Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

don · 07-23-09 1:25 pm

Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness I know very little about Kierkegaard. He was an existentialist and a Christian; that's about it. My son is reading Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript. I picked up the book and ran across a few ideas which seem to touch on our atomorrow discussions. This thread is for the discussion of Kierkegaard's ideas. To begin, consider this:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:...nothing is more readily evident than that the greatest attainable certainty with respect to anything historical is merely an approximation. And an approximation, when viewed as a basis for an eternal happiness, is wholly inadequate, since the incommensurability makes a result impossible... (page 25)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>My paraphrase:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Everything historical, at best, is merely an approximation. For eternal happiness, we need to be sure. The historical quest doesn't help.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

elaine · 07-23-09 6:14 pm

For eternal happiness, we need to be sure. Good luck with that. How can anyone be SURE? Sure of what? their health, their life, their children, their spouse? As for everything historical, what else have we? We can only know the past, never the future.

don · 07-23-09 6:46 pm

As for everything historical, what else have we? I have to read more before I can explain his thinking, but he stresses subjectivity as opposed to objectivity. I think it would be correct to say that Kierkegaard considers a relationship with God to be the opposite of having a body of knowledge about God. The historian collects a body of knowledge, the believer relates by faith. The historian avoids risk and seeks to know which can only be approximated; the believer enters a relationship with God even at the risk of being wrong. The better the historian works the less faith, or passion, he needs. The believer enters into an unprovable relationship, ignoring the tentative nature of history. .

elaine · 07-23-09 9:42 pm

Isn't it true that recognizing the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, there is even more difference between an individual's faith and historical findings? One's faith is not dependent on history--in the common parlance of the word. Faith is a very personal, thus subjective experience--one that cannot transferred to another. But history as an objective study can be transferred, and has, for all the thousands of years that humans have probed and studied their past. It is true that "the believer enters into an unprovable relationship, ignoring the tentative nature of history." Isn't that not difficult for a Christian who must accept, by history and no other actual evidence, that there was a man called Jesus; that he was born of a virgin; that he died and was resurrected? If this had not been "recorded history" in the Bible, would you be a believer?

don · 07-23-09 10:05 pm

If this had not been "recorded history" in the Bible, would you be a believer? History certainly is a part of Christianity; the events of Christ. But, it is only when I decide to accept the history and then leave it behind that I can enter into a faith relationship with Jesus. And, my quest to verify the historical Jesus also must be put aside if I am to move forward into faith moments with him. Let's say that I have studied about you. I have read biographical material about you; autobiographical material by you; news reports; spectrum blogs, etc. I have all the knowledge about you that can be found. Now... We meet. As we begin to converse, the actual meeting of our minds lets go of everything else, and there we are... in conversation. This experience of letting go of all else is not a denial of all else... it is simply a letting go of it for something more important... I may even ask you to explain some of the "facts" I have learned about you. But, as you explain yourself, I again move way beyond the facts to experience your mind and thoughts as spoken and felt. My faith takes hold of what I sense you to be as you talk to me. My knowledge gained fades into the background, for now, we meet... As we visit, my awareness of the textual critics' opinion of your last letter fades into irrelevancy, for now, we visit... I know that if I should ever go back and textually examine your letters, I would lose something of these moments; these visits. .

don · 07-23-09 10:21 pm

Possibility If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints, possibility never. And what wine is so sparkling, what so fragrant, what so intoxicating, as possibility -- Soren Kierkegaard .

don · 07-23-09 10:41 pm

Rational I prefer talking to children, with them one can still hope they may become rational beings; but those who have become that - Lord save us! -- Soren Kierkegaard .

george · 07-23-09 10:47 pm

History, like faith, is what a group of people with a common background say it is. History books in the various countries do not have the same "facts" recorded for any given event in the past. As they say, one man's revolutionary is another man's national hero. So it is with faith - they are both a product of a common culture, whether political or philosophical. Isn't that not difficult for a Christian who must accept, by history and no other actual evidence, that there was a man called Jesus; that he was born of a virgin; that he died and was resurrected? Don't most people accept all kinds of things only by history? How many of us are knowledgeable enough to make "sure" that what we think we know is actually the truth? When it comes to the historical Jesus there are degrees of provability that individuals need, to accept the story as true. Often, the belief or disbelief comes before the proof in either case, so the faith precedes the proofs; and the faith is mostly the product of cultural upbringing and possibly early imprinting. I'm beginning to think that belief in Jesus has to be on a level other than historical - like Jesus, himself, said when asked to perform a miracle as proof of who he is. When Pilot asked Jesus if he was the Son of God, Jesus did not answer the question except to say, "you have said so...", inferring that we have to come to our conclusions based on something other than what is commonly said to be proof. Some people would not believe in Jesus as the Son of God even if he came out of a cloud, riding on a white horse. Others will believe even if Jesus' body were to be produced by Heraldo Rivera right on live TV. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0> Personally, what does impress me is when someone who has been conditioned not to believe and has a history of disbelief, turns around and begins to believe. That I have to notice. That is what happened to C.S. Lewis - and he was no dummy. But his belief came through a medium that most people don't have access to - a deep study of and knowledge about literature; and since that is what we have as a record of Jesus, I have to take notice.

