5 ms·

I read some of Kierkegaard's works some decades ago. It seemed to me that by his time philosophers had generally concluded that Christian theology, and theology

I read some of Kierkegaard's works some decades ago. It seemed to me that by his time philosophers had generally concluded that Christian theology, and theology generally, was not worth serious study. And Kierkegaard couldn't accept that he no longer believed it either - Sort of the first of the school of those who argue that God must exist because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

dwd 7y ago
Yes, he tried and push theology to a perfect interpretation, but never took the next step of abandoning it in the way Nietzsche did. "God is dead...and we killed him" to paraphrase the madman. While Nietzsche lived later and embraced the nihilism that Kierkegaard couldn't bring himself to acknowledge, he rejected any notion of Darwinian influence in his writing.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  I wouldn't say Nietzsche "embraced the nihilism". Embraced atheism, sure. Even The Anti-Christ I think says not a word against Jesus, who he seems to admire, but is aimed against the corruption of Jesus' teachings by priests and the Church. His teacher Schopenhauer–the first atheist modern western philosopher?–has much more of that nihilistic vibe - it would be better not to live, happiness is negative, lasting happiness impossible, the world is essentially annoying and horrible etc. Schopenhauer's also very Buddhisty–even had a bust of Buddha in his house–although I think arrived at his conclusions independently. Nietzsche at least tried to say Yes. Music was very important to both of them–S played flute, Nietzsche piano–and music was even more important in S's philosophy than Nietzsche's. Only through art, especially music, can we escape the miserable pressure of the Will, i.e. unconscious/life force/animal nature. Reading Schopenhauer's main book seems like Freud + Darwin. One of the essays in N's first book is the fascinating Schopenhauer as Educator. The chapters on S and N in Santayana's very readable and funny Egotism in German Philosophy are maybe the best, most insightful thing written about them. I read a lot of Kierkegaard years ago - for a while he and Nietzsche were my two best friends! I avoided K's christian stuff - way too angsty for me, and over issues that mean nothing to me. (Well, I did have a religious phase where I could agree with him that christians are nowhere near christian enough!) But I love a lot of his other stuff. Maybe my favourite is Either/Or - some parts of it - the aphorisms, Crop Rotation etc. It's very funny stuff. He's either very compressed or extremely long-winded. And the endless whining about Regine gets very tedious..
  - dwd 7y ago
    I agree that he didn't reject life and living, just that he was of the mind that there is no overriding meaning to it. I tend to think of a nihilist as someone like Dawkins. It's not just that there is no god, but that there's no point to life except what you make of it. I also read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in my youth and went through a stage of intensely studying Christianity, falling out with the local churches as basically missing the point, (the time when I most felt a kinship with Kierkegaard) before ultimately rejecting religion entirely.
    - yesenadam 7y ago
      Dawkins?! Then you must think of every atheist as a nihilist, and the term doesn't mean much then. I don't think that's what's meant by the word, at all. Anyway, meaning is not something things have in isolation–it is always meaning to someone. Like what's the meaning of a painting? (apart from in peoples' minds) A written word is a squiggle, but means something to someone that speaks the language. I think the nihilist/existentialist angst is from people in the generation or two after christianity, not having that cosy pre-defined meaning to their lives, of everything being god's plan. Like a child, used to the parents deciding what to do, what are the rules, punishments, structures, moving out of home and feeling...abandoned, empty. I (like almost everyone I know here in Australia) was brought up without being taught a religion, never had that loss of faith or feeling of lack or meaninglessness. Hmm well, not true, aged about 20 I had a mild 'existential crisis', wondering about the meaning of life, and learnt that it's silly (and dangerous) expecting there to be the meaning of life out there like a rock. Nihilists stop there, thinking that in "there's no meaning in X" they've captured the essential truth about things, and torture themselves with the abyss. A bit like the contemporary goth thing, thinking that seeing the meaningless, desolation, emptiness of things is wisdom. I started reading E.M. Cioran essays a year or two ago, but couldn't stand him; it was full of this vibe; going on about what a superior wisdom his ultra-bleak, desolate view of things has, as if he's better than any happy person because so miserable. Occasionally I hear some intelligent person talking as if an intelligent person must be unhappy, as if it's a given. Maybe it's from the existentialist message filtering down and being taken for wisdom. Maybe Sartre is to blame for that.

