So what's the truth? Did Kierkegaard break off the engagement he himself started with Regine out of fear and anxiety? As a way to escape his fears? Or did he break the engagement out of devotion to God?

Either way, are his actions ethical? Is Kierkegaard justified to break Regine's heart and abandon her, putting up a cold front despite her suffering? What's your opinion? — Agustino

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. It is exactly as you say, fear, and the precipitating guilt that followed that perhaps resulted in his need to engage philosophically with God since there should be no fear in love. If one would turn aside 'a legitimate court' like her, than what is authentic in any decisions that we make or perceptions that we believe?

He probably did all that he could to make himself believe it was the right decision, but self-deceptive lies always catch up. The worst thing in the world is to abandon a person that you genuinely love and there is no justification in allowing her such suffering which I fear he may have realised too late, which is why he desperately wanted to talk to her but never could.

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?

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

God still enabled Abraham to keep his son and to embrace the joy in love, that when there is an authenticity in this love between two people, one could say the sacrifice had gone ahead as if Kierkegaard renounced the very fabric of our existence, the very gift that God gave us. 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.

It was an abandonment of love. He was afraid.

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.

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. — Agustino

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.

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.

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?

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

Can the Knight of Faith fall in love with anyone besides god?
Can the Ubermensch love anyone except her/himself?

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?

So what's the truth? Did Kierkegaard break off the engagement he himself started with Regine out of fear and anxiety? As a way to escape his fears? Or did he break the engagement out of devotion to God?

Either way, are his actions ethical? Is Kierkegaard justified to break Regine's heart and abandon her, putting up a cold front despite her suffering? What's your opinion? — Agustino

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 be a satisfactory husband to 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 (and himself) in the long run. I think his actions were ethical, because he had not made the final commitment.

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.

Why are you asking about the Ubermensch though?

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

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.

Is there any difference between "transcending the ethical" and "being unethical'?

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 ;)

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. — Agustino

I think you may well be right about that, at least for a significant number of cases. But I don't believe that such overweening self-belief is a guarantee of success, and I also don't believe it is absolutely necessary in all cases.

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?

Is there any difference between "transcending the ethical" and "being unethical'?

Point of view. The person who transcends the ethical out of love or force of will, is unethical by definition but I don't think that translates into their having to act unethically. It means that they don't feel themselves bound by normative oughts, or perhaps the guilt for behaviors that we normatively might feel guilty about don't affect them in the same way.

Indeed Kierkegaard's whole corpus can be regarded as an attempt to justify himself. — Agustino

Probably his most powerful works exploded out of the crisis surrounding that. His whole corpus? A lot of it is about the death of Christianity, so... I don't think so.

"There was one who was great by virtue of his power. One who was great by virtue of his wisdom. One who was great by virtue of hope. And one who was great by virtue of his love. But Abraham was greater than these. Great by virtue of power which is impotence. Great by virtue of wisdom whose secret is foolishness. Great by virtue of hope that takes the form of madness. And great by virtue of a love which is hatred of oneself."

Regine? She's a long way off from here. He gave her up because he knew he would have been miserable with her... and so she would have been miserable too. That's what I think.

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

When one transcends love they by definition abandon it as was closely stated earlier by Cavs, only Kierkegaard came to realise it much later. Indeed, his initial decision may have been the assumption that the situation was untenable, that the idea of marrying Regine would have been a mistake both for himself and for her, but he realised that it was wrong afterwards, that his so-called 'final commitment' was self-deceptive and the very reason why he was tortured by the decision.

It is indeed his fears, fears that to commit to Regine may have situationally limited his capacity of genius, but he realised that to be wrong and on the contrary it was the very impetus to his overall capacity to undertake the subjects that he did. As you say, Gauguin did not know what the outcome would have been and neither did Kierkegaard, only he came to clearly and absolutely regret it, which is verification enough that even he realised it to have been wrong.

He gave her up because he knew he would have been miserable with her... and so she would have been miserable too. — Mongrel

This may have been what he initially assumed that compelled his decision, but he induced the very misery that he sought to avoid by what he later came to realise was self-deceptive. As he said himself, "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."

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).

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. — Agustino

There is nothing wrong with such emotions, on the contrary I - like Kierkegaard - know that whilst it is compelling intellectually, an absence of love is very root of our failure to attain the virtuous disposition that we seek. On the contrary, perhaps the warning should be deflected back to you as Kierkegaard' writing on the subject is very clear and whilst Kierkegaard' decision may be appreciated out of respect for his work, in the end we will never know whether he would have been greater or worse if he did decide to be with Regine or not. All we know is that they both were miserable because of it. 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."

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.

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

Schopenhauer was able to avoid the necessity to work and still live pretty well by all accounts, due to a bursary from his father. So, he didn't really have to risk much at all, but just follow his passion. Same for Cezanne.

Then there are those who, by virtue of their talent and application within the system, become university professors, and are able to do their vocational work in harmony with their occupational work. Kant and Hegel are prime examples. Nietzsche might have been like this too, due to his brilliance he gained a professorship at Basel from 1869 to 1978, which he apparently relinquished for health reasons. Augustine became a well regarded bishop, and opted to work for his salvation within the more widely accepted religion of Christianity; abandoning the relatively dangerous Manichean doctrines. It could be said that in the end he went for the safe option.

Some, like Van Gogh for example, due to general dysfunctionailty, probably simply cannot do anything else but follow their obsession; any other course would be intolerable to such a personality. Every case is different I would say, but I think talent and intellectual brilliance are certainly necessary, and probably also an obsessive nature driven to follow every avenue of inquiry, every nuance and subtle connection between things within the chosen discipline and relevant to the creative process.That is how new discoveries are made.

