Resistance is not sufficient for revolution. What must happen is support from within the institutions of the state for a revolution to succeed. It is true that public unrest does give courage to traitors from within to form factions and try to topple the current dictator to put themselves in his place. Nut public unrest by itself isn't enough

That's because if you adopt his attitude to philosophy, there's nothing at stake. It is a purely critical enterprise, wholly concerned with puncturing what philosophy is normally taken to be. Therefore you have nothing to defend, and you can simply attack. — Wayfarer

Well not necessarily, but you do away with metaphysics, and get busy with the practicalities of life. It's not necessarily bad. A lot of metaphysics is stuff that is ultimately irrelevant to life anyways.

I believe that in later life, he devoted considerable time to baccalaureate. — Wayfarer

Baccalaureate? You mean he went around looking under girl's skirts like a bachelor? :-O

You obviously don't understand how things work out in the hood bro.

That's not entirely accurate. Hamann's religious position is made possible and built precisely on Hume.

Hume was a pretty boring philosopher, imo. He used the same tired trick over and over again to produce various forms of skepticism..........

"There's no necessary connection between sense-experiences and material objects." -- > external world skepticism

"There's no necessary connection between memories and past events." -- > skepticism about the past

"There's no necessary connection between past events and future events." -- > problem of induction

"I never perceive myself." -- > skepticism about the self

... and what solution did Hume offer to these skeptical problems? "Let's hit the club, guys!"

Boring philosopher, indeed. — lambda

Yes, but those are just Hume's metaphysical positions. There's more to Hume than that. Two other factors I can think of:

• Ethics
• Philosophy of Religion

Plato, Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, in that order were the top Google searches worldwide over the last 5 years. Plato appeared to be significantly more sought after versus the others — Cavacava

Yeah, because most people who hear about philosophy will hear about these four generally. They're the first names one comes across.

You're comparing a sample size of 22 to a sample size of 1,077. — Michael

Well I'm comparing our community with the Academia. Of course our community is going to be much smaller than the Academia, I am aware of that :)

Anglo survey, no? Perhaps Anglo/American at best. — John

Yes.

:-}

If you were shown evidence that Christians engage in premarital sex (and abortions, by the way) on a regular basis, would that evidence be enough to make you give up on Christianity as a religion? — anonymous66

No, that evidence would not be enough to make me give up Christianity as a religion. Christianity is about a lot more than premartial sex and abortions.

But having said that, I do know that many "Christians" engage in premartial sex and abortions, however - the difference is that Christianity has a Holy Book - the Bible - which is God's revelation and contains what all believers should agree with to be Christians in the first place. Stoicism doesn't. If there's something Epictetus says that I don't like - well fuck Epictetus, he was wrong. A Christian can't do that. That's why even those Christians who do engage in premartial sex generally are aware that premartial sex is wrong. At least that much they recognise, even if they still engage in it.

If you were shown evidence that Christianity is a religion with very little unity, and very large divergences in beliefs upon key issues... would that evidence be enough to make you give up on Christianity as a religion? — anonymous66

If you could show that within a denomination - say Catholicism - there are very large divergences upon significant and relevant issues, then that would be a significant factor to consider. Enough to give up Christianity as a religion? Probably not. That would require additional evidence to put in doubt Jesus's Resurrection.

I've given evidence that the modern Stoics do have communal practices... — anonymous66

What rituals does Stoicism have? Rituals are the groundwork of communal activity.

Many people describe themselves as introverts who rebuild their reserves of energy by being alone. I don't see any problem with that. — anonymous66

Yeah, I'm an introvert too. But the thing with many introverts is that they simply don't have a community of people like them around, hence why they prefer being alone. There's no surprise there.

Life requires some extroversion. — Mongrel

Maybe. It's about accepting yourself. You don't like large groups, parties, etc. simple - don't get yourself there. Most people give in to peer pressure, or otherwise feel bad about not doing what others are doing. I used to be like that. Now - I just can't be fucked about what others think.

