Kierkegaard’s was a very well-known nineteenth century philosopher. His take on the meaning of life was that he believed in faith, and not even reason could even link god and humanity together. He believed that it could be only attainable through double movement by giving rationality or logic. I totally agree with him and believe this because if we are not willing to make the leap of faith when necessary to fully accept god’s promise to keep us safe and protected, our lives would all be worthless and meaningless.
To start off, Kierkegaard’s input of meaning of life is consisted of multiple things such as, “Trust in the lord”. To him trust in the lord means to give out mental assents to a proposition and to believe the claim is true. According to Kierkegaard, it does not mean “believe that god exists”, but rather to trust in him and have faith in him. It basically means that he will keep his promise to the rest of humanity. And that it’s faith that he will keep his pact to. As well as that he made the beings and created us and that we must fully trust in his promise to protect us and keep us safe. All of us have some sort of fear, but we usually just deny them and occupy ourselves to escape from them.
Next, Kierkegaard fears the sacrifice is god is willing to make to keep the promise he made for humanity. But god’s promise brings fear,
…show more content…
Almost like how Kierkegaard’s idea of the leap of faith of taking a chance and believing in god to direct you towards the right path when the time comes and finally taking that leap of faith believing fully in god and in his promise to keeping us safe. To conclude, if we do not fully trust in god and make that leap of faith accepting his promise for mankind then all of life is meaningless, since you cannot trust in the one you have believed in your entire
the great minds of our times: the meaning of life. He is able to somewhat
implies that no other conclusion may be reached; once one embarks on life, one cannot
The second premise (P2) states The challenge here does not lie in the prevention of something bad since this would seem rather uncontroversial given our acceptance of P1. But, the sacrifice clause requires clarification before proceeding. It means, from a moral point of view, c...
How to live one’s life is a question faced by any human being with relatively normal cognitive functioning. Some find beauty in every day life, reveling in something as simple as the gentle shaking of leaves dancing to the whispered song of the wind, or waking up to someone they have decided to spend the rest of their lives with. Others only see the mundane and the tedious, growing bitter and resentful as a relentless existential crisis latches on to the deepest parts of their psyche, casting a grim and ominous shadow over every thought and action. This probing question of how to live is at the forefront of Soren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or: A Fragment of Life.” The aforementioned views are, indeed, reflected in the fragmented perspectives provided by Kierkegaard’s fictional characters, “A” and “Judge Wilhelm,” who perhaps reflect Kierkegaard’s own divided views. Love and companionship are at the crux of how to live for both A and Wilhelm, despite the glaring contrast between A’s calls for a hedonistic,
“The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do; the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die” (Kierkegaard 95). Søren Kierkegaard was a clear supporter of expressing our own personality. He wanted us to take the time to find our true selves. Even though he acknowledged there were social systems in our society, he still believed we were our own individual human being. The only way to make sense of our life and find our individuality is to embrace our faith in God. Kierkegaard wanted human beings to be able to exercise their freedom. Human beings should not postpone their choices simply because they do not know the universal truth. As humans we cannot postpone our choices because we will never
Admittedly, the philosophy of the late nineteenth century German Friederich Nietzsche had a profound impact on my world view. I concur with his belief that humans should occupy themselves with living in the reality that is, and not to be preoccupied with fantastic illusions of working towards a great afterlife. Granted, I am still very young, but from what I can see, humans have no universal nature nor do any set of underlying human morals dictate what is right and wrong. And as much as people would like to believe, unfortunately, we do not have free will. Every action carries the weight of a punishment or reward, so in essence, people do things either in fear or in hope of attaining one of these outcomes, therefore, humans do not have free will. So, then what is the meaning of life? To live each day as if it is heaven itself is all anyone can really do; accepting and embracing the reality of your life is the source of meaning. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant, the only thing that is within the control of humans is the power to embrace life. As 1950’s Beat poet Allen Ginsburg stressed, people should be concerned with "living in and inhabiting the human form." Living means to not let outside forces take away your pursuit of life, once this thirst for life is taken, you are simply existing, waiting to die.
