Waking up dead.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I recently read a paper concerning Kierkegaard's ideology about the modern individual- I'm sure many of you have heard the story before;

Kierkegaard tells the story about the absent minded man who is so abstracted from his life that one day, for no particular reason, he woke up to find himself dead.

I think what is mentioned here, and as the essay reasons, is that we are so unassembled within the roots of our existence that we dont realize how we exist in the first place. Could it be possible that many of us would wake up to find ourselves dead, never realizing until that moment of reason, that we existed in the first place?

Even though Kierkegaard was a theologian who lived in a time where widespread reformation to philosophical antiquities was leading about a new revival of literature and ideologies to challenge the long-held power of the church to the individual man- he was speaking for the individual who would be created from this abdication and exodus after these reformations and rebukes.

In this case, i believe he holds a very sturdy assumption that with the freedom to do what we want that we will then stray from our existence in the first place, that we will no longer ask what basis our society has in the world to each other, and merely process the ideas of others.

I do believe there no greater argument for the return of philosophy to the individual, atleast in the level of how philosophy was created in the first place-as a subjective definitive.

What do you think?

I'm sorry if this seems silly, but the importance of this philosophizing is something that intrigues me, and is one of my main concerns within philosophy itself. The existential rebellion is one of the primary movements that i find capable of returning to the roots of philosophy, because it incarnates philosophy itself.

 

[variant]

Kierkegaard tells the story about the absent minded man who is so abstracted from his life that one day, for no particular reason, he woke up to find himself dead.

How exactly does someone become abstracted from his or her life? If someone lives a very abstract life, or lives life in a very abstract way, that is their life and the way they live it.

In this case, i believe he holds a very sturdy assumption that with the freedom to do what we want that we will then stray from our existence in the first place, that we will no longer ask what basis our society has in the world to each other, and merely process the ideas of others.

What do you mean here?

What IS our existance? Humanity lives within society and within that constant exchange of ideas. Humans themselves have to be the origionators of this because there is no one else. We can not merely be the byproduct of others thougts since no one would be the origionator of those thoughts.

I do believe there no greater argument for the return of philosophy to the individual, atleast in the level of how philosophy was created in the first place-as a subjective definitive.

What do you think?

Philosophy can not be wholey taken away from the level of the individual because that is where it begins and ends.

There is more than just the individual, but it can not be exorcised from the equasion.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

I do not quite understand the OP, is there any chance you could clarify it a little please

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

How exactly does someone become abstracted from his or her life? If someone lives a very abstract life, or lives life in a very abstract way, that is their life and the way they live it.



What do you mean here?

What IS our existance? Humanity lives within society and within that constant exchange of ideas. Humans themselves have to be the origionators of this because there is no one else. We can not merely be the byproduct of others thougts since no one would be the origionator of those thoughts.



Philosophy can not be wholey taken away from the level of the individual because that is where it begins and ends.

There is more than just the individual, but it can not be exorcised from the equasion.

Well, i think what Kierkegaard means by the abstractness is that they do not know their philosophical roots, whether it be the religious conclusions, or spiritual convictions, people do not openly philosophize about these situations-i dont know exactly, this is why i am asking for assumptions and opinions about the ideology presented.

What is our existence? I know my existence is me, but i am also the other. What this means is that i am apart of you, and you are apart of me, because we are both individual, yet we are both the other(though not to ourself!)

You must conclude though, the fact that i did not start society, and neither did you-this conclusions is the fact that i was brought into society against my will, not from some pathological or conscious decision to do so-i merely appeared to become apart of it.

Neither in my case did i say we were merely the thought of someone elses ideas, a conclusion of idealism is something that abstracts what i have said and strays from the conclusions that i wish to deduce. I merely assume that little emphasis is placed upon the individuals situation, their relationships with the other is not exactly 'required' or manipulated into a more mutual connection-this has led to the increasing levels of objectification within the sociological relationships and interactions.

It has been a trend of modern philosophies to extort the fact of absolutes as being more contributional to the world than the individuals subjectivism. Though they conclude it through the eyes of the individual themself, they do not find the individual to be the focal point of the situational analysis. This is a trend of academic philosophies, especially upon metaphysical ideologies.

 

[variant]

Well, i think what Kierkegaard means by the abstractness is that they do not know their philosophical roots, whether it be the religious conclusions, or spiritual convictions, people do not openly philosophize about these situations-i dont know exactly, this is why i am asking for assumptions and opinions about the ideology presented.

I think taking it back to more philosophy wouldn’t make it any less of an abstraction.

What makes philosophy much less abstract isn't to examine it's philosophical roots, but to use it as a tool to understand and interact with the realities you face every day.

What is our existence? I know my existence is me, but i am also the other. What this means is that i am apart of you, and you are apart of me, because we are both individual, yet we are both the other(though not to ourself!)

We both share a society, a language, and many common assumptions, but beyond that we are still both ourselves I think (unless you've joined some sort of hive mind that I am unaware of).

You must conclude though, the fact that i did not start society, and neither did you-this conclusions is the fact that i was brought into society against my will, not from some pathological or conscious decision to do so-i merely appeared to become apart of it.