K had no intention of living a normal life. — Mongrel

Yeah, frankly I don't either lol :P

K claimed to be a very "inward" person, which I take to mean introverted (in the way Jung meant it, not the popular meaning of shyness). An extremely introverted person sometimes deals with representations of people more so than the real people themselves. It's a condition that can result in really bizarre behavior. — Mongrel

Nothing that can't be cured by just quitting to think, and going to do. I meet similar self-talk alllll the time. Even in martial arts, when I have to spar someone bigger than me, I always feel "I'm too weak, I can't do it, I'll get my ass kicked, it's gonna be nasty" etc. But sometimes I just don't give attention to those thoughts. Just fuckin' do it. Then it works much better. One of my sifus always said "no thought please, no thought". I'm also an introvert.

My life will unconditionally accent her life, my literary work is to be regarded as a monument to her honour and praise. I take her along into history. — TimeLine

All this quote tells me is that K. had an ambition to land in history, and because he loved R., he's happy take her with him into the pages of history books. Perhaps as a way of making up for breaking his engagement with her.

I spent today in a profoundly draining conference — TimeLine

I spent today running around - what are you doing at draining conferences?

typing on my phone is not that easy — TimeLine

Then don't type on your phone - think about it till you get to a computer :P

Do you think that an attempt for forgiveness meant a regret on part of the person seeking this forgiveness? — TimeLine

I see nowhere in the citations that you give that K. thought that he shouldn't have broken off the engagement. He did have a reason for doing it, and that was that an attachment to a woman would not have allowed him to be completely devoted to God. What do you think of monks? Monks must forfeit erotic love in order to love God more fully. Similar to how Abraham had to give up his son Isaac (or be willing to) in order to have him.

And no, I don't think an attempt at forgiveness necessarily means regret about the action. For example, I may regret hurting X, but not regret breaking up with her. K. clearly regretted the suffering he caused his beloved - but he did not regret his decision.

Cite please. — TimeLine

Cite please. — TimeLine

:-} Thou shalt not steal rules out of Agustino's playbook.

With regards to the first citation, for example the fact he dedicated his work to Regine and took her with him in history - that represents his love for her.

With regards to the second citation you seek, I refer you to the passages from Works of Love I quoted before.

Oh, you know my desires, do you? — TimeLine

Well yeah, I do, cause you go around shouting them left and right when you post on the forum, no wonder!

Well, here I was thinking that I was an authority to myself. Praise, O mighty Augustino, for seemingly crossing the metaphysical boundaries into the transcendental realm that is my subjective. Hail, Augustino, for thou art a god. :s — TimeLine

I appreciate your praises, but please deliver them to the one True God who alone is Worthy of Praise.

Love is what all people desire. — TimeLine

Maybe - but some, in certain circumstances, would disagree.

This is merely an ad hominem attack to try and purport that my approach to the subject is skewed by proxy, perhaps because I am a woman. — TimeLine

>:O >:O yeah, it certainly must be 'cause you're a lady. I see. Why would I have something against you because you're a woman, for real now?

But it must be reciprocal and genuine. — TimeLine

Spinoza thought that the one true love - the Love of God - wasn't reciprocal. That's just one example of someone who disagrees with you.

No, he came to her telling her that he wants her, asking for her hand in marriage and then changing his mind — TimeLine

On the same day all this is happening? :o K. proposed in 1840, he retracted in 1841, and she remarried in 1847. That's a big gap right there. She only properly stopped talking to him once she got married.

He was terrified of the happiness that he would have attained with her. — TimeLine

I never knew happiness is terrifying.

I think Alexander the Great or Marcus Aurelius are extraordinary examples; he was merely a humble philosopher from Denmark and millions of men are just men who want to do something significant - like maybe write a book or work in a particular field - not become some whopping leader of a great empire. — TimeLine

Pff. This is just a modern prejudice. A great philosopher is just as capable as a great ruler. And no, he wasn't merely a "humble philosopher from Denmark". Why do you consider someone who writes an earth shattering work - like your baby Kant - inferior to someone who creates a giant Empire like Alexander? Clearly they're not inferior.

