"Purity of Heart Is To Will One Thing" by Søren Kierkegaard

[Nemo]

Another insightful book from Kierkegaard (Read my review here). Perfect for year end reflection.

[Everyman]

Wow, that takes me back. I read that in college. I won't say how many decades ago, but quite a few!

[Nemo]

Everyman wrote: "Wow, that takes me back. I read that in college. I won't say how many decades ago, but quite a few!"

"Yesterday, all my troubles seem so far away..." :)

What did you think of the book?

[John]

Not his best by far, but anything by Kierkegaard is worth the effort.

[Nemo]

John wrote: "Not his best by far, but anything by Kierkegaard is worth the effort."

Why do you say it's not his best by far? Could you be more specific?

[John]

It's a book of short sermonette-like writings, as opposed to a long, sustained philosophical argument (like "Sickness" or "Anxiety").

[MadgeUK]

Nemo: I think your quotes from Kierkagaard about despair which you mentioned in your book reviews are very pertinent to our Dostoevsky discussion, especially:-

'An individual experiences despair when the fabric of his existence is disrupted or destroyed, e.g., the loss of a loved one, a vocation, or any other object of his pursuit on which his happiness depends.'

Perhaps you could also comment upon Kierkegaard's views there?

[Nemo]

John wrote: "It's a book of short sermonette-like writings, as opposed to a long, sustained philosophical argument (like "Sickness" or "Anxiety")."

The length of the book is not proportional to the quality though, and it does make very good philosophical arguments.

[Nemo]

MadgeUK wrote: "Nemo: I think your quotes from Kierkagaard about despair which you mentioned in your book reviews are very pertinent to our Dostoevsky discussion, ..."

I decided not to read Dostoevsky this year (your input played a major role in that :) ), so I can't contribute to any discussions on him or TBK.

However, I'd be more than happy to discuss Kierkegaard with anyone. Which views of his would you like me to comment on? The quote in your message is my own, btw, Kierkegaard's definition of despair is a bit more abstract.

[John]

Nemo wrote: "John wrote: "It's a book of short sermonette-like writings, as opposed to a long, sustained philosophical argument (like "Sickness" or "Anxiety")."

The length of the book is not proportional to th..."

Nemo, it's generally not considered one of his three or four best books. Why do you think this might be the case?

[Nemo]

John wrote: "Nemo, it's generally not considered one of his three or four best books. Why do you think this might be the case? ..."

I'm interested in your own opinion. :)

[MadgeUK]

Oh dear, did I put you off?:(

It is just that there is a lot of despair in TBK and in Dostoevsky's life so I thought you might be able to contribute some thoughts of K on this.

[John]

I've already shared my own opinion.

[[deleted user]]

I'm confused about your opinion John. Do you dislike Purity because of how the ideas are presented? or do you think he does a better job elsewhere? Why would short and pithy be less thought provoking than say a longer, more sustained argument. To me they serve different purposes.

[John]

I never said I disliked it. I said it wasn't his best work. And for both reasons you mentioned.

They might serve different purposes, but if the book is just as good as the book-length treatments I mentioned above, why is it never assigned, say, in courses in existentialism or the philosophy of religion? The purposes I'm considering are purely philosophical ones, since that's what Kierkegaard has historically been acknowledged and identified as.

[Nemo]

MadgeUK wrote: "Oh dear, did I put you off?:(

It is just that there is a lot of despair in TBK and in Dostoevsky's life so I thought you might be able to contribute some thoughts of K on this."

LOL, not you, but the background information you provided on Dostoevsky. I often find that, if I don't respect or understand an author as a person, most likely I won't enjoy his works, especially if they deal with philosophical or religious issues.

[John]

You only read people that you've pre-approved beforehand? That's ... interesting.

[Nemo]

John wrote: "You only read people that you've pre-approved beforehand? That's ... interesting."

That's not what I said.

[John]

You said that you often don't "enjoy someone's works" if you don't "respect or understand them." Doesn't that mean that, in many cases, you first seek to respect or understand them (whatever that means) before you read them? How could one draw any other conclusion from what you said?

[Nemo]

John wrote: "You said that you often don't "enjoy someone's works" if you don't "respect or understand them." Doesn't that mean that, in many cases, you first seek to respect or understand them (whatever that ..."

