Currently not reading.
Too many books started and not finished.

However last week caught a Goethe at Lake Garda. The name of a speed ferry. Not quite how Goethe was blown to Malcesine. And the storm he created whilst drawing the castle there, well...
Quite the 007 drama with a twist. *
I read his 'ItalianJourney' and a few of his stories many years ago. Quite the inspiration. For many.

To refresh my memory on philosophical influence, I read:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/goethe/#H6
Extract:

' Finally, Wittgenstein’s (1889-1951) claim that things which cannot be put into propositional form might nevertheless be shown bears a family resemblance to Goethe’s formulation of the daimonisch. But where Wittgenstein removes the proverbial ladder on which he ascends to his intuitions about the relation between logic and the world, thereby reducing what cannot be bound by the rules of logic as nonsensical, Goethe believed he could communicate what were admittedly ineffable Urphänomene in a non-propositional way, through the feelings evoked by drama.

There is, moreover, a distinct similarity in Goethe’s and Wittgenstein’s views on the proper task of philosophy. Its aim, for both, can never be accomplished, once and for all, by means of ‘the right argument’. Argumentation, explanation, and demonstration only go so far in their attempt to unravel the mysteries of the world. “Philosophy simply puts everything before us; it fails to deduce anything,” (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 126).

Philosophy’s role in our life should guide us to be reflective people, ever ready to critique inherited dogmas, and always ready to revise our hypotheses in light of new observations. Goethe, through his ceaseless energy, limitless fascination with the world as it was presented to him, and his perpetual willingness to test his convictions against new evidence, carries a timeless appeal to philosophers, not because he demonstrated or explained what it meant to live philosophically, but because, through the example of the course of his life, he showed it.'

Given Goethe's influence and his 'timeless appeal', it is surprising that he is not given more attention.
I now better understand the appeal of Wittgenstein if he follows Goethe in agreeing the role of philosophy in our lives.

* Malcesine castle now a major tourist attraction where people can read a bit about Goethe.
Or get married...

I am here just lurking around looking for a place to fit in :heart: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Hi, you don't know me but...
You have been missing and missed by all your friends here. Good call by Hanover - hope he and others are now reassured that all is well.

I often wonder what happens to people when they take time out.
Sometimes frequent posters let others know e.g. when they are going on holiday. Or are just pissed off in general, or particular...
I think there is more concern where people have formed long-lasting relationships and don't reply.
For whatever reason.

I guess many people tend to lurk until they feel like they have something to say.

So, what made it so that you are 'looking for a place to fit in' ?
Has the forum changed for you ?
Just wondering.

Best wishes.

Like K's choice to break off his engagement with Regime. The defining event of his life.
— Amity

That is definitely a defining moment for K. But, it propelled him to do something very unique, to publish ideas that focus your attention back upon yourself. Something rarely done in modern philosophy. — Merkwurdichliebe

Some TPF members speculating about K and Regine, here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1480/kierkegaard-and-regine-olsens-love/p1

Reading what another says about Kierkegaard is not the same as reading him directly. — Merkwurdichliebe

I know that.

his writing is very intense. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes. My preparation for reading has included looking at this intensity and from where it sprang.
Given, as you say, that K wrote as therapy for self, for me that means looking at his life.

K was doing therapy for himself. But what he did strikes deep into the spirit of the individual, and in that sense it is relevent as therapy for others. — Merkwurdichliebe

I agree that there is the possibility that a reader might find solace, or joy, in the sharing. A better understanding of what it is to be human perhaps? The decisions we make and take. For better or worse.
The anxiety some might have of getting it right...for self as well as others.

Like K's choice to break off his engagement with Regine. The defining event of his life.

As C.S. Lewis didn't say but could have::'We read to know that we are not alone.'
That actually comes from Shadowlands, a film about C.S. Lewis.

So, thought I'd share this book review by Ray Monk - ' Kierkegaard's ways to be human'

https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/03/Kierkegaard-philosopher-of-the-heart-clare-carlisle-review

'Carlisle’s analysis of Fear and Trembling contains the essence of her view of Kierkegaard’s life and work. It is fascinating, but, in my view, unsatisfying. The book centres on the story told in Genesis 22 in which God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of his faith...
...Kierkegaard agrees with Kant that the sacrificing of Isaac is morally wrong, but he draws from this the conclusion that what the story shows is that religious faith lies beyond, and therefore outside, ethics. 


...Either/Or. This is a weird compendium of different texts, written by four fictitious authors, that includes letters, essays, a sermon, and, most notoriously, the “Seducer’s Diary”, that we are to imagine having been written, not by Kierkegaard, but by “Johannes”. In this diary, Johannes chronicles in great detail his pursuit of a young girl, whom he seduces and then abandons, remarking, “I am intoxicated with the thought that she is in my power.” According to Carlisle, Kierkegaard saw the book as part of “his attempt to feign callous indifference to Regine”.