Don't forget the story. Alexander goes to meet Diogenes, who was a great philosopher but otherwise a beggar on the streets. Diogenes says "get the fuck out of my sunlight". Alexander's men laugh. Alexander rebukes them and says: "Truly if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes". Why? Because Diogenes was as great as Alexander was, despite lacking an empire. It's the character that counts, not the possessions. While Alexander's men were cowering and bowing their heads to him merely out of fear, fearing for their lives, there was one man who didn't give a damn and had the courage to stand up to him. That was worthy of respect, and Alexander was no idiot. He knew it.

with the same sensual experience. — TimeLine

Why the same sensual experience?

"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil... She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness... Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her." — TimeLine

Yeah yeah yeah, stop serving me stuff I agree with, it's boring :P

As I said, authentic. The love must be genuine. Anyone and everyone can say 'I love you' but it is not often that one actually genuinely means it. — TimeLine

Riiiight. And you know that that physics lecturer's love for his wife is authentic? Did you stalk them? :P

Mature love follows the principle: "I am loved because I love." — TimeLine

Wrong. Mature love says I love even if I am not loved back.

cheating and committing sexual immorality to make one feel momentarily alive. — TimeLine

I don't think peeps cheat to "momentarily feel alive" and any such thing. These are too high feelings for the majority of them. They cheat out of boredom and lust. Read the paper and fornicate - that's the modern man as Camus said ;)

We become disillusioned, but the latter does not mean it doesn't exist — TimeLine

Yeah so why you tellin' me? I already agree with that.

and most likely there is a strong percentage of couples that remain bound together by genuine affection. — TimeLine

:s check the stats please. A perfect relationship is as rare as Alexander's Empire, as rare as Kant's Critique. Most people don't reach up to those heights, neither in their relationships, nor in their achievements.

because he was an idiot. — TimeLine

...

that even Kierkegaard himself was conscious of - though a few years later - his mistake to his everlasting regret. — TimeLine

This is false. Cite any evidence of K. thinking of his leaving Regine as mistaken.

K mentioned that there was absolutely nothing about Regine that could have justified his abandonment of her — TimeLine

Where did he mention this? Cite it please.

He lived in regret because his actions were regretful, they were wrong and he was conscious of that. He realised that she was perfect for him and worth courting, thus in the end, he missed out on the most important aspect of our existence, mutual love. — TimeLine

What is your EVIDENCE for saying K. thought that he personally missed out on love?

Furthermore, not everyone will agree that "mutual love" is the most important aspect of our existence. That's what you think because that happens to be your dominant desire.

The facts are completely the other way around. Regine implored K. to take her back for YEARS and K. still refused. It wasn't a momentary lack of judgement.

It seems to me that either you must condemn K. completely, or approve him - but you can't say "oh he regretted what he did, and became a changed man" because there isn't any evidence for that.

Life is meant to be shared within the boundaries of authentic and mutual love. That is not an idealization. That is a fact. — TimeLine

I don't know. Not everyone's life is meant to be shared within the boundaries of authentic and mutual love. Take Alexander the Great. You think Alexander married because of love? Absolutely not - he married as was necessary to build the strategic alliances that his budding empire needed. Of course he probably chose to marry women he liked, who looked nice, were pretty and sexy for the time, were socially well-regarded, etc. But he just couldn't marry purely for love - that would have meant hurting both himself and the woman. He would be away on the battlefield most of the time.

What did Marcus Aurelius want most? A quiet life at the countryside. Rulers generally don't have a quiet life at all. They don't have time for family, taking care of their woman, etc. It comes with the territory.

My physics lecturer who is a brilliant mind and authored several books speaks highly of his wife and partner of 32 years, in the introduction of his books and publicly. — TimeLine

This doesn't mean they have a great relationship. Donald Trump speaks highly of Melania in his books and publicly. Does that mean they have a great, loving relationship? Unlikely, because Trump just doesn't have the time for that to begin with. His previous wife Marla shagged Trump's bodyguard - who recently killed himself by overdosing - struggling to find employment after Trump kicked him out.

The fact is MOST people in the West today don't have great married lives at all. For most it's quite terrible actually. Divorce rates are at 50%+ in many of the most developed places.

