I have subscribed these videos because he goes right into the author's book and his/her philosophy and discusses their thesis without digressions, going around in circles, or and without lecturer's egoic display. Thank you very much, and please continue youtube lectures.
A very good and passionate lecture ; you live your work and this was evident here. I’ve had a ten year break from philosophy after discontinuing my PhD ; I guess, the questions never go away and your lectures are certainly re-invigorating my thought 👍
Really useful. I see KG more clearly and I see him brighter than I did before. I see him as a happier person than he's made out to be. Yes he experienced pain loss and sorrow but KG had meaning and purpose and passion.
I get the idea that Brezinsky is standing just before the void, which in this case takes the form of the blackboard, and he is on trial or he motivates the team of young jumpers (leap of faith) standing before him to shirk their fear before the jump and them BAM! subjectivity is true. It's your door to choose.. Perfect form, sir. This is one of the most compelling lectures on philosophy I've ever come across.
Insightful and ponderous. I really appreciate the explanations offered in your video. The meaning making and meaningfulness can only belong to the perceiver. Hence, purpose belongs to the self. Brilliant.
Yes, there are atheist existentialists,like my father, but one can be existentaialsists who are believers, which Iam .The latter- They choose to believe, they see a purpose in it.Some self-improvement,reason for altruism. Thank you for drawing this distinction. My dad was an atheist in a pious family, who mostly gambled what he earned. My ailing father was 72, and he asked me, life is empty, what is there in life.I told him, life is what you add to it.It may be a small leaf, a drop of water,It is something.It is not nothing. He asked for a forbidden snack at 8.30 pm, I got it from road side shop,he ate it and died in sleep.
I cannot agree with you more, Doctor. Now I'm absolutely certain that before Faith, there must be freedom of choice, which is basically my only option in the face of an uncertain, unknown and unknowable reality
I just want to say how much I appreciate these kinds of lecture, that is exactly how philosophy should be taught!! A thought provoking and wondrous journey, very accurate and most noble thoughts in the lecture. Not too much twist and curves that will befuddle the students from main subject matter. Thanks sir
both bravery and passion are wrapped up in choice for Kierkegaard as he states that the concept of dread is the possibility of freedom . in Philosophical Fragments he says that the one place that the Infidel and the Christian can meet is passion chosen freedom . this banishes dread.
This professor is really good- able to take the complex and make it understandable. He holds his class's attention. I've listened to all his lectures on u tube- and I now understand most of the concepts I was clueless about coming out of college. Many of my college profs were pompous and condescending ass clowns that put you to sleep in class. They didn't know how to teach- moreover students (like me) were all hung over from the frat party the past weekend. A bad mix for a learning environment. Would've been nice to have this guy teaching philosophy. As I've gotten older I now realize this stuff does matter - I wasted my parents money by not paying attention.
to what extent, if any, has Heidegger drawn from the work of Ernst Bloch and his notion of an anticipatory consciousness of yet to become, and the real possibilities of? See Volume One of The Principle of Hope.
Horribly horrorsomelly absorbing;no pulling of punch;take it or leave.What a steaming piece of Shit I feel, never mind ,I shall watch La la Land.where is the Exit? Thank for the nourishment.
I guess it is impossible to understand our own time and the modern human being without understanding Kierkegaard. I understand his point, I think, that objective knowledge will not provide answers to questions as "how to live a good life" etc and that to come to subjective "knowledge" a leap of faith is required. Maybe as soon as someone made such a leap this person is not able to "leap" back again into our physical world, if you allow to make a bit ironic remark. I know this is a lecture about philosophy and not theology and as an atheist I should not worry, perhaps, at all about theology. Yet! Kierkegaard was not stupid at all. He made his leap of faith and was, thus, a passionate Christian. But, of course, within is Christian religion he saw or should have seen things, which obviously do not fit with the objective world. I wonder did Kierkegaard just turn his back to science of his days? Or, perhaps, did he say that the content of the Bible literally is of no concern to him? I have to think about the Catholic priest, who said in an interview, that he feels he should as a Christian not bother whether Christ as a real person historically existed, but that Christ as depicted in the Bible is worth to be followed in itself. Michael, so what was Kierkegaard's view one when someone's subjective truth is evidently contradicted by objective truth? I made a leap of faith and I believe therefore that the earth is 6000 years old, although object truth by science makes clear it is much older.
