SIGN UP NEWSLETTER // WEBSITE: thoughtsonthinking.org Follow us on social media: Donate on Patreon (thank you!) www.patreon.com/thoughtsonthinking / Instagram: instagram.com/thoughtsonthinking/ Twitter: twitter.com/thoughtsonthin3/

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ― Søren Kierkegaard

Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards. - Kierkegaard. Love Kierkegaard, one of my all time favs. Recently did a video about his philosophy. Keep up the interesting videos, I always look up to them. :)

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” ― Søren Kierkegaard

Living in the Aesthetic level is living for yourself. Living in the Ethical level is living for the collective, the universal; the individual must annul his individuality. Living in the Religious level is living for God ( the God within or your higher Self) and God is absolute. Each level of existence envelopes those bellow it; an ethical or religious person can still enjoy life aesthetically.

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

Is there truly any part in which existence does not include some form of despair, is it ever escapable? Kierkegaard's believes so by synthesising the self with the finite and infinite (the transcendent form) but what I get from his message is that through all these stages in an attempt to form a complete self faith does not become absurd when everything else perpetuates some form of despair, the religious stage is also a despair in relation to being a knight of infinite resignation or by confronting faith as of that being an objective enigma. In all cases, faith or a leap of faith is not absurdity when all other fathoms of selfhood are equally despairing. BUT can we not just live in harmony with all three stages of life or would that be the definition of a madman?

@2012MariCarmen

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThoughtsonThinking In my opinion, you can not always live in harmony with all the three stages of life. There are circumstances when you have to choose between following the 'letter of the Law' or the 'Spirit of the Law'. "... even the most ordinary people are required from time to time to make decisions crucial for their own lives, and in such crises they know something of the 'suspension of the ethical' of which Kierkegaard writes". - William Barrett (Irrational Man) People whose primary value is to follow the rules or legal principles will stay at the "ethical" level and will follow the Letter of the Law. People whose primary value is human value or fundamental human ideals, they will choose (in certain circumstances) to serve the Spirit of the Law instead of the Letter of the Law...bypassing structural considerations and putting human value first. Decisions made at the Religious level are frequently misunderstood as a deliberate rejection of structural authority, a product of emotion or madness. "We should never forget that everything that A. Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal"." - MLK Jr.

@2012MariCarmen

3 жыл бұрын

I forgot to add that the spirit of the laws in Germany, while Hitler was in power, were not based in human value or human fundamental principles.

@c.galindo9639

3 жыл бұрын

Religion isn’t based around “God” or a transcendental entity from the beyond. It is the individual’s understanding and following of their beliefs with their existence, coinciding with the universe. Each of those 3 fallacies can ultimately coincide with the individual. It all depends on their understanding within balancing all of those different set stages that they can consciously develop on

As we are not born with muscle, nor we are born with inborn wisdom, we don't become carpenters or gardeners overnight nor artists or musicians in an instant. States of character are connected to the process of habituation as neither can they be taught nor do they naturally exist in us. Intellectual virtue is a process in which it owes its creation and its growth to teaching, for it is a matter of obtaining knowledge and using our mind in the right way. Contrarily, learning to walk is an activity characterised by choice, for it is not naturally accomplished once a certain level of physical development has been attained. We learn to walk by actually practicing walking and repeating the whole process of it over and over again until the action becomes a second nature to us.

Aesthetic and religious are both just a research for self-satisfaction, the latter is just convincing yourself of a fantasy to achieve the same thing once discovered that the first doesn't work. He might be saying that ethics is eventually found to be unsatisfying, but that was never the point. Seneca believes that happines should be found while walking the path of virtue as a mere companion, and not as the objective itself: if it's there good, if it's not, too bad.

@c.galindo9639

3 жыл бұрын

Not necessarily. Religion used falsely is for self satisfaction. When followed how it is taught. It is to help you find your place centered in the universe and the purpose of your existence. You are using an example of blind followers which a majority of religion has

I love how this shows different fallacies and breaks them down as how they can tie into better balancing an individual. Excellent video