...Kierkegaard was not indifferent to her, he was madly, obsessively in love with her and remained so for the rest of his life. So why did he break off the engagement? The answer, Carlisle suggests, lies in Fear and Trembling, for the story of Kierkegaard’s engagement to Regine is in some respects analogous to the story of Abraham. Kierkegaard, Carlisle says, “feels he has sacrificed a life with Regine, and with it his own honour and his family’s good name, for the sake of something that is difficult to explain”.

----------

Monk's final paragraph is highly critical:

' I think many people, even if they do not disapprove of the way Kierkegaard behaved towards Regine, would resist the theological spin that he and Carlisle put on his decision to break off his engagement. It is a fault of this book that Carlisle seems unaware that the person she presents as providing deep solutions to the problems of life would just as naturally be viewed as insufferably self-absorbed, as obsessed with his own sufferings as he is indifferent to those of others.'
----------

About intensity and Regine

'...Her father told him that she was “in despair, utterly desperate”,
while she, according to his account, :

“took out a small note on which there was something written by me which she used to carry in her breast; she took it out and quietly tore it into small pieces and said:

‘ So after all, you have played a terrible game with me.’

----------

Intensity: can be a high degree of emotional excitement, depth of feeling. Or great energy of thought, inward passion or obsession...or anxiety. It will be fascinating to read what K has to say for himself.
But still, a doubt will remain as to how much of it is playing a game...

I asked Terrapin Station to clarify his position, for it seems to me he asserted that the purpose of Philosophy is to gain more knowledge about "what the world is like factually" and thus philosophical writings cannot be used in a therapeutic manner.

I hold that they can be, and often are and have been, used in such a manner. In helping you "understand what the world is, rationally", they can radically change your belief system, the way you think, help you see things more clearly. They can help you "better yourself". — Zosito

Appreciate you getting back to TS. I was a bit dismissive in my earlier response, wanting to focus and get on with the purpose of the thread's OP.
I think many come to philosophy as a way to understand what the hell is going on. It is this curiosity, I think, that TS speaks of. Some try to figure stuff out on their own, searching in a variety of boxes until they find what suits them.

In philosophy there is so much to choose from and it's not an either/or between K's aesthetics, ethics or religion. However, this is where we are - discussing the OP. Some clearly see therapeutic value in K, others not so much. The latter have a voice too.
It would offer a good balance to hear views from non-fans of K. Or those who have tried and struggled with his writing.

Have you read any of K's work ?

K said that faith was unintelligible, and to communicate it was to speak in tongues
— Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, but he also went to great efforts to relate our experiences to a breaking point. That experience of ourselves is only information under certain conditions. He continues to reason about that. — Valentinus

Again, thanks for continued clarification of Kierkegaard.
I will be following this conversation wherever it might lead. However, I have a certain book to attend to.
I now know where to come with any questions or difficulties. Or comments as to finding any of the joy you referred to earlier. Cheers.

Even if we assume that anyone sees therapeutic value in philosophy, why would we even begin to point them in the direction of K ? Can we really say that K was working toward that end ?
Why would he, if the emphasis is on faith, whatever that means for K ?
— Amity

K was doing therapy for himself. But what he did strikes deep into the spirit of the individual, and in that sense it is relevent as therapy for others.

(Nietzsche says he is the first psychologist. That is false, K was the first psychologist, as well as the first existentialist, although I suspect he would reject such accusations.) — Merkwurdichliebe

Thanks for answering this question. I thought it had been missed in the ongoing conversation.
I will follow this now with interest. Careful, informative exchanges with others are much appreciated.

Seeking advice on approach to reading Kierkegaard if one has no religious beliefs.
Can we still find value, or wisdom, as in e.g. the Serenity Prayer by bracketing out the 'God' word ?

[God ] grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

We can see the benefit of the advice without any reliance on a God figure.

Or would we still want to think of what it means to have a certain kind of faith ?

The abstract below tells us about K's insights into anxiety and despair which have influenced certain psychotherapists with some ignoring the 'religious stuff'.

'What can therapists learn from Kierkegaard ?'
- Lippitt, John

The author argues against this ignoring.
The final sentence might appeal to those reflecting on contentment and self-acceptance.

https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/handle/2299/18081

'Why should therapists read Søren Kierkegaard? In our largely secular age, in which the latest generation of religion’s “cultured despisers” often seem to speak for the cultural mainstream, what has psychotherapy to learn from an unorthodox nineteenth century Lutheran with an uncompromising view of the importance of a proper “God-relationship”?

There can be no denying the influence of Kierkegaard on important psychotherapeutic figures as diverse as Ludwig Binswanger, Rollo May, Carl Rogers and Ernest Becker. His insightful diagnoses of anxiety and despair have been a significant influence on existential psychotherapy. As one therapist recently told me, Kierkegaard is a source of great insight provided we “ignore the religious stuff”.