Ruud, you raise excellent issues. First, regarding the possibility that subjective truth arising from a leap-of-faith comes into conflict with objectivity, even, under the most rigorous scientific standards, I think should be of no concern to Kierkegaard, both for theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, the basic premise that a being that exists in time cannot escape personal subjectivity makes a perfect correspondence between thinking and being (intellectus et res) impossible. Thus, the infinite concern of inwardness that impels one to inquire is always left unfulfilled by the unreliability of the scientific evidence. Ultimately, I'd say that the question of "who is right, the scientist or the theologian," is not one in which Kierkegaard is even interested. That is a matter of objective truth, and the whole point is to suggest that subjective truth is more meaningful, in the sense of giving one a reason for living. Passion trumps knowledge. Now, as you say, because Kierkegaard is far from stupid, I imagine that ones basic worldview would have to be, at least to some extent, practically informed by the objective. After all, one might waste a great deal of time walking to church, rather than praying there, should it be rejected that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line! Now, regarding the bible issue, I imagine that this holy book was of extreme significance to him; after all, Christian beliefs are not given a priori. But, exactly how it is to be interpreted, what scripture is accepted and what rejected, is wide-open, as is the entire human condition. And, therein lies the real gravity of his teaching. The decision is our own. It must be made and owned individually. Yet, this great burden is, at the same time, cause for great joy and celebration of the gift of human freedom.
Dear Michael, the truth is that after your first message I wrote a reaction three times, but every time I practically finished my message by one reason or another youtube restarted and I had to start writing again. After the third time I was that fed up, that I did not want to begin a fourth time. BTW, I have no professor! ;-) I am working in the chemical industry and am quite a fanatic amateur entomologist, but already during my study chemistry, which I started in 1986, I gained a more serious interest in philosophy, so besides my study of polymers and analytical methods I also followed lectures in medieval philosophy, so I am one of the very few, I guess, atheist chemists, who read Augustin, Abelard and Ockham. As I am used to say to my friends: crazy, but not dangerous! Okay, back to Kierkegaard again. Michael, I was a bit expecting your first reaction! I was already thinking that Sören was not that interested in conflicts between the objective and subjective world. Of course he was first of all a theologian. But it gives me, as a thinking person, little satisfaction. It is a bit sad that since, I don’t know, let’s say 150 years or so, you have to chose between the continental philosphers or the Anglo-Saxon ones. It seems to me that, since Kierkegaard and perhaps Nietzsche the continental philosophers appears to have closed their eyes for the ‘real’ knowledge we gained by the natural sciences, while folks from the Wiener Kreis or thinkers as William James etc are not able to come to a complete philosophical system neither. Anyway, while thinkers in the footsteps of Kierkegaard are to me a bit too miserable, too pessimistic, too bleak, the more positive, perhaps more practical philosophers are not able to say what I ought to do or what my place in this universe really is. Too bad. Sigh! Nevertheless, have a nice Sunday!
I commend your openness, Ruud; and, am impressed with your self-initiation into philosophical thought. I don't really place much emphasis on the whole analytic/continental distinction. They are simply different perspectives or methods for approaching the same issue. Indeed, I would include chemistry and physics in the same pursuit.
+ruud van der weele There is a fairly good Facebook group "Kierkegaard and Christian Existentialism" that has a few very good philosophy professors in the group that have focused on Kierkegaard during their careers; also some theologians, and many Atheists, Buddhists &c. all with the same interest in SK. Granted many students are signed up right now, and most of the scholars are posting less than they do during summer months due to their workloads, but it's still a very good group that you may find interesting. Taking into consideration SK wrote using several pseudonyms, many times coming from different perspectives, grasping his bottom line -- sort a speak -- can be a very difficult endeavour. His views on Christianity are well articulated in "Training in Christianity" Don't let the title fool you, he was very! intolerant of ANY Dogmas, and Doctrine, even though he was a theologian... This is one of the most complicated men I have ever run across; along with Nietzsche and a few others from the existentialism community. For myself -- studying SK or Nietzsche -- one has to do their very best to step away from their own worldview -- as insane as that may sound -- to extrapolate the "ground" these men stood on. With SK the mear fact; him working through these pseudonyms makes the research all the more difficult, but makes the journey all the more rewarding.. As a rule of thumb; for every theists philosopher I study, an Atheists philosopher is being studies at the same time. Keeps my perspective from getting in the way of embracing the perspectives of minds much brighter than my own. I hope you don't mind the input...
Watching all your lectures. Still making a difference 7 years later. Thanks!
I have subscribed these videos because he goes right into the author's book and his/her philosophy and discusses their thesis without digressions, going around in circles, or and without lecturer's egoic display. Thank you very much, and please continue youtube lectures.
A very good and passionate lecture ; you live your work and this was evident here. I’ve had a ten year break from philosophy after discontinuing my PhD ; I guess, the questions never go away and your lectures are certainly re-invigorating my thought 👍
Really useful. I see KG more clearly and I see him brighter than I did before. I see him as a happier person than he's made out to be. Yes he experienced pain loss and sorrow but KG had meaning and purpose and passion.
