A Brief Introduction to Kierkegaard’s Three “Life-Views” or “Stages on Life’s Way”

it is an unshakable certainty in oneself won from all experience, whether this has oriented itself only in all worldly relationships (a purely human standpoint, Stoicism, for example)

To be fair to the stoics, or at least Epictetus in particular, I think it'd be worth taking a look at some of his few theological remarks in the Discourses, if you are yourself interested in the topic. It is true that he is much concerned with the conduct of worldly relationships, but frequently exhorts his students to a relationship with Zeus, so as to free them from worldly errors and stupidity when it comes to the conduct of life and understanding of ethical things.

From ch.3 titled "What we should conclude from the principle that God is the Father of Mankind" in The Discourses:

(2) Now if Ceasar were to adopt you, there would be no bearing your haughty looks: so will you not be elated on knowing yourself to be the son of Zeus?
(3) Yet, in fact, we are not elated; but since in our birth we have these two elements mingled within us, a body in common with the animals, and reason and intelligence in common with the gods, many of us incline towards the former kinship, miserable as it is and wholly mortal, and only some few to to the divine and blessed one.

Here he, in my opinion, distinguishes quite clearly between the vice and stupidity that comes from the mere secular sphere, whereas the transcendental relation would be a freeing thing.

And later in the same chapter:

(5) "For what am I? A poor miserable man", they say, and "This poor wretched flesh of mine".
(6) Wretched indeed. But you have something better than this paltry flesh. So why do you cast that aside and hold fast to what is mortal?

And then the exhortation in the end:

(9) Look, then, and take care that you do not become one of these roguish creatures.

I'm not partial to any religion though, but I'm no stranger to theology and religious feelings. I simply feel that there is a possibility, in between all of this, of teasing out the a priori foundations of the nature of the semiotics of religious language, and creating something new. Some mode that gets to the core of whatever it could be, in a way that doesn't dogmatize one way or another. And, obviously, that K might have been a little to partial to one side in his explication of the essence of the religious mind.

But you'll probably disagree with me on that though lol. You're christian, aren't you?

/r/philosophy Thread Parent