Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.89 AVERAGE
3.89 AVERAGE
Rather difficult to follow at times. Although I didn't necessarily agree will all the ideas presented, it was a useful/educational read; one I would probably have to go through again, after reading some (of his) other works, in order to fully grasp all the concepts.
One of my favorite philosophy books and a must read is this discourse on despair by Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard writes from a Christian perspective about what it means to be a Christian in the face of despair; however, everyone, Christian or not, can benefit from reading this book, and probably the greatest proof of that is that Kierkegaard's writings, although a Christian theologian himself, have influenced existentialism and writers that have defended atheism such as Jean Paul Sartre. Kierkegaard has been considered (if I remember well) a proponent of existentialism if not at least one of the pioneers of existentialism.
A word of caution: On certain passages, Kierkegaard responds indirectly to Hegelian Philosophy that he was opposing. It would be helpful to become familiar with the basic tenets of Hegel's philosophy, but it is not necessary if you want to just get the basic helpful parts of this book as I did.
A word of caution: On certain passages, Kierkegaard responds indirectly to Hegelian Philosophy that he was opposing. It would be helpful to become familiar with the basic tenets of Hegel's philosophy, but it is not necessary if you want to just get the basic helpful parts of this book as I did.
“Kierkegaard was by far the most profound thinker of the last century. Kierkegaard was a saint.” -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Way harder than the last book of his I read, Fear and Trembling. This book is way too far ahead of me, intellectually. That being said, I thought it was profound in the little I understood.
To summarize, Kierkegaard's focus for this book is to define what he calls "despair." Today we might think of despair as closely resembling depression on melancholia. However, his definition of despair is a disjointed relation between the self and itself. When I first read this, I had no idea what he meant. He's saying that there exists something called your true self. Your true self is a being that is in accordance with God and going off my last review has "faith" in the afterlife. So, your true self acts in accordance with God. The biggest point to note is that this true self has deliberated on the topic of death and has faith in the life after death, something he calls The Sicknes unto Death. As an example, this true self is not bothered by things like wealth, fame etc. Why? Because of the accumulation of wealth, your position in the government is in no significance to your spiritual life and your relation to God. Your wealth and position do not carry over into the afterlife. Right, so he argues, those greedy capitalists absorbed with material lives are really not living in relation true self. Hopefully, this makes sense.
He says despair is when your true self does not match your actual self. He gives three categories of this.
1. You don't realize your own despair. This is the worst form of despair. You are living your life in a video game incapable of understanding that you are inside a game. This is the most tragic life because it is in a sense unrealized. So he argues, the despair you feel sometimes called existential angst is good for you. It's waking you up from this stage of life. It's horrifying sure, but it'll move you out of your blissful existence.
2. You realize your despair but you don't want to be your true self. I think most people can fit into this category. Ernest Becker published a book on this called "The Denial of Death." Your rationality gets in the way of your life and you despair. You come to the unfortunate realization that life does not exist after death and that your 78 years on this earth form a sliver of light in infinite darkness. So what do you do to confront this? Multiple things; you can drown yourself in work, become fanatically religious or you kill yourself. It's dark, but this is really the next stage to enlightenment that you have to pass through.
3. You realize your despair and want to be your true self. You understand the problem that you are faced with and choose to act in accordance with God. To be honest, I didn't understand this passage completely, but it's really his explanation of the good life. You have the willpower to deny your rationality and follow the will of God.
The most interesting part of this book was his reflection on defending religion. His argument, which I think checks out, is that you are in essence ruining something by defending it. As soon as you enter into a dogmatic justification of God, to a certain point you don't believe in him. Because you unconsciously agree that it is possible the other side is right. Hence why you are defending. Overall, this is a long-winded review that probably didn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm hoping that if I reread this book I'll be able to grasp a better understanding of it.
Way harder than the last book of his I read, Fear and Trembling. This book is way too far ahead of me, intellectually. That being said, I thought it was profound in the little I understood.
To summarize, Kierkegaard's focus for this book is to define what he calls "despair." Today we might think of despair as closely resembling depression on melancholia. However, his definition of despair is a disjointed relation between the self and itself. When I first read this, I had no idea what he meant. He's saying that there exists something called your true self. Your true self is a being that is in accordance with God and going off my last review has "faith" in the afterlife. So, your true self acts in accordance with God. The biggest point to note is that this true self has deliberated on the topic of death and has faith in the life after death, something he calls The Sicknes unto Death. As an example, this true self is not bothered by things like wealth, fame etc. Why? Because of the accumulation of wealth, your position in the government is in no significance to your spiritual life and your relation to God. Your wealth and position do not carry over into the afterlife. Right, so he argues, those greedy capitalists absorbed with material lives are really not living in relation true self. Hopefully, this makes sense.
He says despair is when your true self does not match your actual self. He gives three categories of this.
