Capital Furs

A work-friend of mine has the most interesting books. This time, a thick novel about Existentialism. I took a moment to browse through it and this quote jumped out at me immediately. So, having returned home not long ago, I transcribe it here so that others may see it also.

Quote from Basic Writings of Existentialism
Subquote from Kierkegaard:

If it were so, as conceited sagacity, proud of not being deceived, thinks, that we should believe nothing that we cannot see with our physical eyes, then we first and foremost ought to give up believing in love. If we were to do so and do it out of fear lest we be deceived, would we not be deceived? We can, of course, be deceived in many ways. We can be deceived by believing what is untrue, but we certainly are also deceived by not believing what is true. We can be deceived by appearances, but we certainly are also deceived by the sagacious appearances, by the flattering conceit that considers itself secure against being deceived. Which deception is the more dangerous? Whose recover is more doubtful, that of the one who does not see or that of the person who sees yet does not see? What is more difficult - to awaken someone who is sleeping or to awaken someone who, awake, is dreaming that he is awake? Which is sadder, the sight that promptly and unconditionally moves one to tears, the sight of someone unhappily deceived in love, or the sight that in a certain sense could tempt laughter, the sight of the self-deceived, whose fatuous conceit of not being deceived is indeed ridiculous and laughable if the ridiculousness of it were not an even stronger expression for horror, since it shows he is not worthy of tears.

Not a fan of Existentialism to be honest xD

I find it bleak, despite what its preachers would have you believe that it's all about freedom and what not. And any philosophical school that can give birth to Waiting for Gidoh can kiss my ass :x

Now Solipsism, there's a fun branch of philosophical thought. xD

Featheredragon wrote:If it were so, as conceited sagacity, proud of not being deceived, thinks, that we should believe nothing that we cannot see with our physical eyes, then we first and foremost ought to give up believing in love. If we were to do so and do it out of fear lest we be deceived, would we not be deceived? We can, of course, be deceived in many ways. We can be deceived by believing what is untrue, but we certainly are also deceived by not believing what is true. We can be deceived by appearances, but we certainly are also deceived by the sagacious appearances, by the flattering conceit that considers itself secure against being deceived. Which deception is the more dangerous? Whose recover is more doubtful, that of the one who does not see or that of the person who sees yet does not see? What is more difficult - to awaken someone who is sleeping or to awaken someone who, awake, is dreaming that he is awake? Which is sadder, the sight that promptly and unconditionally moves one to tears, the sight of someone unhappily deceived in love, or the sight that in a certain sense could tempt laughter, the sight of the self-deceived, whose fatuous conceit of not being deceived is indeed ridiculous and laughable if the ridiculousness of it were not an even stronger expression for horror, since it shows he is not worthy of tears.

I refuse to believe that life is anywhere near this complicated.

Well, I don't claim to know much about Existentialism or Solipsism and I never implied, if I gave that impression, that life was that complicated--I just said I found it (the quote) interesting. ^^

Particularily, i found the first sentence did a rather succinct job of illustrating, that just because something is intangible, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I found suggesting the absurd, the example that love cannot exist since it is non-coporeal, to be a potent way of showing how untrue a notion to the contrary is--and by extension, showing how other non-coporeal phenomena can exist as well.

*shrugs* Dissertations on the nature of existance tend to be wordy. Except when they are idioms, which are usually only fully understood or apprecaited with the context of experience.

Anywho--my whole point was that I thought the quote was interesting! ^^

Life complicated? Maybe, maybe not. Sure seems that wasy sometimes!

Moving along now....^^

[Edit: 12:12am: Ok, so, a bit of my geeky side leaeking out! lol ]

Wait wait wait...

Love is tangible. It's explainable chemically for the most part.

The only way love would be so ethereal is if you accepted beforehand that love is mystical.

The problem with that sentence is that science doesn't stop at what we perceive with our eyes; but rather all our senses and even logical thinking.

