Post Number:#2 July 17th, 2012, 11:37 am
Post Number:#3 July 17th, 2012, 9:59 pm
Post Number:#4 July 18th, 2012, 1:43 am
Post Number:#5 July 18th, 2012, 10:41 am
Nor can we fathom the idea that the happy wanderer, who is all smiles and has accomplished everything on his or her self-fulfillment list, is, in fact, a case of despair. But while Kierkegaard would have agreed that happiness and melancholy are mutually exclusive, he warns, “Happiness is the greatest hiding place for despair.”
An individual in despair despairs over something. So it seems for a moment, but only for a moment; in the same moment the true despair or despair in its true form shows itself. In despairing over something, he really despaired over himself, and now he wants to be rid of himself. For example, when the ambitious man whose slogan is “Either Caesar or nothing” does not get to be Caesar, he despairs over it … precisely because he did not get to be Caesar, he cannot bear to be himself.
In America, there is endless talk of the importance of having a dream — that is, a dreamed-up self that you will to become: a millionaire, a surgeon, or maybe the next Dylan or George Clooney. But master of suspicion that Kierkegaard was, he goes on to note that while the man who has failed to become Caesar would have been in seventh heaven if he had realized his dream, that state would have been just as despairing in another way — because in that giddy self-satisfied condition, he would never have come to grasp his true self.
Post Number:#6 July 18th, 2012, 12:28 pm
Post Number:#7 July 26th, 2012, 12:13 am
Post Number:#8 July 26th, 2012, 1:04 am
Post Number:#9 July 26th, 2012, 5:03 am
Post Number:#10 July 26th, 2012, 8:39 am
A Poster He or I wrote:I'll just put it to the forum that "Ignorance is bliss" cannot be a statement of personal value, only as an evaluation of another's situation. It cannot exist as self-knowledge because awareness of one's ignorance destroys the associated bliss.
Post Number:#11 July 26th, 2012, 2:41 pm
Post Number:#13 July 27th, 2012, 6:23 am
Doffing81 wrote:Indeed, any context. I have tried to place it in relation to a concept of self, to no avail. Is this not the correct context to pursue this matter?
Post Number:#14 July 27th, 2012, 4:56 pm
But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in this way a human being is still not a self.
In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation; thus under the qualification of the psychical the relation between the psychical and the physical is a relation. If, however, the relation relates itself to itself, this relation is the positive third, and this is the self.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
The November book of the month is On the Internet by Hubert L. Dreyfus. Pick it up, read it and discuss it with us as a group!