The people who formed society didn't really form it as a conscious choice either, they simply did it for a reason that we continue to share, it works.

It wouldn’t give me any special status if I had formed this society either, since my participation in it would still be for the same reasons as I participate in it now.

We originate the society we live in whether we create it or not because we participate in it, without us there is no society.

Neither in my case did i say we were merely the thought of someone elses ideas, a conclusion of idealism is something that abstracts what i have said and strays from the conclusions that i wish to deduce. I merely assume that little emphasis is placed upon the individuals situation, their relationships with the other is not exactly 'required' or manipulated into a more mutual connection-this has led to the increasing levels of objectification within the sociological relationships and interactions.

I'm not really following.

I had this teacher who specialized in post-modern philosophy who constantly spoke in this manner.

While I am fairly sure she generally had a fairly clear picture of what she was trying to say, the manner in which she said it was such a confusing mesh of stuck together thoughts that it was impossible to follow.

You would have to try and organize that a bit more or reword it if you really want a response from me.

It has been a trend of modern philosophies to extort the fact of absolutes as being more contributional to the world than the individuals subjectivism. Though they conclude it through the eyes of the individual themself, they do not find the individual to be the focal point of the situational analysis. This is a trend of academic philosophies, especially upon metaphysical ideologies.

I think philosophy forgets itself when it doesn’t help people interact with the world around them, or lay some groundwork for them to better understand it. This is why the sciences have tended to overwhelm the increasingly distant modern and post modern philosophies of our time, because such philosophies tend to be of little or no help to them in their lives.

 

[R3quiem]

I recently read a paper concerning Kierkegaard's ideology about the modern individual- I'm sure many of you have heard the story before;

Kierkegaard tells the story about the absent minded man who is so abstracted from his life that one day, for no particular reason, he woke up to find himself dead.

I think what is mentioned here, and as the essay reasons, is that we are so unassembled within the roots of our existence that we dont realize how we exist in the first place. Could it be possible that many of us would wake up to find ourselves dead, never realizing until that moment of reason, that we existed in the first place?

Even though Kierkegaard was a theologian who lived in a time where widespread reformation to philosophical antiquities was leading about a new revival of literature and ideologies to challenge the long-held power of the church to the individual man- he was speaking for the individual who would be created from this abdication and exodus after these reformations and rebukes.

In this case, i believe he holds a very sturdy assumption that with the freedom to do what we want that we will then stray from our existence in the first place, that we will no longer ask what basis our society has in the world to each other, and merely process the ideas of others.

I do believe there no greater argument for the return of philosophy to the individual, atleast in the level of how philosophy was created in the first place-as a subjective definitive.

What do you think?

I'm sorry if this seems silly, but the importance of this philosophizing is something that intrigues me, and is one of my main concerns within philosophy itself. The existential rebellion is one of the primary movements that i find capable of returning to the roots of philosophy, because it incarnates philosophy itself.

When you say the story is about an absent-minded man, do you mean that in such a way that he never questions or ponders his own existence? Like, he just lives his life without thinking it through too much?

Defining our own existence is a tough one. One could say that the only thing they know to exist is themselves, and yet, there are so many facets of our mind hidden deep away without even us knowing about them. For example, have you ever had a dream so strange that you think about it going "who was I in that dream?" Our subconscious mind is so undefined, and so different from our own identified selves, that it is difficult to even pinpoint who we really are. And then if we can't truly know ourselves, can we really know anything else?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

When you say the story is about an absent-minded man, do you mean that in such a way that he never questions or ponders his own existence? Like, he just lives his life without thinking it through too much?

Defining our own existence is a tough one. One could say that the only thing they know to exist is themselves, and yet, there are so many facets of our mind hidden deep away without even us knowing about them. For example, have you ever had a dream so strange that you think about it going "who was I in that dream?" Our subconscious mind is so undefined, and so different from our own identified selves, that it is difficult to even pinpoint who we really are. And then if we can't truly know ourselves, can we really know anything else?

Very much so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It has been a trend of modern philosophies to extort the fact of absolutes as being more contributional to the world than the individuals subjectivism. Though they conclude it through the eyes of the individual themself, they do not find the individual to be the focal point of the situational analysis. This is a trend of academic philosophies, especially upon metaphysical ideologies.

If what you are saying here is that philosophy is often abstract and impersonal, and says little of any practical value for living one's life, I totally agree with you. For me, philosophy is a way of life, as it once was long ago for the Greeks and Romans. You are right that the individual's perspective on things is very important, or else philosophy becomes a pointless chess game played through the centuries.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

If what you are saying here is that philosophy is often abstract and impersonal, and says little of any practical value for living one's life, I totally agree with you. For me, philosophy is a way of life, as it once was long ago for the Greeks and Romans. You are right that the individual's perspective on things is very important, or else philosophy becomes a pointless chess game played through the centuries.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This is exactly so, we 'no longer dare to be philosophical' to our roots of existence.

Thanks for the input by the way everyone.

Eudaimonist: Does RecoveringPhilosopher still post in these forums?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Eudaimonist: Does RecoveringPhilosopher still post in these forums?

Yes. He's around.


eudaimonia,

Mark