Yet therapists who insist on taking their Kierkegaard safely secularised are missing a trick. In this article, I shall argue that it is in some of his less well-known, explicitly “religious” writings, that Kierkegaard offers some of his most important insights for therapeutic practice. I have argued elsewhere (in my Kierkegaard and the Problem of Self-Love) that Kierkegaard offers a rich conception of “proper self-love” that I believe has important implications for therapy.

Central to this account is the application to ourselves of the trust, hope and forgiveness that are central to his accounts of love of God and neighbour. But here I shall concentrate primarily on a perhaps surprising theme from this famous diagnostician of anxiety and despair: what the reflections on “the lilies and the birds” in Kierkegaard’s Upbuilding Discourses can teach us about contentment and self-acceptance and their relation to gratitude and patience.'

Yes, I suppose I haven't read enough Kierkegaard. My apologies. — Wallows

Thanks, I like to be clear- all the better to see another's perspective. I find this interesting.
What have you read so far ?
Will you be reading ' The Concept of Anxiety ' ?

[ edited to add ]
Even if you haven't read enough Kierkegaard to support that strong claim, would I be right in saying that you think reading K might offer some therapeutic value ?

BTW, no need to apologise if it's about not reading enough of K. Who has ?
However, I appreciate an apology regarding misreading or misrepresentation - only if it is followed by a change. Do not let it happen again or I will have your head :100: :party: :naughty: :halo:

Depends on the philosopher — Wallows

Well, here we are talking about Kierkegaard. The question concerned your misreading or misrepresentation of my words as a strong claim:

As Amity has said, there is considerable therapeutic value to be found in Kierkegaard's work. — Wallows

You seemed to be in agreement with this.

So I asked,

If so, can you say what have you read or absorbed that might support it ? — Amity

I meant anything you have found in Kierkegaard's work where you have found therapeutic value, considerable or otherwise. [ edited ]
This would be a minimal requirement to support such a claim.
Perhaps this is asking too much.

If you haven't read him then you need to begin to do so. You will see the charge he puts on you as an existing subject. His perspective is, in many ways, insurmountable. — Merkwurdichliebe

I will be starting on 'The Concept of Anxiety' soon.
I will generously share any difficulties or questions I may have with others.
Be prepared to be so used :wink:

In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your views on the questions posed in the OP.
Also, what do you see as his perspective and why would it be insurmountable ?

probably the most underrated philosopher of all time, maybe after Diogenes. — Merkwurdichliebe

Why do you think that is the case ? I am interested because I have a theory that many here have Wittgenstein or Nietzsche as their favourite. Kierkegaard is barely mentioned. I think due to the religious aspect.

I am not entirely thrilled at the the subtitle ' A Simple Psychologically Orientated Deliberation in View of the Dogmatic Problem of Hereditary Sin'.
However, it still intrigues me...

Appreciate your input.

,..they called them as they did because they reminded some redneck of how black men's heads looked and so he and Bubba coined the term and they laughed their cracker ass heads off. Apparently the name got passed down through the generations like their crossed eyes and webbed toes and it fell upon your ears and you got to share it with us. — Hanover

The term was used in a US governmental geological survey, 1886. See p15.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/28/report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwia5vLD2JHiAhUgRBUIHc8QCcgQFjAFegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2iUsYUZjxMSrN6PWKCMAtg

There's an old name for them that nobody uses anymore because it had the n-word in it. As far as I know, there isn't a new word, though. The last time I heard someone try to speak about them, they just pointed and said "those."

That is the power of a social wound. — frank

Or a lack of imagination.

You checked off the box on government forms indicating whether you were white or colored. Use of the term colored now makes you sound painfully ignorant, but not necessary racist, but likely holding less than progressive views. — Hanover

Yes, I think that I tend to hesitate before any description for fear of causing offence or not being up-to-date. One wants to be right, doesn't one? Unless you are left !

Throughout this discussion, it seems that 'black' and 'white' are the preferred adjectives placed before the noun 'person' or the collective 'people'. Perhaps in the real world we could simply ask people how they prefer to be described - when or if it even matters. Subjective self-identification.

UK governmental forms have changed to take into account changing views and acceptability.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_ethnicity_in_the_United_Kingdom

'...User consultation undertaken by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for the purpose of planning the 2011 census in England and Wales found that most of the respondents from all ethnic groups that took part in the testing felt comfortable with the use of the terms "Black" and "White".

However, some participants suggested that these colour terms were confusing and unacceptable, did not adequately describe an individual's ethnic group, did not reflect his or her true skin colour, and were stereotypical and outdated terms.The heading "Black or Black British", which was used in 2001, was changed to "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British" for the 2011 census.

As with earlier censuses, individuals who did not identify as "Black", "White" or "Asian" could instead write in their own ethnic group under "Other ethnic group". Persons with multiple ancestries could indicate their respective ethnic backgrounds under a "Mixed or multiple ethnic groups" tick box and write-in area.[12]'

That's very interesting, because I have the opposite experience, growing up in Houston. My father always used the n-word to refer to African Americans (my mother didn't). His family were small-town farmer folks, and many of them were even worse (they invariably prefixed the n-word with "god damned").
— Relativist

That's consistent with my observation that its use revealed one's class. I think the same holds true in the African American community. — Hanover

I remember being taught at primary school ( UK - a couple of several decades ago ) that the proper word to use was 'negroe'.

