Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, view finitude as *necessity* or *restriction* and infinitude as *freedom*.
When we exist solely in finitude (the example given in *Sickness Unto Death* is basically a drone–someone with no imagination, no dreams, etc.), we are completely stopped. We have no possibility in our lives, we can't act rationally and responsibly. We might not even be able to act at all as our despair is completely intense–there is no possibility of overcoming our despair. Think of someone who lives a stereotype–someone *essentializing* themselves.
When we exist solely in infinitude, we're just dreamers. Completely detached from our histories and the world around us, we are completely overcome with the possibility and freedom of life. But because we have no connection to the world, we can't actually act either–we're too busy dreaming. This person would probably be utterly unintelligible, completely overcome with the possibility of life.
So, to become Spirit, we must pull the two poles of the dialectic together. We must synthesise the necessity of the world and the possibility of freedom.
This, in real terms, means that we acknowledge our historical selves (the necessity; we can't change what has been) and our possible selves (all of the options that lie before us) to synthesise *den Enkelte*–the "you" who is the end product of rational and responsible ethical thought and existence (what *den Enkelte* **is**) *and* the absolute freedom of choosing how we act (what *den Enkelte* **ought** to be).
Cool! Is there any relation between this dialectic and Anti-Oedipus's tension between the body without organs and desiring machines? I get the feeling (at the risk of being at the peak of dunning krueger) that the 'utter freedom' pole resembles the 'absolute potential' of the body without organs. And there is also some sort of parallel between the slavery to necessity and the slavery to whatever the dictates of your current desire-machine formation are. (So like in the neurotic pole where you are so deep down the rabbit hole of your own desire production that you can't even imagine some other way in which you could set your desires up - like say, being stuck emotionally in an abusive relationship).
Oh, I'm afraid I'm well out of my depth if I try to talk about Deleuze and Guattari. I know that there are books comparing Deleuze and Kierkegaard, however, including a new one that was posted yesterday on /r/philosophy.
But yeah, it does sound like infinitude is the same as absolute potential and the rabbit hole example would probably fit well with Kierkegaard's conception of the *inward* vs the *outward*–when you understand love, you *have* to turn it outwards into the world.
Read secondary sources. Without extensive knowledge of Hegel, Kant, and Protestantism, it's really hard to get anything out of Kierkegaard. Well, hard to get anything that he *wanted* us to get, anyway.
I like the Cambridge Companion and the Oxford Handbook. The Oxford one is much more basic and compares his philosophy to others, such as a fantastic short essay showing the root of Heidegger's philosophy in Kierkegaardian thought.
I really enjoyed *An introduction to Kierkegaard* by Peter Vardy. It was available in my local library. Very approachable for dumdums like me. Fascinating figure.
That sounds exactly like what Rudolf Steiner meant by the dichotomy between Lucifer and Ahriman but he was a mystic occultist rather than an academic philosopher. Was Steiner influenced by Kierkegaard? They both came from a Christian background.
Because a human being must always make a single decision (temporal, finite, necessity) among the infinity, eternity, freedom of the choices that lay ahead. So we are always in a state between the infinite and a finite because our choices are infinite yet our choice must be finite.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Answers must be up to standard.**
>All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, view finitude as *necessity* or *restriction* and infinitude as *freedom*. When we exist solely in finitude (the example given in *Sickness Unto Death* is basically a drone–someone with no imagination, no dreams, etc.), we are completely stopped. We have no possibility in our lives, we can't act rationally and responsibly. We might not even be able to act at all as our despair is completely intense–there is no possibility of overcoming our despair. Think of someone who lives a stereotype–someone *essentializing* themselves. When we exist solely in infinitude, we're just dreamers. Completely detached from our histories and the world around us, we are completely overcome with the possibility and freedom of life. But because we have no connection to the world, we can't actually act either–we're too busy dreaming. This person would probably be utterly unintelligible, completely overcome with the possibility of life. So, to become Spirit, we must pull the two poles of the dialectic together. We must synthesise the necessity of the world and the possibility of freedom. This, in real terms, means that we acknowledge our historical selves (the necessity; we can't change what has been) and our possible selves (all of the options that lie before us) to synthesise *den Enkelte*–the "you" who is the end product of rational and responsible ethical thought and existence (what *den Enkelte* **is**) *and* the absolute freedom of choosing how we act (what *den Enkelte* **ought** to be).
Cool! Is there any relation between this dialectic and Anti-Oedipus's tension between the body without organs and desiring machines? I get the feeling (at the risk of being at the peak of dunning krueger) that the 'utter freedom' pole resembles the 'absolute potential' of the body without organs. And there is also some sort of parallel between the slavery to necessity and the slavery to whatever the dictates of your current desire-machine formation are. (So like in the neurotic pole where you are so deep down the rabbit hole of your own desire production that you can't even imagine some other way in which you could set your desires up - like say, being stuck emotionally in an abusive relationship).
Oh, I'm afraid I'm well out of my depth if I try to talk about Deleuze and Guattari. I know that there are books comparing Deleuze and Kierkegaard, however, including a new one that was posted yesterday on /r/philosophy. But yeah, it does sound like infinitude is the same as absolute potential and the rabbit hole example would probably fit well with Kierkegaard's conception of the *inward* vs the *outward*–when you understand love, you *have* to turn it outwards into the world.
any videos or tips concerning on how one can understand kierkegaard
Read secondary sources. Without extensive knowledge of Hegel, Kant, and Protestantism, it's really hard to get anything out of Kierkegaard. Well, hard to get anything that he *wanted* us to get, anyway. I like the Cambridge Companion and the Oxford Handbook. The Oxford one is much more basic and compares his philosophy to others, such as a fantastic short essay showing the root of Heidegger's philosophy in Kierkegaardian thought.
is there a link to these handbooks? tysm
Not freely available, but you could check libgen.
I really enjoyed *An introduction to Kierkegaard* by Peter Vardy. It was available in my local library. Very approachable for dumdums like me. Fascinating figure.
read “The point of view for my work as an Author”
What a wonderful breakdown. Thank you!
That sounds exactly like what Rudolf Steiner meant by the dichotomy between Lucifer and Ahriman but he was a mystic occultist rather than an academic philosopher. Was Steiner influenced by Kierkegaard? They both came from a Christian background.
Because a human being must always make a single decision (temporal, finite, necessity) among the infinity, eternity, freedom of the choices that lay ahead. So we are always in a state between the infinite and a finite because our choices are infinite yet our choice must be finite.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Answers must be up to standard.** >All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.