If one were to understand the purpose and mystery of human life as the coping with ultimate fear, whether it be death, pain, or meaninglessness, then it is possible to discuss the drastically different coping mechanisms that Camus and Christianity set forth. Both present a method in which to approach the phenomenon of fear, yet when it comes to actualizing a solution to the mystery, they turn to very different ends. The result is a society that has been left all the more confused, and has turned to both solutions in order to deal with the overwhelming fear and fundamental lack of truth that is prevalent in today’s post-modernistic philosophy.
It might be thought that the first task in considering the question of the `Meaning of Life' is to define the key terms: `Life' and `Meaning'. However, the meanings of `Meaning' are many; and `Life' itself could be seen as not so much a separate entity, but rather, the totality of those meanings to which I have alluded. Anyway, I shall take `Life' in this context to mean HUMAN life, and the meaning of this life as, specifically, the condition of our existence so far as we bring this into question.
While Kierkegaard’s analysis of the superiority of the Knight of Faith in relation to those who follow the aesthetic life or ethical life is correct, he fails to acknowledge that faith can be rooted in joy and love, and can be far more spiritual and fulfilling than faith alone. This is the angst-ridden and unfortunate symptom of an existential despair, and does not truly reflect the complicated relationship between man and God.
"People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive...." Joseph Campbell made this comment on the search for meaning common to every man's life. His statement implies that what we seem bent on finding is that higher spark for which we would all be willing to live or die; we look for some key equation through which we might tie all of the experiences of our life and feel the satisfaction of action toward a goal, rather than the emptiness which sometimes consumes the activities of our existence. He states, however, that we will never find some great pure meaning behind everything, because there is none. What there is to be found, however, is the life itself. We seek to find meaning so that emptiness will not pervade our every thought, our every deed, with the coldness of reality as the unemotional eye chooses to see it. Without color, without joy, without future, reality untouched by hope is an icy thing to view; we have no desire to see it that way. We forget, however, that the higher meaning might be found in existence itself. The joy of life and the experience of living are what make up true meaning, as the swirl of atoms guided by chaotic chance in which we find our existence has no meaning outside itself.
It is evident that both Kierkegaard and Emerson take a strong stance that becoming who one is meant to be is of utmost importance. It can easily be seen that Kierkegaard and Emerson both agree that we should avoid society when establishing ourselves.
In Abraham's story, Isaac is not sacrificed. God appears to Abraham and tells him that he can sacrifice an animal instead of his son. In continuation, Kierkegaard shows that a hero, whom has become a skándalon to his generation and is aware that he is in the middle of an incomprehensible paradox, will cry out defiantly to his contemporaries, "The future will show I was right (Kierkegaard, 91)." According to Kierkegaard, those who talk and think like him live secure in their existence. They have a solid position because they understand that everything can only be judged by the end result.
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” This consists of having faith in a
In this essay we will embrace Nietzsche’s philosophy for the sake of the fact that he proposed that God is dead, life is worthless, and fate ultimately surpasses faith. In the end, he provided for many, an alternative philosophy of life that became life affirming. On the other end, the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche has many diversions, for a countless number of reasons. Undoubtedly, most of those in disagreement to Nietzsche’s philosophy base their objections on a misperceived threat to their unwavering doctrine of religious faith. To make this evident, we begin with one of philosophy’s most argumentative, yet widely misunderstood quotes.
Life has meaning. One way in understanding life is the importance that life has. If something is considered important then it is valuable. Life is important because of the fact that it serves a purpose and has some sort of value connected to it. Value can be interpreted in relation to someone or some procedure that can be said to have interests. In the religious viewpoint it is understood that God is the person that individuals are valuable to. God was the one that created humans and we are important to Him because we are made in his image. Being made in his image, for the religious people, makes us wonder if we are living our life as if God would want us to. Most religious people go through each and every day with the question of “What Would Jesus Do?” The reason why most individuals live their life by this question is because God is very important to them and they do not want to do anything to disappoint Him. That is not the only possibility. Life can be important within ourselves. It doesn’t ma...