1. You don't realize your own despair. This is the worst form of despair. You are living your life in a video game incapable of understanding that you are inside a game. This is the most tragic life because it is in a sense unrealized. So he argues, the despair you feel sometimes called existential angst is good for you. It's waking you up from this stage of life. It's horrifying sure, but it'll move you out of your blissful existence.
2. You realize your despair but you don't want to be your true self. I think most people can fit into this category. Ernest Becker published a book on this called "The Denial of Death." Your rationality gets in the way of your life and you despair. You come to the unfortunate realization that life does not exist after death and that your 78 years on this earth form a sliver of light in infinite darkness. So what do you do to confront this? Multiple things; you can drown yourself in work, become fanatically religious or you kill yourself. It's dark, but this is really the next stage to enlightenment that you have to pass through.
3. You realize your despair and want to be your true self. You understand the problem that you are faced with and choose to act in accordance with God. To be honest, I didn't understand this passage completely, but it's really his explanation of the good life. You have the willpower to deny your rationality and follow the will of God.
The most interesting part of this book was his reflection on defending religion. His argument, which I think checks out, is that you are in essence ruining something by defending it. As soon as you enter into a dogmatic justification of God, to a certain point you don't believe in him. Because you unconsciously agree that it is possible the other side is right. Hence why you are defending. Overall, this is a long-winded review that probably didn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm hoping that if I reread this book I'll be able to grasp a better understanding of it.
this is a book about existentialism from a very Christian perspective. it is known as “A Christian psychological exposition for upbuilding and awakening.” I can’t say I would have read this book on my own, as I was assigned it for a class, but alas…
here are my thoughts:
• Kierkegaard writes not from his own perspective, but takes on specific personas and writes from their perspectives. the persona writing this is known as Anti-Climacus. this person is an “uber” Christian and also incredibly misogynistic. he divides despair into feminine and masculine, essentially says that women can’t be Christian, and more
• while I do not agree with this perspective on almost all things, I do agree with their concept of Christianity vs Christendom. “Christians” misinterpret Christianity, and fall into Christendom, which is where your faith is dependent on authority from institutionalized versions of Christianity (which constitutes a real lack of faith).
• you cannot surface level read this book. if you do, none of it will make any sense. once you understand the main argument (the self is a relation that relates itself to itself and in relating itself to itself to another that constitutes the relation), the rest will make sense. but at face-value, this text is incredibly intimidating and I feel as thought this persona’s perspective is even a bit condescending of that.
rating: ⭐️⭐️/5. I know that Kierkegaard is a very respected philosopher. I find his personas fairly interesting, and I do recognize that this text was written in 1849. however, I could not get past the blatant misogyny present throughout this text and the condescending nature of the persona. I appreciate the effort into explaining existentialism, but it is simply not for me
here are my thoughts:
• Kierkegaard writes not from his own perspective, but takes on specific personas and writes from their perspectives. the persona writing this is known as Anti-Climacus. this person is an “uber” Christian and also incredibly misogynistic. he divides despair into feminine and masculine, essentially says that women can’t be Christian, and more
• while I do not agree with this perspective on almost all things, I do agree with their concept of Christianity vs Christendom. “Christians” misinterpret Christianity, and fall into Christendom, which is where your faith is dependent on authority from institutionalized versions of Christianity (which constitutes a real lack of faith).
• you cannot surface level read this book. if you do, none of it will make any sense. once you understand the main argument (the self is a relation that relates itself to itself and in relating itself to itself to another that constitutes the relation), the rest will make sense. but at face-value, this text is incredibly intimidating and I feel as thought this persona’s perspective is even a bit condescending of that.
rating: ⭐️⭐️/5. I know that Kierkegaard is a very respected philosopher. I find his personas fairly interesting, and I do recognize that this text was written in 1849. however, I could not get past the blatant misogyny present throughout this text and the condescending nature of the persona. I appreciate the effort into explaining existentialism, but it is simply not for me
challenging
inspiring
reflective
tense
I waited to review this book, partly because I didn't have time at the moment and partly because I was hoping my head would stop spinning (part one of this book had a kind of whirlpool affect on my brain) but it didn't. As far as I can comprehend the entirety of that part can be very basically boiled down to "every human heart is in some degree of despair here's why and what it looks like." And then in part two the writer named despair as sin and declared that the opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith. (Obviously there were more thoughts and ideas and explanations, but this was one of my main take aways) I think I want to listen to it again. Part two particularly.
slow-paced
Very nice book but almost extremely repetitive
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
The Sickness unto Death is the philosophy of despair. It delves into the idea of the self, the psychological dispositions one faces consciously or unconsciously and the various ways each disposition may affect the self and create the feeling of despair. The work is split into multiple sections and the first few were enlightening, yet i found the last few which focused almost solely on Christianity and sin to be tedious and uninteresting. The writing was almost incompressible at some points, and there’s bits of Latin thrown in with no translations which makes this a very difficult read. All in all it gets you into an introspective headspace about your own ‘self’, you could learn a lot about yourself if you manage to find the meaning in a convoluted analysis on the despair of humanity.
reflective
medium-paced