Thank you for your SK lecture. You are clear and thoughtful. My idea of a fine teacher.
I get the idea that Brezinsky is standing just before the void, which in this case takes the form of the blackboard, and he is on trial or he motivates the team of young jumpers (leap of faith) standing before him to shirk their fear before the jump and them BAM! subjectivity is true. It's your door to choose.. Perfect form, sir. This is one of the most compelling lectures on philosophy I've ever come across.
I love the style of your lecture, gives people an opportunity to think between each statement, rather than rapid fire
Insightful and ponderous. I really appreciate the explanations offered in your video. The meaning making and meaningfulness can only belong to the perceiver. Hence, purpose belongs to the self. Brilliant.
👍🏻💜 Good lecture which i shall save in my play list.
Extraordinary work. Thank you. Keep it up please.
Yes, there are atheist existentialists,like my father, but one can be existentaialsists who are believers, which Iam .The latter- They choose to believe, they see a purpose in it.Some self-improvement,reason for altruism.
Thank you for drawing this distinction.
My dad was an atheist in a pious family, who mostly gambled what he earned. My ailing father was 72, and he asked me, life is empty, what is there in life.I told him, life is what you add to it.It may be a small leaf, a drop of water,It is something.It is not nothing. He asked for a forbidden snack at 8.30 pm, I got it from road side shop,he ate it and died in sleep.
Exactly my good friend may God bless you and your father touching share thank you
I cannot agree with you more, Doctor. Now I'm absolutely certain that before Faith, there must be freedom of choice, which is basically my only option in the face of an uncertain, unknown and unknowable reality
I just want to say how much I appreciate these kinds of lecture, that is exactly how philosophy should be taught!! A thought provoking and wondrous journey, very accurate and most noble thoughts in the lecture. Not too much twist and curves that will befuddle the students from main subject matter. Thanks sir
EXACTLY TOTALLY AGREE
The lecturer is brilliant.
both bravery and passion are wrapped up in choice for Kierkegaard as he states that the concept of dread is the possibility of freedom . in Philosophical Fragments he says that the one place that the Infidel and the Christian can meet is passion chosen freedom . this banishes dread.
great lecture prof
This professor is really good- able to take the complex and make it understandable. He holds his class's attention. I've listened to all his lectures on u tube- and I now understand most of the concepts I was clueless about coming out of college. Many of my college profs were pompous and condescending ass clowns that put you to sleep in class. They didn't know how to teach- moreover students (like me) were all hung over from the frat party the past weekend. A bad mix for a learning environment. Would've been nice to have this guy teaching philosophy. As I've gotten older I now realize this stuff does matter - I wasted my parents money by not paying attention.
Same here in my 30s, I wish I took philosophy classes in my 20s instead of partying ans wasting my time.
Great Lecture...
Thanks for sharing this.
to what extent, if any, has Heidegger drawn from the work of Ernst Bloch and his notion of an anticipatory consciousness of yet to become, and the real possibilities of? See Volume One of The Principle of Hope.
Awesome lecture!
Thank you. From a mathematician, thank you.
MATHEMATICIAN WOW REALLY
Why is freedom transcendental?
Peace is a lie, there is only passion
Thank you so much GBU
Thumbnail is nightmare fuel
Horribly horrorsomelly absorbing;no pulling of punch;take it or leave.What a steaming piece of Shit I feel, never mind ,I shall watch La la Land.where is the Exit?
Thank for the nourishment.
I guess it is impossible to understand our own time and the modern human being without understanding Kierkegaard.
I understand his point, I think, that objective knowledge will not provide answers to questions as "how to live a good life" etc and that to come to subjective "knowledge" a leap of faith is required. Maybe as soon as someone made such a leap this person is not able to "leap" back again into our physical world, if you allow to make a bit ironic remark.
I know this is a lecture about philosophy and not theology and as an atheist I should not worry, perhaps, at all about theology. Yet! Kierkegaard was not stupid at all. He made his leap of faith and was, thus, a passionate Christian. But, of course, within is Christian religion he saw or should have seen things, which obviously do not fit with the objective world. I wonder did Kierkegaard just turn his back to science of his days? Or, perhaps, did he say that the content of the Bible literally is of no concern to him? I have to think about the Catholic priest, who said in an interview, that he feels he should as a Christian not bother whether Christ as a real person historically existed, but that Christ as depicted in the Bible is worth to be followed in itself.