Yes, I don't agree that anyone should feel constrained by "normative oughts" in any case. Morality and ethics should be a matter of conscience and intuition, not of following sets of rules.

But, if someone breaks their commitments to others to follow their own selfish pursuits, that their works might come to be considered to be works of genius in no way constitutes a moral justification for their neglect of their commitments. This is not to say that they should not have broken their commitments, either; but just to say that they should realize that their can be no justification for breaking them. Whether they subjectively feel justified is another matter altogether.

I think that marrying Regine would have been a mistake, unless he was able to be wholehearted about it, which he obviously was not. What we imagine a love relationship will be and what it mostly likely will become are two very different things. It is much easier to be romantic about the whole affair when looking from afar.

God's teeth. What a story.

I've never been a fan of this most melancholy of the Danes. I wonder if he ever read Goethe and pondered whether the eternal feminine really draws us upward ("Das Ewig-Weibliche Zieht uns hinan.") If so, it seems he thought it does not. Given his statement about the need for a martyr, it seems he thought he would do so.

The reference to Abelard in the link Augustino provided is interesting. Poor Abelard was castrated for loving Heloise. Did K castrate himself, figuratively speaking, for refusing to love Regine, dying a celibate bachelor according to the link?

I think K's self-regard must have been monumental for him to treat another so shabbily on the ground that he is so important a figure with so much great to do that it's best (for Regine!) not to return love for love. As to the shabbiness, I don't refer merely to his breaking the engagement (which he saw fit to do twice), but to his subsequent haunting (stalking?) of his unfortunate victim, at least until she married, thereby reminding her that he would never be hers. A man of honor would have let her be after refusing her.

But perhaps those who think themselves martyrs have no honor. "There is no crime for those who have Christ" is what a fifth century Christian zealot said when accused of religious violence.

I think K's self-regard must have been monumental for him to treat another so shabbily on the ground that he is so important a figure with so much great to do that it's best (for Regine!) not to return love for love. As to the shabbiness, I don't refer merely to his breaking the engagement (which he saw fit to do twice), but to his subsequent haunting (stalking?) of his unfortunate victim, at least until she married, thereby reminding her that he would never be hers. A man of honor would have let her be after refusing her. — Ciceronianus the White

This is precisely it, the humanity and very actuality of the situation. He was haunted by his decision to abandon her and likely his approach and treatment of a mutual love that when he became conscious of his self-deceit, it compelled a desperation that never ceased. His initial actions to justify his abandonment were all merely a way to make himself believe that he did the right thing only to realise that she was perfect and he was wrong.

I think that marrying Regine would have been a mistake, unless he was able to be wholehearted about it, which he obviously was not. What we imagine a love relationship will be and what it mostly likely will become are two very different things. It is much easier to be romantic about the whole affair when looking from afar. — John

I think you need to look at this from afar as what I see here is more of an idealization of Kierkegaard for abandoning love in place of his philosophical love for God rather than appreciating that even Kierkegaard himself was conscious of - though a few years later - his mistake to his everlasting regret. The problem is not the outcome of the potentiality of this love as there was none; K mentioned that there was absolutely nothing about Regine that could have justified his abandonment of her, despite initially attempting (self-deceptively) to make himself believe that there was.

The result was unjustifiable suffering and likely to both parties and though it may sound appealing to those that appreciate such existential suffering, it is completely foolish and cruel. It was unethical to play games and be deceitful to her as a way to ward of the potential of confronting the future that appears frightening, and yes, there is always a risk that such a romance would never fruition to something beautiful and solid, but likewise, there is also a chance that it will form into a great love that could have compelled him on the same path or even greater. In the end, all that was left was merely pointless suffering because he was an idiot.

How many well-documented cases of great, lasting loves can you cite? The practical day to day exigencies of living together and raising a family are not things which come within the purview of the romantic ideal of 'great love', and are not likely to be supportive of its fruition, either.

Of course it is certainly possible that kindred spirits can live together in a love that becomes ever deeper, even if not more intense, as they become the greatest of friends; but I would say that it is exceptionally rare, and, to quote Spinoza "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare" (emphasis mine).

I think you are drawing a long (and flaccid) bow in saying that K was an "idiot". That seems a bit like an ant saying than an elephant doesn't know how to use her strength effectively.

I think what he did with the experience has more to do with volition and acceptance.

We witness a being who has no personal identity. The Will of the universe flows through him unmuddied by attachment or aversion.

"...Great by virtue of a love which is hatred of oneself."

How many well-documented cases of great, lasting loves can you cite? The practical day to day exigencies of living together and raising a family are not things which come within the purview of the romantic ideal of 'great love', and are not likely to be supportive of its fruition, either. — John

Again, this is merely an unrealistic idealization particularly of Kierkegaard considering that you assume his greatness that therefore means his love for Regine would have also surmounted to something 'great' but there are a plethora of examples of love between two people that is lasting and genuine and that enables growth and an authentic happiness, many great figures who speak highly of the love shared with their partners that strengthened their careers and who they are as people. That in itself is the only greatness necessary. There is a clear schism of documented cases only because it exemplifies people' preferred trend to tragedy.

Of course it is certainly possible that kindred spirits can live together in a love that becomes ever deeper, even if not more intense, as they become the greatest of friends; but I would say that it is exceptionally rare, and, to quote Spinoza "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare" (emphasis mine). — John

A rarity does not mean an impossibility, the chance still exists that is enough to doubt any claims of failure. It is better to have tried in this mutual love and failed, then to have lived an entire life regretting and Spinoza is clearly right. The path to anything wonderful is always short and narrow and that intensity proves the authenticity of your love, such an intensity being delayed qua K.