|
|
Post by gnicholson3 on Jul 1, 2024 4:46:20 GMT
One of the things that caught my attention on this cheat sheet is the idea that a life-long commitment is one of the only things that allows you to have ultimate meaning. I was wondering if Kierkegaard had thoughts about Aristotle's Golden Mean (or something similar to it) in which too much or too little of anything is a bad thing. In this case, not enough commitment would leave you unsatisfied and too much commitment would lead to unhealthy obsession or something akin to it. While it was mentioned that Kierkegaard mainly referenced religion, I still wonder if there were boundaries within that faith relationship. In my personal life, I've seen people fast (specifically from food) to the point of fainting, falling ill, and experiencing bodily weakness during the season of Lent. While I can understand the meaning behind it (to love God more than yourself, to love God more than life, to recognize that the bodies we inhabit are simply temporary), I still have to wonder if there is not an unhealthy obsessive quality in the extreme. Outside of faith, what commitment would Kierkegaard call us to pursue? At what point is commitment a bad thing and who decides that? Is committing to something until it hurts, until it possibly poses a risk of death, worth it? Would the commitment not turn into something more sinister if that thing remains to be intangible?
|
|
|
|
Post by garrison on Jul 1, 2024 14:01:57 GMT
Thank you for commenting on my cheat sheet. I don't know why that made me a little excited. While I don't know about Kierkegaards thoughts on the Golden Mean, I don't think he believed anything was ever too much. Regarding faith, Kierkegaard believed divine word trumped any form of human morals. At one point in the bible, Abraham is asked by God to sacrifice his first son. Of course, this is morally wrong, but according to Kierkegaard, God's word is right, no matter how crazy. If that philosophy holds true for anything, committing till it hurts is just plain old commitment.
|
|
|
|
Post by shelbygraham on Jul 2, 2024 15:28:14 GMT
I agree with Garrison. If Kierkegaard believed Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son a religious act pleasing to God, nothing else should matter more than God and we should set aside worldly things/thoughts/desires for the will of God. And this can be seen in a lot of stories in the Bible. Even if it is an "unhealthy obsessive quality" Kierkegaard believed that one should have complete faith in God (by being a Knight of Faith). Ultimate faith, according to Kierkegaard, is believing that something is impossible/absurd and simultaneously have faith God will overcome. Therefore, there is no limit to commitment.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnicholson3 on Jul 3, 2024 1:53:30 GMT
That makes a lot of sense Garrison and Shelby. I guess if you are completely committed to God then you'd have no issues with sacrificing your earthly body or risking your health if he asks. He did mention in my Leap of Faith text that when you take the leap of faith you become someone else entirely, so in taking that leap you'd leave concerns and doubts behind. It is an absurd concept, to completely surrender to the illogical and unscientific; I suppose that's something I need to work on in my own life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Nemmers on Jul 3, 2024 17:19:10 GMT
Right, though one of the things that we discussed today is that commitment could mean different things to different people, and could be inherent to different religious approaches or to different causes or beliefs, secular or otherwise. What that means is that if everyone is truly committed (with a passion and intensity) but two people happen to be at odds or in fundamental disagreement with each other... .. . :/
So, we can see how and why wars are fought, yeah? Some number of knights of faith who are passionately committed to their faith or cause, and who are willing to "leave concerns and doubts behind" and do things that some might consider "absurd" or "illogical." Yikes! As Shelby says, there is no limit to commitment.
This is the double-edged sword of so much of this existentialist thought--- it could be really inspire people to do tremendous acts of good, but could also go the opposite way. (And the question of what is good/ bad is often a matter of perspective anyway...)
|
|