Even amongst those who don't divorce, how many do you think aren't troubled by things like infidelities, adultery etc.? All my family (who aren't divorced) have cheated on each other for example. That includes older generations too.

So yes, John is right, that kind of love is RARE. It's not something "so human". People who won't cheat on each other are people who don't need each other (or other people) to begin with. That takes training, it's not the natural human condition.

Again. "To cheat oneself out of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity." — TimeLine

I agree to that, but what makes you think K. cheated himself out of love? He never for a single second denied that he loved Regine. He believed it in his heart - he had the infinite hope of someone who was certain about it - had complete faith in it. Do you really think that not being together physically with your beloved is cheating yourself out of love? Do you think it is impossible to love if - say - your beloved is dead? This isn't about imagination, etc. these are real feelings of love that you can experience for a person even if they are not close to you, and even if they are dead - in fact, even if they reject you. You are not cheating yourself out of love when you open yourself up to those feelings - you would be cheating yourself out of love if you tried to get rid of them because they can be painful, or otherwise.

K. understands that love belongs to eternity - not necessarily to time. In time the two lovers may not be together - but that doesn't stop them from being together in eternity - and that includes this very moment. Regine was his - not in time, but in eternity. He gave her up in time so that he may have her forever.

I don't think if offered the choice, K would have chosen differently. He knew what he was getting into from the very beginning, but that didn't mean that it wouldn't be immensely painful. What makes you think - from his writings - that he would have chosen differently?

Also be careful that you don't judge emotionally. Your mind may subconsciously put you in Regine's shoes, and go through the events of the guy you absolutely love rejecting you, putting up a cold front, etc. Then you'll judge K. to have done wrong, just as a way to safeguard yourself. A lot of virtue signalling plays the same unconscious role - serves to attract a virtuous person to you (even if you may not be virtuous to begin with) simply because that's one of your deepest desires. Be honest to yourself (not trying to suggest you currently aren't, but just something to keep in mind).

I really want to find £100,000 cash underneath my sofa, but wanting it won't make it so. — Sapientia

Of course, money doesn't pop out of nowhere, what did you expect? Most people who get in touch with God, and become aware of God's presence work at it. They don't make it up, the same way you don't dream up your £100K.

It wasn't for me, though, and I'd bet that most people who visit philosophy forums would agree. — Mariner

Okay but reason can only make do with what you've got. If you don't have the necessary material, either you imagine it, or you experience it. Otherwise how can you even reason?

No, you STOP! And READ MORE CAREFULLY! :D — Sapientia

Hold on bruv, need to find the fuckin button for that mate!

I would begin by recommending clear and methodical reasoning. (This is not about Sapientia by the way, it is about anyone who asked me how to approach God). — Mariner

Yes but that's relatively unimportant. More important is the experience itself.

The problem is that nothing you can tell me about or get me to do will necessarily cause me to reach the conclusion that God exists — Sapientia

STOP!

You're going in with a preconceived idea. It's like telling me that nothing I tell you to do, even putting your hand in the right place, will convince you of the existence of fire. What I mean by fire is precisely what you experience when you put your hand in the right place.

So similarly, what Mariner means by God will be what you experience by doing the secret "stuff" he wants you to do. Not daddy in the sky, or whatever other preconceived ideas you have.

For example, I'd mention that I did some stuff, and that if you did this stuff, perhaps you'd experience something similar. — Mariner

You should be careful Sappy, who knows what "stuff" you'll be asked to do X-)

Yes, the most important things for Stoics is morality, but even there, they disagree about what that morality is. Stoicism doesn't have clear cut beliefs upon key issues. For example, you can be a Stoic without believing in God. You can be a Stoic without believing fornication and casual sex is wrong. And so forth.

Are you merely asserting that you know that modern Stoics don't care about what the ancient Stoics texts say? — anonymous66

No, I am asking you a question. The question was:

Okay, what's his view on fornication then and promiscuous sex? — Agustino

Here's the thing. Modern Stoics, just like they disregard what Ancient Stoic texts said about God, also disregard some things ancient texts said about fornication. They go hand-in-hand with modern culture on these issues of sexuality and God. Most people out there - even those who commit adultery (not even talking about fornication now) will say that adultery is wrong. So it's no surprise that modern stoics say that too.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there isn't unity amongst Stoics. There are very large divergences in beliefs upon key issues. You won't find such divergences amongst the oldest religious groups.

