3 ms·

Søren has always kind of put me off to philosophy and existentialism. Creating foundations within religion as matter of fact then using it as a principal to sta

Søren has always kind of put me off to philosophy and existentialism. Creating foundations within religion as matter of fact then using it as a principal to state everything is meaningless... my mind couldn't make the connection.

burntrelish1273 9y ago
Exactly. It's noncommittal, inconsistent and still at the mercy and vulnerability of magical thinking. The positive part was watering-down ideas enough to be palatable to those whom were predominantly religious. Reality is too much for most people to accept, so they lie to themselves and each other.
- runesoerensen 9y ago
  > still at the mercy and vulnerability of magical thinking What magical thinking are you referring to?
  - mirimir 9y ago
    religion = magical thinking
    - theoh 9y ago
      Or, religion is, at least, a form of seeing meaning in things, which is the same category of activity as magical thinking.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        It's seeing agency in things, and reality overall, I think.
        theoh 9y ago
        You mean this idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection There's another aspect to proto-religion which has to do with power rather than agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana#Pre-animism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana#Pre-animism All this is speculative, AFAIK.
    - runesoerensen 9y ago
      Well that's a silly thing to say. For the record, Kierkegaard doesn't claim to know or try to prove that god exist. Doubting is a crucial part of believing, and literally requires a "leap of faith" according to Kierkegaard. That's one of the major things that separates religious belief from for instance scientific knowledge. Also: "Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Sure, but he goes on about religion a lot. And it's always been obvious to me that faith is foolish. I was reading Popper, Kuhn, Nietzsche, Camus, Kafka, Hesse and so on. And I had no patience for Kierkegaard's obsession with fantasy. I mean, I enjoy fantasy. But I know that it's fantasy.
mtremsal 9y ago
You might be interested in André Comte-Sponville who takes pretty much the opposite direction on the same journey. What remains of Kierkegaard and Spinoza when you remove Christianity as a foundation of ethics.

burntrelish1273 9y ago

Exactly. It's noncommittal, inconsistent and still at the mercy and vulnerability of magical thinking. The positive part was watering-down ideas enough to be palatable to those whom were predominantly religious. Reality is too much for most people to accept, so they lie to themselves and each other.

runesoerensen 9y ago
> still at the mercy and vulnerability of magical thinking What magical thinking are you referring to?
- mirimir 9y ago
  religion = magical thinking
  - theoh 9y ago
    Or, religion is, at least, a form of seeing meaning in things, which is the same category of activity as magical thinking.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      It's seeing agency in things, and reality overall, I think.
      - theoh 9y ago
        You mean this idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection There's another aspect to proto-religion which has to do with power rather than agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana#Pre-animism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana#Pre-animism All this is speculative, AFAIK.
  - runesoerensen 9y ago
    Well that's a silly thing to say. For the record, Kierkegaard doesn't claim to know or try to prove that god exist. Doubting is a crucial part of believing, and literally requires a "leap of faith" according to Kierkegaard. That's one of the major things that separates religious belief from for instance scientific knowledge. Also: "Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Sure, but he goes on about religion a lot. And it's always been obvious to me that faith is foolish. I was reading Popper, Kuhn, Nietzsche, Camus, Kafka, Hesse and so on. And I had no patience for Kierkegaard's obsession with fantasy. I mean, I enjoy fantasy. But I know that it's fantasy.

mtremsal 9y ago

You might be interested in André Comte-Sponville who takes pretty much the opposite direction on the same journey. What remains of Kierkegaard and Spinoza when you remove Christianity as a foundation of ethics.