neal · 07-24-09 1:15 pm

Don The author, I believe, wrote it under a pseudonym in response to one of the German Idealists (Kant or Hegel?). I don't know that he actually believed what he wrote, but put it out there as a view to consider in opposition to the Idealists. There are empirical facts. You are a living organism. At least what humans call a living organism. Reality is our own perception of the way things are, seem to be, etc as our individual minds comprehend them. Reality to a colorblind person's mind will be perceived by them to be different than those of us who are not colorblind. I make my living in the markets. It is very important that historical data is correct. Exactly correct. The economy, and markets that I have experienced while trading over the last 22 years are much more meaningful to me than those prior to my start. Likewise, even those markets that I have not traded during those 22 years are not as comfortable for me as those I have personally experienced. If some person tells me about their experience as a specialist on an exchange I find it interesting but I can't relate to it. I believe there actually are specialists. I believe there are exchanges. I have personal experience with them. I have visited exchanges in London, New York, and Hong Kong. But when it comes to what a spiritual guru, priest, preacher, mystic, etc states as being "True" it, at MOST, is going to be there relaying of some experience they have had or the relaying of an alleged experience that they have read or heard about that somebody else had. Now, what level of importance is the claim being made? That they have caught a cold? or received a revelation from a god that, if not heeded, will result in my death in 1 hour? I went to a talk given by Victor Stenger the other evening. There was a lot of Q&A pertaining to the claims about humans having a 'soul'. Is a 'soul' subjective? Objective? Does it actually exist in reality or is the 'soul' a theological or philosophical concept only? Stenger, in one response, stated that the evidence is that our mind, its perceptions of reality and thoughts, are strictly the result of mechanical processes. He gave as a "for instance" that if you remove part of the brain the 'person' can be changed. They can be made to be aggressive, impulsive, irrational, etc. If there was a 'soul' there should be no change. This is an objective, real result.

neal · 07-24-09 1:18 pm

Reality is Objective. The interpretation of reality may be subjective.

elaine · 07-24-09 1:49 pm

faith precedes the proofs; and the faith is mostly the product of cultural upbringing and possibly early imprinting. Why is that so difficult to understand? We, in North America, and to a lesser degree now in Western Europe, have a long history of reverence for the Bible and a belief in God. That heritage, whether one adopts it, pervades everything, and our subconscious mind is hardly aware of it. Faith is totally subjective: one man's faith is another's skepticism. Neal, I really liked your comment: Reality is Objective. The interpretation of reality may be subjective. This should never be forgotten.

don · 07-24-09 1:53 pm

The author, I believe, wrote it under a pseudonym in response to one of the German Idealists (Kant or Hegel?). I don't know that he actually believed what he wrote, but put it out there as a view to consider in opposition to the Idealists. Neal, thanks for this. I did a little further study of K's use of pseudonym's. He wanted to explore different points of view; kind of a "walk a mile in their shoes" thing. Two of his "authors" oppose each other. One, named Climacus, is not a Christian and argues so. (I think the work I present at the beginning of this thread is the work of Climacus.) The opposing work is by Anti-Climacus. His is a Christian viewpoint. Apparently K's actual views were of a "liberal" Christian type. But, what he really believed fades into the background as we examine his expert portrayal of various viewpoints. For example, his assertion that history, at best, can merely offer an approximation is well put, IMO. And, his idea that textual critical studies cannot help one to exercise faith also seems quite pertinent. Arising perhaps from his own perspective is that faith cannot exist without risk. Re: Stenger. I have noted on his website a meeting for July 22 at the Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver. Is that the one you went to? Stenger is one of those amazing minds. Of course, the Adventist fusing of body and soul relates well to Stenger's observation that the "soul" can be alterered by brain alteration. What can you tell us further about your encounter with him? What is he like? .

neal · 07-24-09 2:10 pm

The believer enters into an unprovable relationship, ignoring the tentative nature of history. That line of thinking is fertile ground for scams. Don, faith is based on something. A believer accepts some material to be true and then proceeds by faith in future actions/decisions/hope. If you do not accept the premises of the belief as credible then you will not have faith in the conclusion & directives of the belief either. You do not accept the premise that Muhammad was the Prophet. Therefore, you have no basis for faith to follow what he claimed to be directives from the God of Abraham. At least you have looked at some of the debates about the source of your faith. Whether it has been objective is debatable. If the claims are not tested objectively then, IMO, the resulting 'faith' is baseless. Have you used what is known as "The Outsider's Test of Belief"? IOW, have you examined the assertions of your belief in the same way as the assertions of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or the assertions of the Koran? If not, then the probability is that you are a christian because of the belief system you were born into. If you were born in Iran you would be a muslim. In India, a Krishna or Hindu or? Know what I mean? It has nothing to do with what you "feel". Facts are known, not 'felt'. Truth is not arrived at by the emotion attached.