No no, I'm not asking about the Ancient Stoics. I know what the Ancient Stoics say, I've read them. I'm asking you what modern stoics believe. Ciceronianus here calls himself a modern Stoic. Ask him, does he think fornication is wrong? Probably not. Ask your friends at the Stoicon.

But I don't believe that such overweening self-belief is a guarantee of success — John

There is no guarantee for success - I agree. The self-belief merely makes it more likely, but that's all. That's precisely why the genius is admirable. Because without any guarantee they make the leap - they dare - they display courage and conviction. That arouses a feeling of possibility in other people, and soon laughter turns to awe. Awe that someone dared to risk and gamble.

The dividing line between stupidity and genius is that the stupid person gives in to the demands and laughter of the others - while the genius perseveres. That's why I believe genius has to do with a certain type of personality more than anything else. It's the character that others ultimately admire in a genius.

I also don't believe it is absolutely necessary in all cases. — John

What case(s) would you / are you thinking about?

He also writes a Stoic advice column. Here is his take on Infidelity... — anonymous66

Okay, what's his view on fornication then and promiscuous sex?

They seem very much alike, both leap and in doing so transcend the ethical same as Abe and perhaps Gauguin — Cavacava

Maybe, but in different directions ;)

After reading the article you linked, I am inclined to think that K cancelled his engagement to Regine out of an apprehension that he could not both fulfill his vocation as a writer in service to his God, and satisfy Regine. So I would not say "to escape his fears", but rather to avoid what he knew would be an untenable situation, and would result in even greater suffering for Regine in the long run. I think his actions were ethical, because he had not made the final commitment. — John

Yeah, I'm probably leaning towards this interpretation too. TimeLine obviously thinks differently though.

I don't believe however that what he did could be justified because he knew he was a genius, and had great things to give to humanity. He could not have known that. He believed it, to be sure, and it turns out he was not wrong, but he could not have known the future.. Another case that springs to mind is Gauguin's abandonment of his family to go paint in Polynesia. We might say, after the fact, that he was justified on account of his great paintings. But we have the benefit of hindsight, which he did not. So, I think that what Gauguin did was unethical. — John

Okay, but think of Schopenhauer as well for example. If Schopenhauer hadn't ardently believed in his own genius while nobody else did, then he would never have succeeded to give anything to humanity. It's almost as if the belief is what drives someone to commit to the actions that are required to make it happen. The faith.

If you are a "normal" person, you'll do a cost-benefit analysis and think about things like: "Okay, I'll spend my days working towards achieving X, but if I fail, then I'll be left with no family, and life will have gone by and I would never have been able to enjoy Y, M, Z that other people could. Or I could put less effort in achieving X, and balance it with Y, M, Z and having a normal life, that way, if I fail to achieve X, at least I will have had Y, M, Z"

But a genius isn't like this. A genius is willing to gamble with their life and lose everything - absolutely everything - in order to gain one thing. That's the distinguishing mark of genius, and it's more important than intelligence and capability. It's almost as if this belief and sheer will power is what makes the achievements of the genius possible in the first place - it's what makes them be willing to suffer greatly to see their ideas come through.

So it's not the genius's superior ability that makes him shine beyond the rest. It's the fact that he's the only one willing to give his absolute to succeed - the one who isn't scared of the prospect of failure or of immense pain. Most others fail not because they lack the talent - but because they lack the courage and conviction.

Actually, the Stoic texts we have make it very clear that the Ancient Stoics did believe in God. I challenge anyone to find me even one Stoic in the ancient world who was an atheist...

However, it is also the case that a majority of people interested in Stoicism today are atheists... and most of them acknowledge that the Ancient Stoics were believers.. most modern Stoics just think the Ancient Stoics were wrong about the question of God's existence. — anonymous66

Precisely the problem I was talking about. Also most of today's Stoics would disagree with the Ancient Stoics on, for example, sexual morality.

