PDA

View Full Version : Limitations of Kierkegaard.


canto iv
01-26-2009, 12:59 PM
Kierkegaard described that there are three kinds of people.

1. The Socialized Man - This is a person who is very much bound by the societal norms dictated by culture. This is a person very much defined by and limited to a certain worldview. Some may refer to this kind of person as a "pawn of society," entirely a product of his or her environment, and does not question anything beyond the worldview in which they subscribe.

2. The Introvert - The Introvert is ostensibly the same as the Socialized Man -- enjoys many of the same activities, clothing, lifestyle, etc. However, what makes this type of individual different is that he or she is aware there is more beyond that one particular worldview. Just, for whatever reason, perhaps family responsibilities, monetary limitation, or even a lack of motivation, he or she never decided to break away and explore their own interests. From what I understand, people like this are often dissatisfied with their lives and full of regret.

3. The Self-Realized Man - This is a person not bound by any one particular worldview, who desires to create their own place in the world while not defined in whole by the arbitrary. To quote Kierkegaard himsef, the Self-Realized Man is "a man that will not merely be the pawn of others, of society; he will not be a passive sufferer and secret dreamer."

What I'd like to know is, how accurate do you think these categories are? Do you feel people can fit nicely into them, that there is such a clear dichotomy?

Personally, I think it works well as a guideline, but not as an exact science. One's role in society, and, therein definition of oneself, exists on a continuum. I feel it's a matter of education and exposure to broader thought that would at least give a person a chance of becoming a more self-aware individual. It's far too elitist to assume only a select few will ever reach this state of "self-realized." Anyone can, it's mostly just a matter of aspiration and desire once that possibility has been discovered.

Archangel
01-26-2009, 01:08 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa there.


A) If you want to discuss a book, don't assume everybody has read it. Give at least some outlines.

B) Elaborate. Don't just ask a question, tells how you think about the issue, so we have something to go on.

C)Who the Hell are you? How about you post an introduction first, so we know whom we're dealing with here.


Locked until further notice.

NOTKyle
01-26-2009, 02:47 PM
Hey, Philo nazi, give it a rest.

Gary_Busey
01-26-2009, 02:50 PM
Thread opened.

Satan
01-26-2009, 02:54 PM
Hey, Philo nazi, give it a rest."No thread for you!"

Gary_Busey
01-26-2009, 02:56 PM
"No thread for you!"
http://www.localseoguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/sein_soup_nazi.jpg

Archangel
01-26-2009, 02:56 PM
Boo.

Phil Theehor
01-26-2009, 03:06 PM
Hey, interlopers, don't you have anything better to do? Isn't there a fisting poll or a 'photoshop a cock in the mouth of a historical figure' contest somewhere to administer/moderate?

New guy: Good idea for discussion, but a revamped OP is indeed in order.

Archangel
01-26-2009, 03:07 PM
Guy posted his intro, so it's cool.

Archangel
01-26-2009, 03:21 PM
Yeah, so...

canto iv
01-26-2009, 08:07 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa there.


A) If you want to discuss a book, don't assume everybody has read it. Give at least some outlines.

B) Elaborate. Don't just ask a question, tells how you think about the issue, so we have something to go on.

C)Who the Hell are you? How about you post an introduction first, so we know whom we're dealing with here.


Locked until further notice.

Great, thanks for reopening.

It may have been too presumptuous on my part to assume everyone has common knowledge of Kierkegaard. His contributions to the world of philosophical thought are too great for me to give a quick outline on. Wikipedia covers the basic information on the man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegaard) and Existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism), which Kierkegaard much in part laid the groundwork for, pretty well.

vicar in a tutu
02-01-2009, 11:21 AM
Pidgeon-holeing human behaviour/personality is as pointless as drinking a Gin and Tonic without a slice of lemon? Kiekegard (or K-gard as he wished to be known) was a philosopher that complicated philosophy instead of the usual trend of a philosopher simplifying it?

You simply can't catergorise humanity into three sections? That in itself is an act of extreme arrogance and you can call me Horace Flangebuckle if it isn't so?

Archangel
02-01-2009, 11:24 AM
There are two types of people in the world: Those who divide people into two types and those who don't.

Satan
02-01-2009, 01:42 PM
this thread has been a raging success

Archangel
02-01-2009, 01:43 PM
The only attention it got was when I locked it.

Satan
02-01-2009, 01:48 PM
That's because its easy to dump on you

Insomniac
02-01-2009, 03:00 PM
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Archetype
03-27-2009, 01:14 AM
Kierkegaard described that there are three kinds of people.

1. The Socialized Man - This is a person who is very much bound by the societal norms dictated by culture. This is a person very much defined by and limited to a certain worldview. Some may refer to this kind of person as a "pawn of society," entirely a product of his or her environment, and does not question anything beyond the worldview in which they subscribe.

2. The Introvert - The Introvert is ostensibly the same as the Socialized Man -- enjoys many of the same activities, clothing, lifestyle, etc. However, what makes this type of individual different is that he or she is aware there is more beyond that one particular worldview. Just, for whatever reason, perhaps family responsibilities, monetary limitation, or even a lack of motivation, he or she never decided to break away and explore their own interests. From what I understand, people like this are often dissatisfied with their lives and full of regret.

3. The Self-Realized Man - This is a person not bound by any one particular worldview, who desires to create their own place in the world while not defined in whole by the arbitrary. To quote Kierkegaard himsef, the Self-Realized Man is "a man that will not merely be the pawn of others, of society; he will not be a passive sufferer and secret dreamer."

What I'd like to know is, how accurate do you think these categories are? Do you feel people can fit nicely into them, that there is such a clear dichotomy?

Personally, I think it works well as a guideline, but not as an exact science. One's role in society, and, therein definition of oneself, exists on a continuum. I feel it's a matter of education and exposure to broader thought that would at least give a person a chance of becoming a more self-aware individual. It's far too elitist to assume only a select few will ever reach this state of "self-realized." Anyone can, it's mostly just a matter of aspiration and desire once that possibility has been discovered.


OK, after finally reading some Kierkegaard, I have to ask, what?

When did he talk about any of that? I know of the Aesthetic, the Ethical, and the Religious man, but none of these work with the above. The aesthetic man is the man ruled by desire, his urges. The ethical man is ruled by morality or at least social mores. The Religious man is then ruled by faith, true faith, an actual devotion to something, in spite of a doubt. Higher steps can experience the lower steps, but lower not higher. So again, I ask, how does this make sense to what you're babbling about?