, chính là The Sickness Unto Death. Giống như khi Nietzsche tuyên bố God is Dead, ông không có ý rằng Chúa không tồn tại. Ngược lại, Chúa đã tồn tại và có ý nghĩa với cuộc sống tinh thần của con người trong quá khứ. Nhưng cùng với sự phát triển của xã hội hiện đại : God is dead, God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? (The Gay Science).
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Expands upon my favorite topics in Christianity: that sin is its own punishment, that the cross is as much man's reconciliation to God as God's reconciliation to man, that sin is the inversion of faith rather than of virtue. I especially enjoy his off the wall illustrations that are actually quite helpful and his psychological acuity - it almost makes me forgive him for being a monarchist (which does actually come up a few times in the book)
While still soothing to read, this iteration of Kierkegaard seemed both interesting and invested as well as a bit too particular in one's devotional status to God for me to entirely click with.
Soren Kierkegaard, the quintessential Depressed Dane, spent all of his free time pining for/stalking some poor woman who absolutely despised him. To cheer himself up, he wrote ponderous philosophical tomes like this one. To be fair, some of Kierkegaard's works are actually funny, if you happen to have a philosophy professor standing over your shoulder while you're reading to help you get the joke. This isn't one of his thigh-slappers. Basically, Kierkegaard writes about "man's" utter existential solitude before his "God." It's a premise that I just don't buy, because we are socio-historical animals who swim in relationships and in cultures built on generations upon generations of relationships, and even the Christian faith that he parses, analyzes and ascribes would be nothing without its social fabric. Well written, but I dislike Kierkegaard just as much as I dislike Proust.
challenging
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced