Deeply insightful, dogmatically limited.

This is what happens when one interprets Biblical stories literally, as a historical account. Did not enjoy this read; I find Jordan Peterson's interpretation of symbolism in the story of Abraham much more compelling.

I love you Mr. Kierkegaard. Utterly amazing work. Abraham is my hero. My favorite book in the world.
Johnannes De Silentio and Anti-Climacus ugh just so fucking awesome.

"By relating itself to its own self, and by willing to be itself, the self is grounded transparently in the power which constituted it."

A good friend of mine once said that existentialism is more "helpful as a personal philosophy" than something to be applied for general society-level analysis. Being a philosophical materialist, I see such limitations. The podcast "Philosophize This" also helpfully has a two-part episode contrasting the perspectives of Kierkegaard and Marx on the nature of the "self".

Having said that, central to Kierkegaard is the notion of an irrationalist "leap of faith". He emphasizes a dialectical tension which makes that leap necessary for our salvation, yet something immensely discomforting to face. The inability to take that leap, says Kierkegaard, is or leads to "despair". Disentangled from a strictly Christian grounding, there's something resonant in this in a deep way which may well be worth applying, at least in the way it's been explained to me. The temptation to either drag our feet or to escape into another external source of identity beyond our own consciousness can be powerful, but to take the leap and be true to ourselves seems ultimately the better option even if we can't justify it rationally.

The Moment

This work is Kierkegaard's deeply detailed evaluation of two topics: Christian faith and the sin of despair. It is a highly complicated philosophy and I can't say that one read through allows me to make an accurate review of it.

To me, Kierkegaard sees Christianity as a deeply personal process of coming to terms with one's relationship to God. It is religion viewed as an ordeal. Along the way, a Christian will need to understand that it isn't possible to rationalize faith and forgiveness. This sort of belief in Christianity goes beyond "blind faith".

The author makes the extreme claim that, similar to Abraham, the faithful must set aside their own concept of right and wrong and lose themselves in the faith that they have in God. After all, God asked Abraham to kill his own son to prove his faith. Because of this, a person's faith must be "absurd" to the point that they are willing to sacrifice anything for it. If this appears absurd and unethical, then so be it.

I can see that this book will require further rereading, but even then, it might be difficult to wrap my head around it. This seems to be the point Kierkegaard was trying to make.

Bad lovers are bad readers. Just finished Notebooks of Simone Weil, so on an astrology - theology kick. Weil (Aquarius sun, Cancer moon, Sagittarius rising), Kierkegaard (Taurus sun, Cancer moon, birthtime unknown). Me (Libra sun, Libra moon, Taurus rising) Go bulls or something.

Took a year to finish. Last time I talked about Kierkegaard in 2017, found it impossible to put his effect on my thinking into words. Still fumbling, still trembling. Quite, quiet, quite an error to correlate Kierkegaard's concept of despair with Western phenomenon of clinical depression. Like the concept of language and translation: loses meaning when not in context, or relation, to the culture it emanated from. Discussion on Socratic irony in relation to sin, has much merit for anti-capitalist politics today. If you knew and could recognize, what the right thing is, you would do it. The text is more foreplay of what I defined it as above, though I would be curious to see a discussion between Socratic irony, sin, and Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. Another tangent, someone once said to me that they seem to only encounter me in times of crisis. Is it not sort of funny that men say they encounter you in a time of crisis? Something, something patriarchal, or we could say that the subjectivity entwined with wom*nhood is defined by approaching m(e)n, while in crisis: financial crisis, romantic crisis, emotional crisis. Revision of statement: I find you most endearing when you are in a time of crisis.

Bad lovers are bad readers. Always falling in love with philosoph-act-ivists, or as Kierkegaard was describing himself as possessing, "...a poetic existence in the direction of the religious." Bad romantic endings with Cancers and Capricorns. Cancers are very charming, I'll admit, in high school I was sweet on Benjamin and Kafka. If you have your computer open to the Wikipedia page on Moses, there's a good chance that I will be smitten.