Times change and it can be confusing to know what the right description should be...

An elderly relative noted the amount of 'blacks' in an English football team. Defensively informed me, without my even asking, that it was not an offensive term. However, what was the point of the comment, given that other European nationalities went unremarked.

Recently, I watched the film 'The Dambusters' (1955).
There was an added introduction which warned that some of the language used in that era might now cause offence to viewers.

Turned out that ' Nigger' was the name of the Wing Commander's black labrador.
Also that the dog’s name was used as a code word during Operation Chastise – which means 'a morse code operator has to shout it with great gusto at a key moment in the movie.'

From:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/aug/07/the-dam-busters-film-reel-history

'...It has been suggested that the N-word was less incendiary in Britain during the second world war than it was in the United States, where abolitionists objected strongly to it from the early 19th century. It would be a mistake to imagine it was inoffensive, though. Like other racial epithets, the N-word was always used in the context of belittlement and frequently as abuse. Yet there was far less awareness in Britain during the 1940s and 50s of the harm caused by using such language – and so, in real life and in the movie, Gibson’s dog’s name could go unremarked upon...'

Another question. Or 2 or 3.

Even if we assume that anyone sees therapeutic value in philosophy, why would we even begin to point them in the direction of K ? Can we really say that K was working toward that end ?
Why would he, if the emphasis is on faith, whatever that means for K ?

This is something that has surprised me across forums. I thought that people with a genuine interest in some given subject would jump at the chance to test themselves and practice expressing ideas as well as giving feedback to other writers.

To date, over the past two years, not a single person has shown anything other than a passing interest. It truly baffles me. — I like sushi

I guess I am one of those who expressed a passing interest here :

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/76/submit-an-article-for-publication

Perhaps it just needs someone like yourself to start the ball rolling ?
Right now, it takes me all my time to read and respond to a few threads.
Good Luck.

As Amity has said, there is considerable therapeutic value to be found in Kierkegaard's work. Although, the determination of the who, what, when and so on of therapy is not an individual process, and according to Kierkegaard's philosophy comes through the everlasting grace of God. — Wallows

To clarify, I have not made this strong claim. I could only do this, after I have read K. This is the point of my current project as explained above.

Amongst other things, I am looking to understand how Kierkegaard's writings can be thought of as being therapeutic, as a way to improve self. — Amity

My purpose is... [ to have ]... a conversation which might lead to an improved understanding of any therapeutic value.
I am not yet convinced of this, but then again I haven't read him. I am sure others have. — Amity

Is this claim, bolded above, one you would make yourself ?

If so, can you say what have you read or absorbed that might support it ?

Re : ' the determination of the who, what, when and so on of therapy is not an individual process, and according to Kierkegaard's philosophy comes through the everlasting grace of God.'

I think the excellent questions of 'who, what, where, who, when and how' provide a good basis for both general enquiry and also as a mind mapping tool for self development.
For example, see: Terrence Melz article 'The 5 W's of Life' ( and an H ) on Selfgrowth.com.

Absurdity of faith
Truth is subjective
Leap of faith

what comes to mind for me — matt

Interesting trio of tenets which spring to your mind.

Earlier I suggested that it would be helpful to have references or quotes to support any views.
However, I realise that when we read and then been filled with enthusiasm, then this can simply be absorbed. Like a sponge we can take up inspirationsl ideas as beliefs to practise or be a part of everyday life. And we don't necessarily remember where or when...we don't all take notes.

So, having looked up 'trio of tenets' ( just for fun), I found this:

----------

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Kierkegaard

3 key concepts:about how a person could lead their lives.

1. Aesthetic
2. Ethical
3. Religious

"The Knight of Faith” is perhaps the most discussed concept in Kierkegaard’s philosophy. It is best expressed in his book Fear and Trembling...
...This idea of Kierkegaard’s seems to be a fundamentally radical idea and a fundamentally practical idea all at the same time. He is urging readers away from “hard agnosticism” which would probably ultimately lead to a life in the Aesthetic Sphere and encouraging them to choose either dedication to God or the life of a rational non-believer in the Ethical Sphere. While Kierkegaard believes that the choice to follow God is the better one, he knows he has no real proof of this claim. The individual most make the choice while never knowing that he had chosen the right one.'

----------

So, given your 3 tenets, do you think they can answer the second question as posed in OP:

'How can he improve our lives ?'

Perhaps I am naive and innocent. I assumed most people here would be scoring 0 or 1. The first surprise to me was that folks could not seem to imagine bringing up children without any punishment. I knew there were one or two people with 'diagnoses', but apart from them... — unenlightened

You, naive and innocent ? Not a chance in hell.

I'll leave it there.