neal · 07-24-09 2:17 pm

Re: Stenger. Yes, I made a point of being in Denver to see him at the Tattered Cover. I'm about to be offline for a few days so will post some thoughts on Stenger hopefully early next week. Until then....

elaine · 07-24-09 5:17 pm

Neal has asked some very pertinent and provocative questions. Everyone claiming to have faith should be prepared to do some introspection to determine how subjective that decision really is. To do otherwise, is, as he says, to demonstrate the sort of faith and belief that can, and has led to successful scam artists. Don, you are not the sort that would be easily taken into a scam in financial matters, but in religious matters, is it not a problem that the history of this world shows that religious "scammers" have become very profitable for the leaders?

don · 07-25-09 12:52 am

faith is based on something I agree. Let's consider the message of Jesus found in Matthew 5-7. I can examine the historical facts regarding the manuscripts. I can explore the various reasons cited for when Matthew could have been written. I can examine what the early church fathers said about Matthew. But, if I accept His messages by faith, I will set aside the academic quest for the closest approximation and apply the truths of the passage to my life. in religious matters, is it not a problem that the history of this world shows that religious "scammers" have become very profitable for the leaders? Yes, religious "scammers" need the textual critics; a case in point: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=14&post=5080#POST5080" target="_blank">the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals</a> I am content with those who want to subject Ellen White to textual criticism. IMO, her writings become more relevant as we understand the stories behind them. What I have seen, is that most of the analysis of EGW is being done by individuals who have already judged her negatively. It is really difficult wading through their material because it seems so extremely biased. I would rather see a simple rendering of the facts. Re, religious "scammers": One or two grocery stores might scam me, but I will still go somewhere to buy groceries. Re, the subjective nature of truth: I do believe that Jesus stated truth in historical time. When I accept the record as truth, it becomes subjective. When two or three gather with a common regard for accepted truth, there we have church. Thus, church results from subjective truth. .

john8verse32 · 07-25-09 9:52 pm

a scientists view...as opposed to a philosophers: “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.” -- <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/120/1669.jpg" alt=""> in a column for The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1930

neal · 08-04-09 12:34 pm

Don Sorry I wasn't able to post a response to your questions about Victor Stenger last week as I had hoped. Stenger is one of those amazing minds. I agree 100%. Of course, the Adventist fusing of body and soul relates well to Stenger's observation that the "soul" can be alterered by brain alteration. Stenger refutes the theory that there is any such thing as a "soul". There is no evidence that what makes you "you" is anything other than chemicals (estrogen, testosterone, etc), nutrients, electrical currents, and brain matter. Remove (or damage in Ellen's case) part of the brain and you will never be "you" again. Get a brain tumor and you might even quit being "you". Alzheimer patients can be married yet not be aware that they are married. They have an affair. Are they going to the Lake of Fire? In Biblical times they would have been killed for the offense so I would assume so. What about the cases where a person has committed murder and it is later discovered that they had been suffering with a brain tumor which explained their behavior to be the result of a disease? What can you tell us further about your encounter with him? What is he like? A couple of years ago I was searching the University of Colorado's website for talks sponsored by the Dept of Philosophy. I came across Victor Stenger's page and started reading some of the material he had written. I was intrigued by his approach as I also, as you know, prefer to approach the God questions with defining what "god" is being talked about and concentrating on the particular claims about THAT god. In the case of the capital G God there are certain claims. Stenger follows the same approach. I read his book GOD: A Failed Hypothesis and subsequently attended a talk in Boulder he gave discussing the book. There were about 20 people there at a mid-day meeting at the library. He stuck pretty close to what he had written in the book. When I heard him talk to a larger group in July he seemed much more energetic and answered a broad range of topics besides those covered in his latest book Quantum Gods. Maybe he was not feeling well last year? He is very soft spoken as you might imagine an elderly scientist/researcher/philosopher/professor. He is a large man in height and girth. Here is his wiki page: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger</a> and his CU page: <a href="http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/" target=_top>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/</a> His wife attended the talk at the Tattered Cover Bookstore. They seem like nice people but don't know much about his personal, private life. If I remember correctly he said he moved to the Boulder area because he has a daughter here. When I read Dawkins' book The God Delusion I saw that he quoted Stenger for some technical piece.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 07-23-09 1:25 pm

Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#2 07-23-09 6:14 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#3 07-23-09 6:46 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#4 07-23-09 9:42 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#5 07-23-09 10:05 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#6 07-23-09 10:21 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#7 07-23-09 10:41 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#8 07-23-09 10:47 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#9 07-24-09 1:15 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#10 07-24-09 1:18 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#11 07-24-09 1:49 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#12 07-24-09 1:53 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#13 07-24-09 2:10 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#14 07-24-09 2:17 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#15 07-24-09 5:17 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#16 07-25-09 12:52 am

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#17 07-25-09 9:52 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

#18 08-04-09 12:34 pm

Re: Kierkegaard and Eternal Happiness

Board footer