Michael, so what was Kierkegaard's view one when someone's subjective truth is evidently contradicted by objective truth? I made a leap of faith and I believe therefore that the earth is 6000 years old, although object truth by science makes clear it is much older.
Ruud, you raise excellent issues. First, regarding the possibility that subjective truth arising from a leap-of-faith comes into conflict with objectivity, even, under the most rigorous scientific standards, I think should be of no concern to Kierkegaard, both for theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, the basic premise that a being that exists in time cannot escape personal subjectivity makes a perfect correspondence between thinking and being (intellectus et res) impossible. Thus, the infinite concern of inwardness that impels one to inquire is always left unfulfilled by the unreliability of the scientific evidence. Ultimately, I'd say that the question of "who is right, the scientist or the theologian," is not one in which Kierkegaard is even interested. That is a matter of objective truth, and the whole point is to suggest that subjective truth is more meaningful, in the sense of giving one a reason for living. Passion trumps knowledge. Now, as you say, because Kierkegaard is far from stupid, I imagine that ones basic worldview would have to be, at least to some extent, practically informed by the objective. After all, one might waste a great deal of time walking to church, rather than praying there, should it be rejected that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line! Now, regarding the bible issue, I imagine that this holy book was of extreme significance to him; after all, Christian beliefs are not given a priori. But, exactly how it is to be interpreted, what scripture is accepted and what rejected, is wide-open, as is the entire human condition. And, therein lies the real gravity of his teaching. The decision is our own. It must be made and owned individually. Yet, this great burden is, at the same time, cause for great joy and celebration of the gift of human freedom.
Dear Michael,
the truth is that after your first message I wrote a reaction three times, but every time I practically finished my message by one reason or another youtube restarted and I had to start writing again. After the third time I was that fed up, that I did not want to begin a fourth time.
BTW, I have no professor! ;-) I am working in the chemical industry and am quite a fanatic amateur entomologist, but already during my study chemistry, which I started in 1986, I gained a more serious interest in philosophy, so besides my study of polymers and analytical methods I also followed lectures in medieval philosophy, so I am one of the very few, I guess, atheist chemists, who read Augustin, Abelard and Ockham. As I am used to say to my friends: crazy, but not dangerous!
Okay, back to Kierkegaard again. Michael, I was a bit expecting your first reaction! I was already thinking that Sören was not that interested in conflicts between the objective and subjective world. Of course he was first of all a theologian. But it gives me, as a thinking person, little satisfaction.
It is a bit sad that since, I don’t know, let’s say 150 years or so, you have to chose between the continental philosphers or the Anglo-Saxon ones. It seems to me that, since Kierkegaard and perhaps Nietzsche the continental philosophers appears to have closed their eyes for the ‘real’ knowledge we gained by the natural sciences, while folks from the Wiener Kreis or thinkers as William James etc are not able to come to a complete philosophical system neither.
Anyway, while thinkers in the footsteps of Kierkegaard are to me a bit too miserable, too pessimistic, too bleak, the more positive, perhaps more practical philosophers are not able to say what I ought to do or what my place in this universe really is.
Too bad. Sigh!
Nevertheless, have a nice Sunday!
I commend your openness, Ruud; and, am impressed with your self-initiation into philosophical thought. I don't really place much emphasis on the whole analytic/continental distinction. They are simply different perspectives or methods for approaching the same issue. Indeed, I would include chemistry and physics in the same pursuit.
+ruud van der weele There is a fairly good Facebook group "Kierkegaard and Christian Existentialism" that has a few very good philosophy professors in the group that have focused on Kierkegaard during their careers; also some theologians, and many Atheists, Buddhists &c. all with the same interest in SK. Granted many students are signed up right now, and most of the scholars are posting less than they do during summer months due to their workloads, but it's still a very good group that you may find interesting.
Taking into consideration SK wrote using several pseudonyms, many times coming from different perspectives, grasping his bottom line -- sort a speak -- can be a very difficult endeavour. His views on Christianity are well articulated in "Training in Christianity" Don't let the title fool you, he was very! intolerant of ANY Dogmas, and Doctrine, even though he was a theologian... This is one of the most complicated men I have ever run across; along with Nietzsche and a few others from the existentialism community. For myself -- studying SK or Nietzsche -- one has to do their very best to step away from their own worldview -- as insane as that may sound -- to extrapolate the "ground" these men stood on.
With SK the mear fact; him working through these pseudonyms makes the research all the more difficult, but makes the journey all the more rewarding.. As a rule of thumb; for every theists philosopher I study, an Atheists philosopher is being studies at the same time. Keeps my perspective from getting in the way of embracing the perspectives of minds much brighter than my own. I hope you don't mind the input...
+Jeff Bertolotti thanks!
Ĺ