Yes, I wasn't expecting it to go this way at all. But I don't think it has got dangerously personal. One brings one's outlook to philosophy anyway, and hopefully we are something like unruly siblings that fight and squabble but have an underlying loyalty to each other. And of course you can always call on big brother if you think anyone is getting hurt. There is another thread that was extremely confessional that I had to back away from... But feel free anyway to change the tone to something a bit more formal and theoretical. — unenlightened

Really ? After all your experience on forums and this particular 'family', you didn't expect this kind of exchange ? I find that difficult to believe.

Flagging up concerns to the admin and moderator team is a rare event.
Intriguing that whenever anything like this comes up, it is portrayed as something like betrayal of an 'underlying loyalty' by an outsider.

Regarding 'tone', informality is not the issue. Neither is there a requirement to be theoretical.

There is nothing in this thread which lies outwith forum guidelines.
However, as you say, part of philosophy is 'bringing one's outlook'. That is what I have done.
For better or worse.

You are welcome to share personal details, and you are equally welcome to refrain from sharing. My own score is 0 which explains why I am such a lovely kind equable positive person. Lucky me, and lucky you to have my special attention. — unenlightened

This thread is a magnet for the troubled and would-be advisers.
Sharing and being supportive is one thing.
However, how appropriate is it - on a philosophy forum - for someone to ask and receive more personal information whilst *puffing on a cigarette*, asking about wanting to have kids and then suggesting that:

wallowing is healthy. To wallow is to appreciate — Wallows

This is just wrong.
There is just too much personal information being given out by the vulnerable.
I liken it to voyeurism.

It's the whole nut of what philosophy is. What were you thinking philosophy is? — Terrapin Station

Curiosity and looking for increased knowledge about the facts of the world is fine. But it is too broad with regards to this particular topic I wish to follow.
So, here it is about a certain aspect of humanity, i.e. anxiety, related to ideas and beliefs of Kierkegaard.

Thanks for input.
.

I'm curious about what the world is like factually. — Terrapin Station

And philosophy helps with this how ?
I realise we are getting away from particular topic of Kierkegaard but this interests me...up to a point.

The point is that I'm looking at philosophy to try to "improve myself." In my view philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with that . . . at least not aside from increasing knowledge. — Terrapin Station

You mean you're not looking at philosophy for that purpose.
Fair enough.
So, what kind of knowledge are you looking to increase, and to what end ?

Newly published book on Kierkegaard here. — Wayfarer

Kierkegaard's Theological Sociology
Prophetic Fire for the Present Age

Hmmmm.
My current impression:
I think his writing appeals more to believers, people of faith. I would need to use the Principle of Charity to the nth degree.

The only "improvement" I expect from any philosophy is a more accurate view of what's the case. — Terrapin Station

Yes. I think you need to know what is the case before any progress can be made.
A careful assessment is the base-line.
This can formed from both a subjective ( feelings, tastes and opinions/thoughts ) and objective perspective ( impartial, not influenced by beliefs but on fact and observation ). The difficulties lie in the accuracy of the perceptions.

Amongst other things, I am looking to understand how Kierkegaard's writings can be thought of as being therapeutic, as a way to improve self.

I found this thread after searching for further views on Kierkegaard.
I guess the original poster is no longer here...but it is still a worthwhile question to consider.

This is part of my preparation for reading K's Concept of Anxiety. A book proposed by Valentinus here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5676/next-book-for-reading/p1
A useful starter thread which inspired thoughts on how best to read a philosophy book.
Thanks to Wallows.

To find the joy of the writer - Valentinus and others advise to read the book straight without secondary material which can 'fail to represent a joy Kierkegaard takes in representing his own experience.'

Valentinus continues:
'Some writers ask you to find them in your attempts to understand what is being said. Others confront you and call upon you to do stuff. Kierkegaard is writing in the second way.'

----------

My purpose is not to start a book discussion, more a conversation which might lead to an improved understanding of any therapeutic value.
I am not yet convinced of this, but then again I haven't read him. I am sure others have.

So, what do you think ?

How can he improve our lives? — Ibn Sina

According to Valentinus, the book 'explores the psychology of sin while looking at the limits of such an endeavor. On the way, he makes observations about adolescence and child rearing that are interesting in themselves, even if the reader rejects many of his premises.'

In addition, Valentinus suggests that 'Kierkegaard is mostly interested in pushing people (including himself) to accept a responsibility for themselves that goes well beyond any narrative they or bystanders could produce. There are only clues or excuses. Explanations can only serve one purpose or the other. No one gets out alive...

...So, in thinking about contrasting points of view, there are a number of theorists of developmental psychology that look hard at what he observed.'

I would be interested to hear more, if anyone else has a similar, or opposite, informed view then I would be glad to hear it.
When I say 'informed', I mean views gleaned from reading the actual writings of Kierkegaard.
To support any views, it would be helpful to reference and provide quotes.

As someone else said:
'Consulting the secondary literature can be helpful, but it can also be misleading, especially in cases like this where the text is being used as authoritative.'

