Kierkegaard

I'm about to read Fear and Trembling. What am I in for?

>>74160
Overrated fuck

>>74160
He's my favorite. Then again, I'm a Christian as well.

I also felt like a kindred spirit sort of thing when I read his work and about who he was as a person. I understand his feels he felt.

No. He isn't even the most interesting existentialist, that would be Dostoevsky.
I love Kierkegaard, but he isn't quite an Aquinas.

>>75512
>Aquinas
hahaha philosopher of special pleading

>>75587
Nice meme

>>75512
>Aquinas
opinion disregarded

>>75512
Aquinas is great, but I don't think you can seriously compare him with Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky in approaching the mystical. Aquinas is just as far as you can go with Aristotlean logic.

>>74160

He doesn't even come close to Anthony the Great, Aquinas, or Augustine. He's on C.S. Lewis' level.

That said, he is the father of Existentialism which isn't actually philosophy but it's still interesting.

>>75768
>approaching the mystical

Dissing Aquinas in this regard shows how very little you actually understand the expanse of his work.

File: st agustine.jpg (23KB, 300x266px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x266px

>>74160

>>75379
I never really managed to get past the first part where he basically just goes on about how amazing it was that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son on the position of faith. My translation may have not been the best, so I found it hard to understand when he was being sarcastic or ironic--which he was apparently wont to do.

>>75982
I understand his logic can't accommodate paradox, which is at the heart of Christianity.

>>76216
Kierkegaard's position on morality is very different from the standard in Christianity. Kierkegaard thinks morality is wholly secular, like aesthetics. You have the aesthetic at the basest level (in other words, it is something you cannot transcend), then morality (where you can transcend the aesthetic and be able to act on moral values), then the religious (where you can transcend both the aesthetic and moral). Something can be moral, but not aesthetic. Similarly, something can be religious, but not moral. Kierkegaard might, for instance, if he were alive today, consider homosexuality to be moral, but irreligious.

>>76247
>logic can't accommodate paradox

Incorrect. And don't start throwing around the Stone one cause I'm gonna beat you up with it.

>the heart of Christianity

Is what then?