If I read for enjoyment only, then yes, I might choose only those authors that I respect and understand. For other purposes,e.g. information and instruction, I use different sets of criteria.

[[deleted user]]

Fight nice kids. Everyone approaches reading according to their own criteria. I haven't found a right way or a wrong way yet.

Some people don't want too know much about the personality or history of an author because it will color their enjoyment of his work (I feel this way about Orson Scott Card. I liked his books much better before he started airing his political views). OTOH, some people find they can appreciate an author's writings better if they have an understanding of what his background and motivations were.

[Nemo]

Kate Mc. wrote: "(I feel this way about Orson Scott Card. I liked his books much better before he started airing his political views). ..."

Are those books related to politics at all?

If the books are purely fictional, e.g., fantasy or mystery, the author's personality or history wouldn't affect my enjoyment as much as their storytelling or imagination.

[[deleted user]]

Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "(I feel this way about Orson Scott Card. I liked his books much better before he started airing his political views). ..."

Are those books related to politics at all?

If the boo..."

Only in so far as you can say that science fiction is related to politics :).

Actually Ender's Game and its sequels have a lot to say about power and politics.

[John]

Nemo wrote: "John wrote: "You said that you often don't "enjoy someone's works" if you don't "respect or understand them." Doesn't that mean that, in many cases, you first seek to respect or understand them (w..."

So you would approach "The Brothers Karamazov" as someone you'd read for "enjoyment," as opposed to philosophical edification?

[John]

Kate Mc. wrote: "Fight nice kids. Everyone approaches reading according to their own criteria. I haven't found a right way or a wrong way yet.

Some people don't want too know much about the personality or hist..."

Ugh. Orson Scott Card's political views sicken me. Thankfully, science fiction bores me to tears so I'll never be tempted to support his homophobia and Mormonism by buying any of his books.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "So you would approach "The Brothers Karamazov" as someone you'd read for "enjoyment," as opposed to philosophical edification? "

I'm not sure these two are mutually exclusive. One can enjoy pursuing ideas without feeling a need to follow a rigorous course of study. In which case one might pick and choose what to sample and what to leave by the side of the road.

[Nemo]

Kierkegaard actually made a point against "comparison" in this book, presumably because we use fickle standards in judgment, i.e., judging others by ourselves.

"All the ruinous quarreling and comparison which swells up and injures, which sighs and envies, the Eternal does not recognize. Its claim rests equally on each, the greatest who has ever lived, and the most insignificant."

[John]

I'm not the one that implied any sort of exclusivity, Kate. Read what Nemo wrote again: "If I read for enjoyment only, then yes, I might choose only those authors that I respect and understand. For other purposes, e.g. information and instruction, I use different sets of criteria." He earlier stated (or heavily insinuated) that he didn't plan on reading Dostoevsky because he didn't "understand or respect" Dostoevsky "as a person."

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "I'm not the one that implied any sort of exclusivity, Kate. Read what Nemo wrote again: "If I read for enjoyment only, then yes, I might choose only those authors that I respect and understand. Fo..."

I was more interested in the way you paraphrased him when you asked your question. Because you asked "So you would approach "The Brothers Karamazov" as someone you'd read for "enjoyment," as opposed to philosophical edification?" And I didn't see where "enjoyment" and "personal edification" matched Nemo's separation of "enjoyment" from "information/instruction." Maybe it's my own bias that "personal edification" is enjoyable while being "instructed or informed isn't". LOL.

[John]

Then what do you think he meant when he drew the distinction between "enjoyment" and "information/instruction"? And is it really that much of a stretch to construe "information/instruction" as "personal edification"? Is it even a stretch at all?

I see edification as enjoyable, too, I agree. But then again, I'm not the one proposed the difference. That's why I'm asking for clarification. :)

[[deleted user]]

Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "(I feel this way about Orson Scott Card. I liked his books much better before he started airing his political views). ..."

Are those books related to politics at all?

If the boo..."

Since good science fiction is really another vehicle for the exploration of social, political or even religious ideas, I think the author's personal views can be of importance. When it comes to reading mysteries, suspense, romance, etc. solely for entertainment, I agree that I don't care about the author one way or the other.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "Then what do you think he meant when he drew the distinction between "enjoyment" and "information/instruction"? And is it really that much of a stretch to construe "information/instruction" as "pe..."