dwd 7y ago

Yes, he tried and push theology to a perfect interpretation, but never took the next step of abandoning it in the way Nietzsche did. "God is dead...and we killed him" to paraphrase the madman. While Nietzsche lived later and embraced the nihilism that Kierkegaard couldn't bring himself to acknowledge, he rejected any notion of Darwinian influence in his writing.

yesenadam 7y ago
I wouldn't say Nietzsche "embraced the nihilism". Embraced atheism, sure. Even The Anti-Christ I think says not a word against Jesus, who he seems to admire, but is aimed against the corruption of Jesus' teachings by priests and the Church. His teacher Schopenhauer–the first atheist modern western philosopher?–has much more of that nihilistic vibe - it would be better not to live, happiness is negative, lasting happiness impossible, the world is essentially annoying and horrible etc. Schopenhauer's also very Buddhisty–even had a bust of Buddha in his house–although I think arrived at his conclusions independently. Nietzsche at least tried to say Yes. Music was very important to both of them–S played flute, Nietzsche piano–and music was even more important in S's philosophy than Nietzsche's. Only through art, especially music, can we escape the miserable pressure of the Will, i.e. unconscious/life force/animal nature. Reading Schopenhauer's main book seems like Freud + Darwin. One of the essays in N's first book is the fascinating Schopenhauer as Educator. The chapters on S and N in Santayana's very readable and funny Egotism in German Philosophy are maybe the best, most insightful thing written about them. I read a lot of Kierkegaard years ago - for a while he and Nietzsche were my two best friends! I avoided K's christian stuff - way too angsty for me, and over issues that mean nothing to me. (Well, I did have a religious phase where I could agree with him that christians are nowhere near christian enough!) But I love a lot of his other stuff. Maybe my favourite is Either/Or - some parts of it - the aphorisms, Crop Rotation etc. It's very funny stuff. He's either very compressed or extremely long-winded. And the endless whining about Regine gets very tedious..
- dwd 7y ago
  I agree that he didn't reject life and living, just that he was of the mind that there is no overriding meaning to it. I tend to think of a nihilist as someone like Dawkins. It's not just that there is no god, but that there's no point to life except what you make of it. I also read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in my youth and went through a stage of intensely studying Christianity, falling out with the local churches as basically missing the point, (the time when I most felt a kinship with Kierkegaard) before ultimately rejecting religion entirely.
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    Dawkins?! Then you must think of every atheist as a nihilist, and the term doesn't mean much then. I don't think that's what's meant by the word, at all. Anyway, meaning is not something things have in isolation–it is always meaning to someone. Like what's the meaning of a painting? (apart from in peoples' minds) A written word is a squiggle, but means something to someone that speaks the language. I think the nihilist/existentialist angst is from people in the generation or two after christianity, not having that cosy pre-defined meaning to their lives, of everything being god's plan. Like a child, used to the parents deciding what to do, what are the rules, punishments, structures, moving out of home and feeling...abandoned, empty. I (like almost everyone I know here in Australia) was brought up without being taught a religion, never had that loss of faith or feeling of lack or meaninglessness. Hmm well, not true, aged about 20 I had a mild 'existential crisis', wondering about the meaning of life, and learnt that it's silly (and dangerous) expecting there to be the meaning of life out there like a rock. Nihilists stop there, thinking that in "there's no meaning in X" they've captured the essential truth about things, and torture themselves with the abyss. A bit like the contemporary goth thing, thinking that seeing the meaningless, desolation, emptiness of things is wisdom. I started reading E.M. Cioran essays a year or two ago, but couldn't stand him; it was full of this vibe; going on about what a superior wisdom his ultra-bleak, desolate view of things has, as if he's better than any happy person because so miserable. Occasionally I hear some intelligent person talking as if an intelligent person must be unhappy, as if it's a given. Maybe it's from the existentialist message filtering down and being taken for wisdom. Maybe Sartre is to blame for that.