You mean like Christianity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml
It also has atheists and believers. — anonymous66

No. You won't see a Christian atheist in a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church, which are the oldest Christian churches that you can find. Sure, there are some insignificant branches of Christianity where the are atheists, but that's all.

Can the Knight of Faith fall in love with anyone besides god? — Cavacava

Yes, because the love of God also entails all the other loves.

Can the Ubermensch love anyone except her/himself? — Cavacava

Probably not :P . Why are you asking about the Ubermensch though?

Really? I encountered Deists in the UU church I attended. And, ever heard of Stoicon? I went last year, I'll probably go again this year. There is a thriving community of Stoics online. I suspect the same is true of Deism. — anonymous66

yes, but they have very little in common. Stoicism doesn't cover all the bases so to speak. It covers the bases of how you should behave, but that's about it. It doesn't tell you whether there's a God or not (there are both Stoic atheists and Stoic believers), it doesn't tell you where man comes from, and where man is going to, etc. It doesn't answer existential questions. It just gives you a practice that you can do here and now. Religions aren't like this.

And it seems to me that their beliefs about God led them to live pretty good lives. — anonymous66

No, it's not their beliefs about God that caused them to behave as they did. It was their beliefs about man and his place in the world that determined their behaviour - in other words their ethical beliefs. So yes, they lived good lives - "good" here being a relative term - because they were virtuous. Could they have lived better lives? Perhaps more joy? Greater hope? Or is virtue the "peak" of what's possible?

Even Jesus seems to be saying that God wasn't actually the way He was as presented in the Old Testament. — anonymous66

That's not true, Jesus never intimated that his God is any different from the God of the Old Testament. Many people have this notion of Old Testament = violent God, New Testament = loving God. But that's very misguided. First, the NT mentions hell more frequently than the Old (which barely mentions it). The Revelation of the NT is quite likely a lot more brutal than anything described in the OT. The Holy Ghost killed Ananias and his wife Sapphira for withholding money from the Church and St. Peter on the spot, etc.

Deism looks pretty attractive. Stoicism looks pretty attractive. Revealed religions? Not so much. — anonymous66

They are attractive, but they are very individualistic. They're not communal the way religions are communal. Religions involve a religious community of believers who share the faith together and agree to live by certain common principles and ideals.

Consider @TimeLine:

Indeed, one can be deceived in many ways; one can be deceived in believing what is untrue, but on the other hand, one is also deceived in not believing what is true

[...]

To cheat oneself out of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity. For usually, whatever variations there may be, when there is talk of being deceived in love the one deceived is still related to love, and the deception is simply that it is not present where it was thought to be; but one who is self-deceived has locked himself out and continues to lock himself out from love. There is also talk about being deceived by life or in life; but he who self-deceptively cheated himself out of living - his loss is irredeemable. One who throughout his whole life has been deceived by life - for him the eternal can treasure rich compensation; but the person who has deceived himself has prevented himself from winning the eternal. He who because of love became sacrifice to human deceit - what has he really lost when in eternity it turns out that love endures; whereas the deception is no more!

But one who has ingeniously deceived himself by cleverly falling into the snare of cleverness, alas, even if throughout his entire life he has in his own conceit considered himself happy, what has he not lost when in eternity it appears that he deceived himself! In the temporal world a man may succeed in getting along without love; he may succeed in slipping through life without discovering the self-deception; he may have the terrible success, in his conceit, of becoming proud of it; but in eternity he cannot dispense with love and cannot escape discovering that he has lost everything. How earnest existence is, how terrible it is, precisely when in chastisement it permits the wilful person to counsel himself, permits him to live on proud of - being deceived - until finally he is permitted to verify that he has deceived himself in eternity!

The eternal does not let itself be mocked; it is rather that which does not need to use might but almighily uses a little mockery in order to punish the presumptuous in a terrible way [...] Need, to have need, and to be needy - how reluctantly a man wishes this to be said of him! And yet, we pay the highest compliment when we say of [...] a girl - 'it is a need for her to love'. Alas, even the most needy person who has ever lived - if he still has had love - how rich his life has been in comparison with him, the only really poor person, who lived out his life and never felt the need of anything! It is a girl's greatest riches that she needs the beloved

[...]