Hell, that's like a robot asking "Why do humans fear something they can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch?" and another robot answering "Because carbon monoxide poisoning kills people"

Pooshie wrote:Wait wait wait...

Love is tangible. It's explainable chemically for the most part.

The only way love would be so ethereal is if you accepted beforehand that love is mystical.

The problem with that sentence is that science doesn't stop at what we perceive with our eyes; but rather all our senses and even logical thinking.

Hell, that's like a robot asking "Why do humans fear something they can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch?" and another robot answering "Because carbon monoxide poisoning kills people"

I should clarify by saying that by tanible I mean "that which is seen on a macroscopic level". That is to say, if you want to get technical, if you believe in String Theory, then the most basic unit of existance is energy and hence all phenomena can be explained by extrapolation. I was making an observation as to how humans tend to percieve the world--that they tend to focus more on what is most easily percived than what is not.

Kierkegaard isn't saying that love doesn't exist, really.

What he's saying is that we should, in order to reach a true existential understanding, not rely on anyone else and act as if such connectors as love do not exist, because they are generally intangible and decidedly uncontrollable, neither of which makes for a concrete foundation for philosophical thought.

*chinstroke*

Aaaahhhhh, I feel much better now. I thought some things were complicated, but now that I've read this 'existansialismism' thing, wow, did that ever confuse me into being happy!

Seriously, I have two opinions on that kind of thought. 1) they are very deep, and to a certain extent, very true, and that
2) The people that actually think about things try to write them in the most non-sensical and absurdly complicated ways the can possibly come up with, to keep on par with other author's just as serious thoughts, hidden under ramblings a madman could be proud of.

Seriously, why can't they write it simpler? I understand what they mean, but you have to dissect the dissertation a sentence at a time to make sense of it.

Once you do understand (or if you think you do, and are not decieved by your primitive senses, or that you are decieved into believing that you do understand what is truly a false conceptuality of understanding, which in turn.........), and if you like other asian theories, you can see it as a kind of web of beliefs and senses all around you, some of which are true, some of which are not, but whose effects you can feel just the same. Maybe the trick is not to try to avoid being obscure, it is to limit yourself to three (3) references of subjects mentionned earlier in the sentence and twisted in different ways, so that others may or may not understand. (or be decieved into thinking that....)

A big problem is that this never stops! It just keeps going! AARRGH!

Simple writing cannot contain proper conceptual depth. I wrote the simple version in my post, but while it is literal it does not carry the nuance, and the possible ideas behind the desperation of existential dread.

Oooh. I like that.

GoldMatenes wrote: possible ideas behind the desperation of existential dread.

Say it again!

Seriously, they could write it simpler if they'd write a few sentences more.

"To be proud and undecieved, we must think, act, and believe only what we can see with our own eyes. Therefore, the first notion to be dismissed must be love. Were we to forget love by fear of being decieved, would we not be decieved into forgetting love? We can, of course, be decieved in many ways. We can be decieved by believing lies, but we can also be decieved by not believing what is true. We can also be decieved by appearances. Most importantly, we can be decieved because we think we are impervious to deceit. Being impervious, we need not try to separate deceit from truth. But if we not guard ourselves from deceit, might we not let it decieve us by lack of focus? Which deception is more dangerous? The person that does not look, or the person that looks but sees not deceit? What is more difficult, to awaken someone who is sleeping, or to awake someone that lives in a waking dream, thinking he is awake? Which is sadder? The sight that makes one cry immediately and sincerely? The sight of someone forced into loving a person whom he does not love? Or the sight of someone decieved, who thought he couldn't be? A sight which could be funny if the concept of being undecievable is ridiculous and laughable, but because of it's ridiculousness, is so much the more horrendously wrong? Or the incapacity to cry, showing he is not worthy of tears?"

It's a couple lines longer, and I hope it's a little easier to understand. It is possible to write simpler, but maybe the existentialists are decieved into believing they must write in such a way because of their pride?