Kierkegaard's Sphere's of existence

Forums: Kierkegaard, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi everyone, I am new here and have been studying philosophy in college only just recently. It quickly caught my attention though and I have become more and more interested in the subject. Anyway, we've been reading a lot on Kierkegaard and the 3 spheres, and basically, my question is, can the order of the spheres of existence be manipulated? As in, can the order in which Kierkegaard says they should be, be changed?

Hopefully i can get some insight to this

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 1,374 • Replies: 17

No top replies

@haztronic,

My understanding is that they can not. One stage gives rise to another and the sequence follows the same "natural" order However, it may be the case that K discussed "lapses" or "slipping back" as part of general human experience, but you would have to check on that yourself.

For an better grasp, you might note that sequential stages of "maturation" in general psychology are extensively discussed by Piaget. This paradigm is known as "genetic epistemology".

0 Replies

It can only be alternated if you revert the emerged result back to its preceding advocacy.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

1 Reply

@fresco,

Well, the realities have emerged, have they not? If they have emerged, they have come from a point - remove that point, and you have yourself the only form of alternation one could fathom.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Quote:

Well, the realities have emerged, have they not?

Only for K and his followers. IMO reality (especially yours) lies in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:

If they have emerged, they have come from a point

No. "Particles", for example, have been deemed to emerge by physicists from "interacting strings". A simplistic big bang theory is under dispute.

Quote:

remove that point, and you have yourself the only form of alternation one could fathom.

= word salad....you should be aware that a few respondents try to use A2K as a therapeutic outlet to counter their failure to communicate elsewhere. They are either burn themselves out, or find they are being ignored.

1 Reply

@fresco,

This world emerged from space, therefore it has a point.

If you remove that point, you alternate it.

Is it that difficult to understand?

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Caesar word salad !

1 Reply

@fresco,

It's not word salad.

When a man fully disagrees with another man, it's not because they "disagree" - it's because they cannot "understand".

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

I think the committee members of what you call "self" should debate amongst themselves the motion "why does one of our members think he knows what he is talking about ?". I would be interested in the outcome.

1 Reply

@fresco,

It's quite simple.

People always band together against something when it benefits them.

Tell me, how does one convince one's self that banding together against a supposed worthless idiot on the internet is at all remotely logical? Please understand what you're subconsciously doing and how your ego is refusing to allow your conscious experience to acknowledge what you're doing on a subconscious level.

The contradictions speak for themselves. I am a threat to your ego and your image - there's nothing more to it. Just accept it, and we can move on.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Nah ! That didn't come from the committee. That came from the pushy temporary chairman.

1 Reply

@fresco,

The words went right over your head, so I'll keep repeating them, as they establish to a T who here is full of themselves and who here is true to themselves:

Quote:

How does one convince one's self that banding together against a supposed worthless idiot on the internet is at all remotely logical? There's only a few reasons why people would band against me - hint, one of them is not because I am an idiot. I am a threat - no more, no less.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Beware the Ides of September, O Caesar !

1 Reply

@fresco,

You treat me like an opponent - if I was an idiot, as you assume so, I would not be treated as an opponent.

The human brain is fascinating, in that it is really good at contradicting itself without conceding to it.

2 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

Sorry, but you are not up to "opponent standard" as far as I am concerned. Apologies If I gave any other impression. I (and others) have merely pointed out the more elementary flaws in your verbiage from a philosophical and communicative point of view. Surely even you must be aware of the plethora of cosmological speculators that have made more sense than yourself, and that some have even made a living from their publications.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

BTW You certainly show the intelligence and creativity to be able to handle more rigorous approaches to ontology and epistemology. It is a pity you display no awareness of them as yet.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I'm sorry, but one does not sport elementary flaws in their lexicon, when they could solve the mystery of consciousness, Riemann's Hypothesis, as well as cross-analyzing the Universe and Us to such a profound degree.

No cosmological speculation has ever been as realistic and tangible as the things I write in my literary simulacrums.

0 Replies

Kierkegaard's Sphere's of existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know