Is there perhaps something lacking in faith since in this way it is and continues to be and ought to be a secret? Is this not also the case with erotic love, is it not rather the transient emotions which become manifest immediately and dwindle away and the deep impression which always maintains secrecy, so that we even say, and rightfully so, that falling in love which does not make a man secretive is not real falling in love? Secret falling in love can be an image of faith

[…]

And when we talk most solemnly we do not say of the two: ‘They love one another’; we say ‘They pledged fidelity’ or ‘They pledged friendship to one another’. By what then do we swear this love? […] When erotic love swears fidelity, it really gives to itself the significance by which it swears […] Yet it is easy to understand that if one is really to swear, he must swear by something higher […] Then the two add an Eden – they will love each other “for ever”. If this is not added, the poet will not join the two; he turns away, indifferent, from such time-bound love, or mocking he turns against it, since he belongs eternally to this eternal love […] The poet is right in this that when two persons will not love one another for ever, their love is not worth talking about, even less worthy of artistic celebration. But the poet does not detect the misunderstanding: that the two swear by their love to love each other for ever instead of swearing by the eternal their love to one another. The eternal is higher. If one is to swear, then one must swear by the higher; but if one swears by the eternal then one swears by duty – that ‘one shall love’.

[…]

When love has undergone the transformation of the eternal by being made duty, it has won continuity, and then it follows of itself that it survives. It is not self-evident that what exists in the moment will exist in the next moment, but it is self-evident that the continuous survives. We say that something survives the test, and we praise it when it has survived the test; but this is said about the imperfect, for the survival of the continuous will not and cannot reveal itself by surviving a test – it is indeed the continuous – and only the transient can give itself the appearance of continuity by surviving a test. […]

The love which simply exists […] still must survive the test of the years. But the love which has undergone the transformation of the eternal by becoming duty has won continuity […] There is no talk at all about testing; one does not insult it by wishing to test it; one knows in advance that it endures. […] Consequently, only when it is a duty to love, only then is love eternally secure. […] For in that love that has only existence [and no duty], however confident it may be there is still an anxiety, anxiety over the possibility of change […] The anxiety is hidden; the only expression is a burning passion, whereby it is merely hinted that anxiety is at the bottom.

Otherwise why is it that spontaneous love is so inclined to – yes, so in love with – making a test of the love? This is just because love has not, by becoming a duty, in the deepest sense undergone the test. From this comes what the poet would call sweet unrest […] The lover wants to test the beloved. The friend wants to test the friend. Testing certainly has its basis in love, but this violently flaming desire to test and this hankering desire to be put to the test explain that the love itself is unconsciously uncertain […] But when it is a duty to love, neither is a test needed nor the insulting foolhardiness of wanting to test, because if love is higher than every test it has already more than conquered […] When one shall, it is for ever decided; and when you will understand that you shall love, your love is for ever secure — Soren Kierkegaard

This is the deception that drove her to suffering and thus contrary to his moral obligations and perhaps his behaviour towards her enabled a temporary solution that compelled her marriage to someone else, but such suffering within never ceases without forgiveness, that we will never know whether she, as much as he, was tormented. — TimeLine

But there is not much doubt that in her heart of hearts Regine always loved Kierkegaard, regardless of who she married, and Kierkegaard knew this. That's why he was never jealous of her husband - he knew that she belonged to him. As K. himself writes in "Works of Love", love is a hidden secret, only known in the depths of the two lovers' souls - the external world thinks that the two lovers are mad.

It is not good enough to hold onto an imagined story of love, the honour and honesty to face the brutality of your feelings with courage, the absence of which meant that in the end it was his devotion in God and not hers that was in question. — TimeLine

Well what if he thought that being married wouldn't let him be devoted to God, and he would instead have to be devoted to Regine?

