>"if you label me you negate me" Was he the worlds

>>8915882
He's not wrong, regardless of your hatred

>deeply religious man, in fact, the only thing that could save him from horrible existential depression was his belief in God
>was a tranny/tranny apologist
"No"

>>8915882
No. Transgenders cling to labels and try to fit within preexisting roles and stereotypes.

>>8915882
Where is it from though? As far as I could ever make out it's from a letter.

>>8915985
Queers are the real deal though.

>>8915985
/thread

>>8915882
Yes, he was a mentally ill incel beta cuck just like trannys are

>>8916101
He literally cucked HIMSELF
Kierkegaard was ahead of the game

>>8916111
he had tremendous cuck physiognomy, he was in many ways the urcuck

>>8915882
That is not at all what he meant. I really hope you're trolling.

If so, carry on. If not, go sit somewhere and think about what you've done. Don't come back until you know what you did wrong.

>>8916294
I should also add, while that IS NOT what he meant, it IS precisely the sort of thing which "non-binary" delusionals will twist to fit their fantasy.

>>8916294
What's the context then?

>>8916385
The implications are clear.

When we seek to define something, we observe it, we think about it, we make comparisons to things which we have already defined and seek thereby to find the appropriate means to categorize the object so that we may define it.

This defining process is taking place, as much as possible, on an OBJECTIVE level. Therefore, we are inherently objectifying whatever we are defining.

When you define, label, or categorize a man, you remove him from the SUBJECTIVE domain of his personhood, and place him in an objective realm of categorized objects.

In this process of objectively categorizing, there are always elements of the complexities of reality which cannot be expressed through the labels themselves.

We, human-beings that is, complexify what we have simplified for objective purposes by intuitively understanding the meanings of these labels through the varied contexts in which they appear. In other words, subconsciously, we pick up on the essences of things, and this is how we extract the objective definitions in the first place. The objective definitions having been extracted, and our minds encountering the abstract in this way, we then reconstitute the ideas from which the concepts originated.

Kierkegaard's conflict, as I understand it, is with the dehumanizing nature of Reason.

It is a similar criticism to Jonathan Swift's Laputans in "Gulliver's Travels." Laputans were a people so abstracted from themselves they had to be roused from thought by clappers.

That does not mean, however, that Kierkegarrd would favor rejecting reality for a fantasy.

This too, would be negating the man. Save, in this case, he would be negated via an irrational delusion which has disconnected him from his real person.

That said, I haven't read the work from which the quote originated. I read William Barret's, "Irrational Man," a summary of existentialist philosophy, and it has a chapter on Soren Kierkegaard. I do intend to read him, but I'm not there yet on the timeline of philosophy.

Still, I suspect I have intuited his meaning correctly.

File: Kierkegun.png (85KB, 310x328px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 310x328px

triggered