"Kierkegaard does not deny the validity of the ethical: the individual who is called upon to break with the ethical must first have subordinated himself to the ethical universal; and the break, when he is called upon to make it, is made in fear and trembling and not in the callous arrogance of power. The validity of this break with the ethical is guaranteed, if it ever is, by only one principle, which is central to Kierkegaard's existential philosophy as well to his Christian faith - the principle, namely that the individual is higher than the universal. (This means also that the individual is always of higher value than the collective.) The universal rule of ethics, precisely because it is universal, cannot comprehend totally me, the individual, in my concreteness. Where then as an abstract rule it commands something that goes against my deepest self (but it has to be my deepest self, and herein the fear and trembling of the choice reside), then I feel compelled out of conscience - a religious conscience superior to the ethical - to transcend that rule. I am compelled to make an exception because I myself AM an exception; that is, a concrete being whose existence can never be completely subsumed under any universal or even system of universals. Now, Abraham and Kierkegaard were both in exceptional situations; most of us are not called upon to make such drastic sacrifices. But even the most ordinary people are required from time to time to make decisions crucial for their own lives, and in such crises they know something of the "suspension of the ethical" of which Kierkegaard writes." - William Barrett (Irrational Man; A Study in Existential Philosophy)

Very great video. Thank you!!

Thank you...this is profound

Excellent video!

This is a great channel.

The self according to Kierkegaard is quite complex. He defines the self as a self aware synthesis between the finite and infinite that reflects unto itself. The synthesis is not the self. The self is the synthesis which reflects unto itself. So without self awareness or consciousness there is no self. This is what sets the human spirit apart from animals. The esthetic does not know he has a self, he is guided by pleasure and pain. I might have gotten some definition wrong, summing this up from memory.

the true father of existentialism

awesomw video

What's meant by the phrase "...gets finitude out of it..." in these various quotes? example: 12:00

I really don't understand Kierkegaards 'resigning everything to the infinity, but grasping everything by the absurd. Like surely if you're truly resigning yourself to the infinity, there is no way you can truly imagine yourself grasping everything? I feel like he used the same logic as someone trying to create infinite power by going by the logic of 'As a cat always falls on its feet and toast always falls butter side down, you can create infinite energy by taping them together on opposite sides and dropping them.'

@niklastjitra1323

3 жыл бұрын

Kierkegaard's words are like spirals encircling the meaning, they never state the meaning directly, and are not to be treated as formulas or maxims from which one derives truths. They are a mirror to the self, they narrow down the meaning but lets the reader discover it for themselves. One can hardly get anything useful from a single sentence. I suggest you read the book! (Fear and Trembling)

@GodsStrongestClown

2 жыл бұрын

I think he’s saying the the worlds meaning is anything you could imagine it to be and in the isolating vast world of infinitude you will hang onto whatever truth you believe you have. Have you ever lived a day in your life on auto pilot either to get to a good part of the day or resigned yourself where the only truth that matters is time will move forward and conditions change? A self realizes this and tries to justify past actions when in truth he was at the mercy of the tide. To grasp at infinity is to assert your “self” into the world against the usually malformed opinion of others and say “though no one not even I have the answer with this infinite number of answers I will create for myself a answer that is grounded in myself and my perceived reality so that I may at least enjoy/understand or imbue with virtue my perceived forward motion in time”

word that intro song always gets me edit: yikes, the quote spam is terrible. turn a big quote into a simple sentence and then your vid will be dopechamp

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

Noted 👍

Can you also put in the description the links of the books mentioned please

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

Fear & Trembling, The Sickness Unto Death

@stefanoinnocenti702

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThoughtsonThinking thanks

Not sure if I'm either intellectually incapable of understanding this or if I'm too ignorant to do so. I've never read kierkegaard and I'm still struggling with the task of understanding Nietzsche's works but I hope to be able to do so one day. I'm young and I'm interested in philosophy but I always end up perplexed by the ideas of these thinkers. Any advice on how to ease my way into the works of these thinkers will be appreciated. Should i read the ancients first? I've read some seneca and epictetus but should I read more of them to then move on to the more modern philosophers or can I just skip them?

@curtismorris7699

3 жыл бұрын

I've been looking into philosophy for about a year now.(Was 19 when I started, I'm now 20) I've realized that you won't understand everything immediately. Sometimes the revelations come after the fact through real life and self reflection. I suggest screenshoting or writing quotes that speak to you as a reference for later. Idk how young you are, but experiencing life will help understand writings such as Nietcheze and others. Thoughts on Thinking and other KZreadrs such as Academy of Ideas have videos explaining individual Philosophers and their philosophy along with videos that talk about a specific topic such as anxiety and they use a plethora of Philospers for it. Trust the Process homie.💯

@bayremdridi5131

3 жыл бұрын

@@curtismorris7699 Thanks man. Appreciate the Advice.

credo quia absurdum

das crazy

Can you please add (British accent) to save me a time.