Also helpful would be any knowledge, or criticism, of any theorists of developmental psychology who might have used his work to develop therapeutic practice ? *

*
from:
https://academyofideas.com/2018/02/soren-kierkegaard-psychology-anxiety/

'...since possibility and freedom are only possible with anxiety present, we would be wise to heed Kierkegaard’s advice, and learn to be anxious in the right way. Or as the psychologist James Hollis explains:

“Thus we are forced into a difficult choice: anxiety or depression. If we move forward, as our soul insists, we may be flooded with anxiety. If we do not move forward, we will suffer the depression, the pressing down of the soul’s purpose. In such a difficult choice one must choose anxiety, for anxiety is at least the path of personal growth; depression is a stagnation and defeat of life.” (James Hollis, Swamplands of the Soul )'

While we're completely changing the subject, I would strongly suggest that these are not separate species, the bully and the victim, more of a circle of life — unenlightened

It isn't a complete change of subject. But perhaps a broadening or deepening into another topic.
Power play and manipulation is integral to humanity and its progress or regress.

Yes. In a sense, there is a circle of vice ( the vicious) where the bullied (victims) can become the bullies.

However, there is also the circle of virtue ( the virtuous ) and probably a whole lot of other moral hoops we can jump through personally, socially, politically, whateverly.

The fact that any social progress concerning human rights has been made is in no small part due to those virtuous putting a spoke in the wheel of the vicious and divisive.
And yes, it is too easy to use these moralistic terms, especially of good and evil. Them and us.
That doesn't help.

As jamalrob suggests:

this is an issue for debate, not for shutting people down. — jamalrob

What we don't want is a regress.

But then again, I hear the hula hoop is making a comeback. The joys of the 50's :starstruck:

If one is simply vexed over the issue of free speech then this story regarding a children's speech pathologist in Texas who was fired because she refused to sign a pledge stating that she would not engage in any economic boycott of Israel should be more alarming. — Maw

I agree. The issue you raised is an alarming one, in more ways than one.
It is another sign of power. And I think that power struggles are fundamental to both.

To return to the issue of Sir Scruton and his privileged, powerful position as outlined in the article on his Knighthood:
Not just a philosopher but a...moralist, novelist, barrister, composer, conservationist, conservative and campaigner.

The 'job' was as Commissioner for beautiful buildings. This was controversial and divisive from the start. Although the aims sound pretty good, the battle seems to lie in a narrow definition of 'beauty'.

'The three main objectives laid out by the commission are to promote more beautiful buildings and places, facilitate consent from communities with new developments, and improve the planning system to work with "better design and style, not against it".
From:
https://www.dezeen.com/2018/11/06/building-better-building-beautiful-commission-uk-architects-react-news/

'Architect and writer Douglas Murphy described Scruton as a "ludicrous curmudgeon".

"Roger Scruton has spent decades decrying modern culture of all types," Murphy said, adding that he had recently "become a darling of an alt-right aesthetic movement". The alt-right is a neo-fascist movement operating primarily online and centred around an ideology of white nationalism.

"The fact is that architecture has left the culture wars of the 1980s far behind, and the best contemporary work gets closer to a synthesis between timeless pattern and contemporary technique than ever before," said Murphy.

"Our housing crisis has almost nothing to do with aesthetics, modern or traditional, but rather is to do with land, wealth and exploitation. This commission is just an easy distraction from far bigger problems that the government have no intention of doing anything about."

'Holland said he supported the commission's drive for local communities to be more involved in decisions, but that the commission's focus on beauty is a "vehicle for a patently ideological programme to attack contemporary housing and undermine the architecture of social democracy".
...Hatherley accused the think tank of campaigning to "make thousands of council tenants homeless for the sake of aesthetics". He also drew links between the commission and the rising popularity of an "alt-right fringe" of Twitter accounts celebrating traditional architecture.'

[ emphases added ]
--------------

Returning to the power struggle and the vicious.

Perhaps not quite as 'sexy' as previous discussion on clitoral stimulation but hey, it all matters.

George Monbiot writes in the Guardian:

'After an organisation he [ Chris Packham ] helped to found – Wild Justice – successfully challenged the unlawful killing of several bird species, two dead crows were left hanging from his gate, whose lock had been glued shut.

Harassment of this kind is familiar to rural people who challenge shooting or foxhunting interests.

Bullying and intimidation associated with foxhunts that run riot in the north of England while the police look the other way have been reported,, one in the Independent, the other in the online magazine The Overtake. There’s an almost Sicilian culture of fear: people are frightened into silence or forced to move house. Locals complain of mob rule as hounds and horses rampage through their gardens and trash their businesses. Hunt monitors, documenting blatant lawbreaking, are beaten up with impunity while their vehicles are scratched and smashed. Everyone knows it’s happening. No one seems able or willing to stop it.'
[emphasis added ]

From:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/britain-countryside-bullies-chris-packham

Who are the bullied again ?