No, I was only kidding >:)

God still enabled Abraham to keep his son and to embrace the joy in love — TimeLine

Yes but it was God's reward for Abraham's complete faith, even in letting go of what he treasured most for the sake of God.

K. believed that he will have Regine in eternity too. He always viewed himself as married to her.

His acute awareness of self-deception is because his cold - almost cruel - methods of justifying his initial decision to abandon her surfaced as being a lie he told himself. — TimeLine

It is true that he was cruel - he wanted to make her hate him at one point. That's why he allowed himself to be portrayed as a cold-hearted seducer, etc. But this was his way to get her to devote herself to what truly matters - God - before devoting herself to him.

It was an abandonment of love. He was afraid. — TimeLine

It's a possible reading, but Im not sure it's necessarily correct.

There remains nothing that would have enabled him to believe that his decision to reject her was justifiable, and this is where his subjective battle tormented him and why he needed forgiveness — TimeLine

Yes there does remain something, which is utter devotion to God, similar to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son. Don't forget that Kierkegaard never renounced his love for Regine - he carried it unto his dying breaths, when he dedicated all his past work to her. He - alike his own knight of faith - believed in the impossible - that he will renounce Regine and have her too. His point was that for God anything is possible.

He probably did all that he could to make himself believe it was the right decision, but self-deceptive lies always catch up. — TimeLine

Kierkegaard was acutely aware of self-deception though, and viewed self-deception as the worst possible state.

The worst thing in the world is to abandon a person that you genuinely love — TimeLine

But did he ever abandon her? Or was that only how things looked on the surface?

my place with Kant — TimeLine

Is Kant a rational, autonomous and virtuous man? :P

I too personally agree that there is more to self-actualisation than what reason can dictate, but notwithstanding, the categorical imperative' purpose remains a tool to articulate that subjective experience into an objective action, a way in which one can narrate feelings of guilt for committing something immoral, to utter an inherently unknowable that renders one capable of redemption and to say "I'm sorry" since such language or moral deliberation is articulated through knowledge. What is knowable must evidently require reason but reason itself is also subject to err (likely the effect of our impulses), hence the necessity of authenticity in this applied self-actualisation. It is finding the mean between both Schopenhauer and Kant. — TimeLine

Okay, you're not telling me something too controversial here - I agree :D

Authentic love has an incredible power in transforming us from mindless drones dictated by impulse or ego to genuinely compassionate and moral beings but without consciousness of this knowledge that enables one to commit themselves to affect causal powers by adhering to a set of commandments, one could quite easily lapse into a state of self-delusion that inevitably make them worse, hence the parable of the unclean spirit returning (L11:24); love, without reason, is blind. — TimeLine

I don't remember the parable of the unclean spirit to be like this. Instead Jesus was warning precisely against rational self-reliance and morality without religion/God. The point being is that without God - even if the spirit leaves the person, it will return 100 times stronger to inhabit a now cleaned house. This was like the Pharisees, who were outwardly virtuous, but inwardly rotten. Instead it is God - and God alone - who can drive the devil out. It is solely through God's mercy that redemption is possible, not through your own efforts. That was the message of Jesus.

I believe that reason without love is blind.

I find it very difficult tolerating false liars pretending they a good people, using contemporary modes of social ettiequte to enable this false image when they contribute nothing, all this pretending and games merely a way to convince those around them that they are good people. — TimeLine

They are first and foremost deceiving themselves.

I think this is an interesting question. Is the Christian God the only really personal God, due to His human incarnation? On the other hand, the Islamic mystic Rumi sometimes refers to God as "the Friend", and seems to be in love with Shams-i-Tabrīzī as an incarnation of the living God. So, is the notion of, and the feeling for, a personal God implicit only in the Abrahamic religions (as distinct form Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc) and explicit only in Christianity? — John

I think a personal God requires revelation, and the Abrahamic religions are the only religions where there is any sort of historical revelation. Such revelation implies communication, and communication necessitates two or more persons. The difference between the Abrahamic faiths and the other religions is that the Abrahamic faiths are historical - they represent a continuous story and march through history, in opposition to Buddhism, for example, which is static and unchanging in terms of history.