How can I answer for Nemo? I don't know what he meant, but I know what I would have meant if I said that. Instruction/being informed to me is a more rigorous and objective standard than personal edification which is driven by subjective personal curiousity.

[John]

Oh, good grief, you gave "Brothers" only three stars?

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "Oh, good grief, you gave "Brothers" only three stars?"

Yes. I found it an interesting book, but not a particularly compelling one. His philosophical and religious views seem curiously bounded by his own experiences and his Russian nationalism (hat tip to Nemo), his characterizations are interesting but overdrawn, I found the melodrama exhausting and the book, for as long as it is, seems incomplete. While I can understand and appreciate some of the complexities in its structure, they don't particularly interest me.

[Nemo]

Kate Mc. wrote: "John wrote: "Oh, good grief, you gave "Brothers" only three stars?"

Yes. I found it an interesting book, but not a particularly compelling one. His philosophical and religious views seem curious..."

I'm impressed that you finished the book. :) Are you going to read Kierkegaard next? I'm still waiting to compare notes with you.

[[deleted user]]

Sorry Nemo, someone's comment on Dostoevsky side tracked me off onto Nietzsche. I'll (try to) tackle Kierkegaard when I finish rereading Beyond Good and Evil. Søren is still resting nicely on the bedside table...one book down.

Plus I have fluff to read. It's my own form of not getting too serious about things.

[John]

What are you thinking of the Nietzsche, Kate? I'm looking forward to your fulminations.

[Nemo]

John,

IMO, instruction, enjoyment and personal edification are not the same, though they can overlap. Personal edification are not always enjoyable, e.g., when we learn a lesson "the hard way", and the things we enjoy are not always edifying.

Do you think TBK is good for personal edification? if so why?

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "What are you thinking of the Nietzsche, Kate? I'm looking forward to your fulminations."

Fulminating? LOL. That was restrained. Tit for tat. What do you think about TBK?

[Nemo]

Kate Mc. wrote: "Sorry Nemo, someone's comment on Dostoevsky side tracked me off onto Nietzsche. I'll (try to) tackle Kierkegaard when I finish rereading Beyond Good and Evil. ..."

Perhaps we could read Thus Spoke Zarathustra together and discuss it in the other thread? I'm reading it for instruction not enjoyment, so far.

[John]

Nemo wrote: "John,

IMO, instruction, enjoyment and personal edification are not the same, though they can overlap. Personal edification are not always enjoyable, e.g., when we learn a lesson "the hard way", an..."

All great novels are good for at least personal edification, if not more. I don't find it "enjoyable" in the common sense. It's not something that I would read because it looked like an easy read. But then again, looking at my Goodreads library, you probably get the sense that that's not one of my selection criteria in the first place. Echoing another philosopher that we've already mentioned, Dostoevsky is one of the few writers that has a truly cutting insight into the workings of the human mind, and how faith works, and why we need/want it. He's very honest with himself and his readers, which is hard to find.

[John]

Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "Sorry Nemo, someone's comment on Dostoevsky side tracked me off onto Nietzsche. I'll (try to) tackle Kierkegaard when I finish rereading Beyond Good and Evil. ..."

Perhaps we cou..."

Nemo, I made the mistake of trying to read Zarathustra in middle school about 15 years ago. Not until I studied Nietzsche at school did I realize why I didn't appreciate him (at least at that time).

Unless everyone reading it has an equally thorough (very thorough) understanding of him, perhaps another book by him might be a better choice. It's a great example of his "middle work" - written after "Birth of Tragedy," "Gay Science," and "Human, All Too Human," but before his more highly "irrationalist" stuff like "Ecce Homo," "The Antichrist," and "Twilight of the Idols." Plus I've found that the allegory of "Zarathustra" can really put people off without some background in the other stuff.

[Nemo]

Let's keep the focus on Kierkegaard here.

Please post your comments on Nietzsche in this thread.

[[deleted user]]

Nemo wrote: "Let's keep the focus on Kierkegaard here."