To be fair, I think I would not sack a distinguished professor from a post as advisor over one controversial remark. But when you add the many questionable remarks on various topics to the questionable ethical behaviour, a picture emerges of a rather nasty piece of work, bringing the government into disrepute (if only it had any repute to dis). — unenlightened

I agree.
On becoming a Sir.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/06/a-knighthood-for-the-movement-congratulations-sir-roger-scruton.html

'.....the debt that conservatism in Britain owes to Roger Scruton – philosopher, moralist, novelist, barrister, composer, conservationist, conservative and campaigner.

Scruton’s conservatism is very much of the English Tory flavour, and he is uncommon among modern philosophers in the breadth of his interests, rarer still in having the ability to project and popularise them, and even more unusual in his interest in conservative political organisation.'

Having read a few of Scruton's books, I would defend him as a subtle and humane thinker. — jamalrob

Really ? Like this ? On Foxhunting:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/9765963/Tally-ho-Let-the-hunt-remind-us-who-we-are.html

'This morning hundreds of hunts across the Kingdom will be assembling for the Boxing Day meet. My family and I will appear in our polished uniforms on polished horses to stand ceremonially among our neighbours in Cirencester Park. With us will be a crowd of thousands who have come to enjoy the spectacle. For an hour, three species – hound, horse and human; carnivore, herbivore and omnivore – will stand peacefully side by side in a little patch of meadowland, radiating tranquillity. One of the local bands will be playing...

...Hunting with hounds is ostensibly a crime. It continues, not because hunting people wish to defy the law, but because an activity so central to their lives can no more be stopped than their heartbeats. 

...In a sense we know much about the experience of the hunter-gatherer, since it is the experience that shaped us, and which lies interred like an archaeological stratum beneath the polished consciousness of civilised man. At its greatest, the art and literature of hunting aims to retrieve that experience, to re-acquaint us with mysterious and sacred things which are the true balm to our suburban anxieties, but which can be recuperated now only by returning, in imagination, to a world that we have lost.'

----------

No mention of the fox.
And to return to the topic.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/roger-scruton-not-victim-leftwing-witch-hunt

'...Scruton, transfixed by the context and reception of his own remarks, fails to consider the broader political context: refugees, Muslims in particular, are demonised, their numbers magnified and their hardships minimised for a purpose. Jews are demonised for the same purpose – the sowing of social division to serve an authoritarian agenda. It’s really nothing personal when we challenge these narratives of otherness; no malice is intended towards the bullied conservative. It’s just that the principles of universal human rights – more than that, love, fellowship, solidarity – are more important than whether or not a reactionary dude gets to keep on chairing a commission.'

----------

I would call Scruton more than a 'reactionary dude'. I am with unenlightened on this. And others who see the bigger picture. Like Erik and Baden.

I do think it's somewhat relevant to the larger issues addressed here as it relates to Scruton's character, or lack thereof. It establishes (if true) that he's been dishonest about his aims & motivations in the past, and may therefore be dishonest in the cases under discussion here, anti-Semitism & Islamophobia. — Erik

But enough about the Scruton. Already taken up too much time and space.
He is loving it.

Getting back to you on your question...
So I think "value" and "progress" have been conflated with one another as of late in human history. I don't think there's any value in viewing things as only having value if progress is promoted. So, does that condemn us to some sort of dogmatism? I don't know. — Wallows

Interesting response.We could discuss the concepts of value and progress until our ears bleed or go deaf, but it is not the answer to the question(s) I put to you. And you know it. Why the avoidance ?
To track back:

Wallows, if we consider philosophical progress in personal terms e.g. as improvement in one's state of being or doing, then what did Wittgenstein do for you ?

How would this compare to the wisdom of the ancients in aiding self understanding and promoting a better way of living ?

How do you measure any progress - when do you realise it is happening/has happened ? — Amity

I have been following the conversation between yourself and VagabondSpectre and found it helpful.

The questions I put to you were in connection with your personal progress or development through your reading(s) or understanding of Wittgenstein. You place him high on your list of 'favourite' philosophers.
So, you find him of some value then ? Even if is just to talk about him, or discuss his work, in this forum.

If philosophy does yield boons, then they must be able to flow to and through individuals, otherwise who cares? If philosophy can be deployed to make us more competent on the whole (by improving us as individuals) then I call that progress. — VagabondSpectre

I agree with that.

Keeping to Wittgenstein as a focus. How do you see him ? Where does he fit in to to general philosophical enquiry or your own enquiries about life ?

Did you even read or acknowledge the quotes by Fooloso4 ?
Here is the end of one from Wittgenstein's Culture and Value

'...For me on the contrary clarity, perspicuity are valuable in themselves. I am not interested in constructing a building, so much as in having a perspicuous view of the foundations of typical buildings.’

What is your understanding of that ?
If you don't have one, then why don't you take the opportunity to ask. Slow down.