Made it my task to look up two words as I finished this text: consanguinity and immanence. Bad definitions (Is the beauty of Kierkegaard's writing his disregard from being momentarily wrong? Positing definitions constantly and refuting them) : Consanguinity, or related by blood, with a close affinity. Relating the words affinity and infinity together. Immanence, or emanating from within. Immanence as distinct from transcendence. I believe I am leaning towards the former. More descent: immanence, from Latin immanere, or to remain in, dwell in, tangent thought towards the idea of holy wells. Transcendence, Latin verb tran(s)scendere, to surpass or exceed. (Not intended in relation to contemporary identity politics) Transcendence as quality of G*d, immanence of m(e)n. I don't want to, or need to, I suppose, dwell in my sin. But it is always apart of me.

Currently listening to Ron Hardy's edit of Isaac Hayes' Can't Turn Around [Finding Hardy to be a better lover, in terms of Chicago House, than Frankie Knuckles] Edit: First Choice (Let No Man Turn Asunder). Hardy (Taurus Sun, moon unknown, either Capricorn or Aquarius)

Odd treatment in other reviews: bemoaning of true love. [First Choice, in Ron Hardy's edit, "It's not over between you and me..."] Regina and Soren, reunited in heaven? It's not over between you and me. We regret decisions, or choices we make in the moment. Regina marries another man. Kierkegaard wavers about publishing "The Sickness Unto Death", is galvanized by an auditory hallucination.

The soul: ascent and descent. Little written about Kierkegaard and his relationship to astrology, though he does consider it a science on something that "...does not exist." Return to the mathematical concept of limits, or a positive or negative value of a function as it approaches a given value. (I was bad at calculus, forgive the definition)

Despairing over choice of words: being called a "negative" person. What wonders the concept of "self-care" has done towards anti-capitalist politics! Bad lover, bad reader: the self, or the individual, as the afterbirth of capitalism. Ivan Ilyich writes of a *mutual self-care* which I find more interesting. Or rather, let's consider the *vibes* of a person in terms of a positive or negative position. A positive person, then, getting as far away from zero, as a negative person.

Bad lovers are bad readers are bad writers. Hiding your personal life in text? Progenitor to Kraus. Also, Lil Kim's Hardcore. I Love B.I.G. Bad friends, bad lovers, and bad husbands. Should we continue to despair over what kept Soren and Regina apart? (My mom still believes that Usher and Chili will still get back together.) I don't believe it, though I know Kierkegaard suffered till the end of his mortal existence over the affair, over the dillydallying. Still listening to Ron Hardy mixes, "...loving you and needing you is my mistake. I'm never gonna make that same mistake again."

Eight out of ten.

This is really two books, of course, though they complement each other from opposite ends of Kierkegaard's brief career. The author's absurdist view of faith, especially expresses in his explication of the story of Mount Moriah, is deeply compelling to me, though I can't say exactly why.

The view of the self that Kierkegaard espouses in the second book is famously difficult to parse. However, sticking to it is rewarding as he builds up from it into a fully fledged conception of human responsibility before God.

I'll have to do more thinking about Kierkegaard's proto-existentialism. But I enjoyed these thoughts. Perhaps I'd recommend looking for a more current translation.

you say theistic existentialisim. I say fuck off.

When I read this book I think "I don't understand how I understand this." When I read this book in public I walk through the streets or I stand on the sidelines at my brother's soccer games and I don't notice that I am still there, until someone taunts me and says "must be a good book there lady" and I say "I HATE SPORTS."
One day I taught middle school and then a second day in a row I taught middle school. Nobody listened to me, and I was very depressed. I wanted to die, again, but not really, but I felt very sick. So I saw "the sickness unto death." And I thought I am dead and I want to be sick, and I will read this book. And then I ignored everything else, and I felt better, but I'm not finished yet.

5 stars for Fear and Trembling. 4 stars for Sickness Unto Death.

Taxing and surprising. Not possible at this late date to recall the other impressions I had decades ago. I ought to reread this some day.