Well we have to go back to Dostoevsky for a moment, before yielding the floor to Kierkegaard. I was hoping you'd read TBK, Nemo, because Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard seem to me to have had very similar views of faith and its necessity to mankind. It's been forever since I read any of Kierkegaard and that apparent similarity is my really superficial view of the matter, so it would be nice to have someone's viewpoint who has read both of them recently.

John, after reading TBK it seems to me that Dostoevsky's idea of faith was an exclusively Christian one. It specifically relies on a belief in personal immortality. I found absolutely no way to reconcile it with deism, or any of the non-Abrahamic religions. What am I missing?

[John]

Kate Mc. wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Let's keep the focus on Kierkegaard here."

Well we have to go back to Dostoevsky for a moment, before yielding the floor to Kierkegaard. I was hoping you'd read TBK, Nemo, because D..."

I think that Dostoevsky would have been shocked at Kierkegaard's brand of Christianity. From my reading of "Brothers," he was much too orthodox to have ever entertained Kierkegaard's fideism or a, Kierkegaard once put it, "a teleological suspension of the ethical."

Yes, Dostoesvky was a Christian. Yes, he believed in immortality. Does that mean you're unable to learn anything from it? I don't know your religious affiliation, but are you unable to draw anything from the poetry of Tagore (if you're not Hindu)? Or Dante (if you're not Catholic)? Or Isaac Bashevis Singer (if you're not Jewish)? When Ivan says that "if God doesn't exist, everything is permissible" that didn't raise points that you'd never considered before? He doesn't ask the reader to reach the same conclusions that he does. He asks you to consider the questions that he poses. That's all a great author could ever ask.

[John]

He's certainly not orthodox in every respect. I don't think that can be said of any thoughtful Christian. Even if you pushed Cardinal Newman or G. K. Chesterton far enough, cracks in their orthodoxy begin to show. But, as I read the novel, I discern a definite moral absolutism, and the idea that our sense of right and wrong is connected to our knowledge of God. That's the point that I mainly mean to characterize as orthodox.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Let's keep the focus on Kierkegaard here."

Well we have to go back to Dostoevsky for a moment, before yielding the floor to Kierkegaard. I was hoping you'd read TBK..."

John, will you please stop making your arguments personal and border line disparaging. What I believe and what I can find to appreciate in the expression of various faiths shouldn't be of concern to you. What you find inspiring, I may find to be road muck and vice versa. That shouldn't matter. We're both adults and can discuss this as both having equally valid views on the subject or we won't discuss it at all.

"If God doesn't exist, everything is permissable" is a laughable statement to me. Some eastern religions are atheistic. They have no god. Many deists do not believe in a god who acts as a definer of good and evil. Yet their philosophies do not lead to "everything is permissable." The only way I can find that premise interesting, is if I accept that God by his very nature makes certain things impermissable. Which leads to the pre-supposition that I already believe in God. It involves a tautology rather than an either/or.

[Nemo]

Kate Mc. wrote: "Well we have to go back to Dostoevsky for a moment, before yielding the floor to Kierkegaard. I was hoping you'd read TBK, Nemo, because D..."

Is it not enough that you tortured yourself with TBK but you have to get someone else to share your pain? That's advanced masochism! :)

To have a reasonably deep understanding of both Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky would take a lot of time and effort. We could divide and conquer. For example, If you choose a topic, I can try to explain Kierkegaard's views on it as I understand it, and you can do the same with Dostoevsky, and then we can compare them. How is that for an intellectual exercise?

[John]

1) If you find what I'm saying disparaging, you're reading into it something that was never there.

2) I never found that I said Dostoevsky "inspiring." Or even insinuate it.

3) I can guarantee you that most contemporary American literature professors don't accept the premise that "God by his very nature makes certain things impermissable [sic]" and other similar endorsements of Christian orthodoxy. Yet most of them would rank this novel as one of the best written (probably in the top couple of dozen) in any language. Much, yet not all, of its merit is placed on the author's ability to ask religious, moral, and philosophical questions of the reader. What do you understand that they seem not to?

4) The idea that God sets out moral proscriptions doesn't mean that you first have to believe in God. You don't have to believe in gravity for your pencil to fall to the ground when you drop it.

[[deleted user]]

Let's move this discussion here: Dostoevsky and return this thread to Kierkegaard.