That is what personal progress or development involves. Not just asking but listening and reflecting.
It might change your or others minds, attitudes or behaviour - or not.
We might not have an absolute end goal or purpose to measure progress against but philosophy is a process. Valuable in itself. I think.

You're asking me quite a difficult question. I'll get back to you later on this. — Wallows

I know. I am not sure I could quantify my own progress according to my reading of a single philosopher.
Perhaps it might be that it is in the very fact that we have read the book ?
Even if our understanding has been less than perfect ?

Is there too much reliance on this feat of reading the challenging.
I wonder sometimes at this need to chew a book to death...
Or the other extreme - to purchase it to lie gathering dust...
Guilty as charged :smile:
But looking forward to Wittgenstein's Culture and Value.
I don't think I would necessarily want to discuss it here.But it seems to have value...

Tenuousness is an openness, a lack of insistence. It is to allow things to show themselves as they are rather than imposing some conceptual scheme or structure on them. It is the opposite of attempting to have things conform to one's will. — Fooloso4

I think this sounds too passive for general societal or philosophical progress but perhaps in a personal particular sense it has its place. Like knowing when to stop arguing the toss about abstract concepts.

I do not see progress having been made in the state of the art of philosophy. There is good reason why there has been a resurgence of interest in the ancients.
— Fooloso4

But, what about Wittgenstein? Don't you think he made his fair share of contribution to the state of philosophy? — Wallows

Wallows, if we consider philosophical progress in personal terms e.g. as improvement in one's state of being or doing, then what did Wittgenstein do for you ?

How would this compare to the wisdom of the ancients in aiding self understanding and promoting a better way of living ?

How do you measure any progress - when do you realise it is happening/has happened ?

if we are aware of our ignorance then we do not insist that things are or should be according to our desires and understanding — Fooloso4

Why not ?
Ah, does the key lie in not insisting as in not being dogmatic or stubborn or absolute in a single perhaps obsessive desire to get one's own way ? Because without knowledge of facts, or other perspectives, it might not be the best way...

It is a matter of determining how best to live in light of our ignorance of what is best. In the absence of knowledge, one is guided by what seems to be best. But what seems to be best may not be what is best, and so, one is always willing to examine and revise his or her opinions. This is a Socratic attitude, but it may also be expressed in terms from another time and place, the Daodejing - "practice extreme tenuousness" — Fooloso4

What is it to practise 'extreme tenuousness' ?
Do you have a reference ?

It would not be unbalanced if he took a vow of silence and was never heard from again. Even in the current controversy, it is his words that are repeated more so than those of his critics. — unenlightened

:smile:
You know him well then ?

Here are some critics of his bias. Perhaps nearer the scene of relevance as to his suitability for the job in question.

From:

http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/uk-architects-celebrate-sacking-roger-scruton-hous/

'At RIBA we also argue for better building quality but our doubts about the impartiality of this commission were clearly justified. Time and effort has been wasted and we should now move on from stylistic obsessions to the issues that lie at the heart of solving the housing crisis.”

Tamsie Thomson, director of the London Festival of Architecture, called Scruton’s appointment “ludicrous” in the first place.

“Time-wasting and division seems to be the Government’s stock in trade, and it was entirely foreseeable that the ludicrous appointment of Roger Scruton would end badly,” she said, according to AJ. 

“Our housing crisis is very real and very pressing, and the Building Better Building Beautiful agenda was flawed from the outset thanks to its narrow focus on subjective notions of beauty.”

Former RIBA president Angela Brady told AJ: “May Scruton’s replacement be a knowledgeable competent architect with housing expertise, who champions new ways of providing a rich and diverse choice of housing options and who encourages innovation and creativity in great design and place making".

You seem to be unaware of the extent of my patience, even after it has been pointed out by another member.
— Fooloso4

Ah yes, Amity, she fell sick of our bickering, and eventually left — Pussycat

Bickering-schmickering.
Still at it after all these years ?

...what about me, what about my efforts, my patience, my world? — Pussycat

'If not for you
Babe, I couldn't even find the door
I couldn't even see the floor
I'd be sad and blue, if not for you...

- George Wittgenstein

I will copy a little of my PM response here:

Thanks for the apology, Noah. Appreciate that is not an easy thing to do.

I also regret that I didn't follow Baden's advice to ignore the thread.
I didn't take any great joy in any of my exchanges with you and others...

...I am taking a bit of a break now from the forum.
Best wishes.

Any moderator who lets me spew my paranoid rants in the Lounge is cool with me. I think they do a great job here. :100: — Noah Te Stroete

Interesting how you wave your mental health issues around.

Given I have left your lounge rant, I will reply to your last post to me here:

You said : So the term “disturbed” wasn’t directed at me? Do you know the history of stigma the mentally ill have gone through? Yes, you’re a bully, too.

Yes. I know all about mental health issues and stigma of various kinds.
I also know how certain individuals can manipulate others by playing the victim.

Again, I am no bully. The term 'disturbed' was used in a general sense, as descriptive as the word 'sexist'.

The mods allow this.