Philosophy and Literature Blog

 So, as I've been reading this book along with Courage of Truth  by Foucault, I can't help seeing parallels, real or imagined, there they are. Kierkegaard's point here at the beginning is that disputations about the truth of the Bible do not provide assurance of eternal happiness; they can't, even if the historical proofs are good, because you can only get approximation in this world. And even if you could get a proof, where would the passion of your faith be? Faith, he implies in some passages, requires imperfection: "For someone who believes that there is a God and a providence, things are made easier(in preserving the faith) in an imperfect world, where passion is kept alive, easier too in definitely gaining faith(as against an illusion) than in an absolutely perfect world. Indeed in such a world faith is unthinkable. Hence the teaching that faith is abolished in eternity."(Concluding Unscientific Postscript pp.26-27) For Kierkegaard faith IS passion, not s

Looks like I'm going to be reading this book this year. The book is very, very long, and I have bad eyes, so I will likely be reading it for a long time. I seem to be in a Kierkegaard frame of mind these days. You don't have to be religious or mystical to like Kierkegaard as I do, perhaps it helps if one has an unconscious remnant of religion from one's youth, I don't know. These things have a way of coming back, insisting themselves on you. But in some important ways that's beside the point. The point is one's subjectivity and individuality. The forward of the book mentions that some have suggested that Wittgenstein's reference to the words of the Tractatus as a reference to this book ,which the author of the forward says Wittgenstein admired. Wittgenstein combined this powerful mystical bent with his analytic writing; one is tempted to think that the mysticism is responsible for his more radical later statements Russell so hated.  In the meantime I've

 The events of January 6, 2021, a terrible day for the United States, and I fear not the end, have prompted me to post some thoughts on this short book. It seems to me that I might think I'm being an individual when I'm online when I'm really not, I'm really part of a crowd, but it's not always clear which crowd. There are philosophers who think we are always part of a crowd since we inherit our language and mores from various crowds, and they may be right. But I want to suggest that, notwithstanding, there is usefulness in considering ourselves as individuals. If I posit myself as an individual, does that make me one? Maybe so. Another reason to think I might actually be an individual is that it sure seems like my body is distinct from that of others, and furthermore the character of my mind and heart, including the details of my aortal sclerosis, are unique to me. So I want to, perhaps against the grain here, suggest that there ARE individuals and that you are one