Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Christian responsibility to others
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Christian responsibility to others
The impossibility for the self, after encountering God, is to remain in itself without entering into the very despair that Kierkegaard describes. The realization of self, before God, is the very call to respond to the need of the other. Emmanuel Levinas writes: No one can stay in himself; the humanity of man, subjectivity, is a responsibility for others, an extreme vulnerability. The return to self becomes interminable detour. Prior to consciousness and choice, before the creature collects himself in present and representation to make himself essence, man approaches man. He is stitched of responsibilities. Through them, he lacerates essence.1 The actualization of the self is the understanding and accepting of responsibility for other inherent to the nature of self. Many would stop at this point claiming, as Levinas does in the aforementioned quote, that coming into consciousness of self is a realization of this responsibility to the other. However, as has previously been established, the consciousness of self only comes through encounters with God that lead to the realization of the …show more content…
Severson writes, “Responsibility is about self-actualization and the maximization of one 's potential. This does not mean that one disregards the needs of others or that responsibility does not include obligation to the neighbor. It is, rather a question of primacy. What responsibility is supreme?”8 For the Christian, in understanding the self before God, the responsibility that is supreme is the responsibility first and foremost to God. As Kierkegaard explained it is only the self relating to itself resting transparently in God that can overcome the clutches of sin and become itself. The maximization of one 's potential is to commit oneself to the ongoing encounter of God that is perpetuated through the continual response to the need of the
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
To live in a world without human connection, is to live an empty and meaningless life. Both Karen Armstrong, and Robert Thurman, highlight the necessity of human contact throughout their essays. In his text “Wisdom,” Robert Thurman shows us the path to discover the selflessness of what we believe is our true and actual self. He claims that no matter how hard one might try to find themselves, they will only find a rigid, fixated self. But when we finally accept our selflessness and turn away from our egos, we can become compassionate and experience the void, which he defines as a free and boundless self. Additionally, Karen Armstrong debates that the universe is driven by concepts such as “Being,” and “Brahman,” which both represent the ultimate
Soren Kierkegaard, a German philosopher, throughout the 1800’s developed concepts defending the sovereignty of the individual against the idea that the significance of oneself is derived solely from one’s participation in the universal or community (Basic Writings of Existentialism: Gordon Marino, p. 4). Gordon continues by explaining that, much of Kierkegaard’s work contains a primary focus on what it means to have faith. Kierkegaard arrived at several conclusions regarding one’s belief in Christ, including, “…the imitation of Christ was about the furthest thing possible from the mind-set of institutionalized Christianity.” Published in 1843, “Fear and Trembling”, written by S. Kierkegaard is often described as an analysis of the over simplification
Personally, I don’t believe that me as a person has reached self-actualization. I think I’m somewhere around the esteem needs. I have fulfilled the physiological needs by having food, water, shelter, etc. The safety needs are met by safety from attacks and disease. The third hierarchy is fulfilled by affection from family and friends. The esteem need is half way met but not completely.
Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher in the mid 1800s. He is known to be the father of existentialism and was at least 70 years ahead of his time. Kierkegaard set out to attack Kant’s rational ethics and make attacks on the Christianity of our day. He poses the question, how do we understand faith? He states that faith equals the absurd. In “Fear and Trembling”, he uses the story of Abraham and his son Isaac to show an example of faith as the absurd. The story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac signifies a break in the theory that ethics and religion go hand in hand. He shows how the ethical and the religious can be completely different. “I by no means conclude that faith is something inferior but rather that it is the highest, also that it is dishonest of philosophy to give something else in its place and to disparage faith” (Fear and Trembling, 12).
Anil Ananthaswamy describes the self as the role the brain plays in our notions of self and existence. That our sense of self is layered, pulling information from
While we possess thee, thy changes ever lovely, thy vernal airs or majestic storms, thy vast creation spread at our feet, above, around us, how can we call ourselves unhappy? There is a brotherhood in the growing, opening flowers, love in the soft winds, repose in the verdant expanse, and a quick spirit of happy life throughout, with which our souls hold glad communion; but the poor prisoner was barred from these: how cumbrous the body felt, how alien to the inner spirit of man, the fleshy bars that allowed it to become slave of his fellows
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.
In his work, Who is Man, Abraham J. Heschel embarks on a philosophical and theological inquiry into the nature and role of man. Through analysis of the meaning of being human, Heschel determines eight essential traits of man. Heschel believes that the eight qualities of preciousness, uniqueness, nonfinality, process and events, solitude and solidarity, reciprocity, and sanctity constitute the image of man that defines a human being. Yet Heschel’s eight qualities do not reflect the essential human quality of the realization of mortality. The modes of uniqueness and opportunity, with the additional singular human quality of the realization of mortality, are the most constitutive of human life as uniqueness reflects the fundamental nature of humanity,
In order to explicate Sartre’s notion of intersubjectivity I will follow the progression that Sartre takes in Being and Nothingness. I will first distinguish between “being-for-itself” and “being-for-others”. Second, I will provide an explication of the subject’s encounter with the Other as an object. Third, I will explain the significance of “the look”. Here I will show how the look provides the foundation for the self. I will also show how the look of the Other affects the subject’s freedom.
We carry our past with us, the primitive and irrational mind with its inner desires and emotions, and it is only with an enormous psychic effort that we can detach ourselves from this burden. And when masks shatter down like in Sagazan’s transfiguration, there is our shadow to remind us that we are the monsters. In the very end this is like the process of covering and uncovering, a way to adopt a role, to perform a raw character, to paint our self-portrait.
Kierkegaard, a highly regarded philosopher of the 19th century, put to us the idea of living life in three different stages. He named these stages the Aesthetical, the Ethical and the Religious. He himself passed through each of the stages in his own lifetime and he adopted them as his own philosophy of human existence. The first two stages are characterized by a distinct set of beliefs and behaviors that are easily identified, whereas the last stage, the religious is characterized by a highly personal, subjective and non-rational ‘’leap of faith’’. The ideal is to progress from the aesthetical to the ethical, finally reaching the religious stage but as Kierkegaard himself realized, it is possible to regress or go back a stage. He said that he felt that he had never really left the first two, these stages were always there. He believed that one can move in and out and through all three stages within a lifetime. For the purpose of this essay I will explain each of the three stages in order to give an understanding of Kierkegaard’s philosophical theory of life. Also I will discuss why Kierkegaard considered the religious stage as the best kind of life for humanity and I will present to you some criticisms against Kierkegaard’s third stage.
A self is some sort of inner being or principle, essential to, but not identical with, the person as whole. It is that in a person that thinks and feels. The self is usually conceived in philosophy as that which one refer to with the word “I”. It is that part or aspects of a person that accounts for personal identity through time. In spite of all the ways one can change with time, the self is invariably same through time. A self is what is supposed to account for the fact that an individual is same person today as he/she was at the age of five, given that all his characteristics have changed over time. For instance, compared to his childhood, this individual is stronger, taller, and smarter; he has different aspirations and dreams, different thoughts and fears, his interests and activities are remarkably different. Yet, he is still the same ...
Deep in the minds of human beings lies a vast ocean of emotions and experiences. The human mind is often misconstrued and simplified by those who possess one, but delving deeper into the mind and it’s processes you see a whole other world that is veiled beneath the surface. One of the most famous examples of the human mind is the image of an iceberg, what is on the surface is so minimal compared to the immense body that lies underneath. Sigmund Freud was the father of psychoanalysis and believed in the idea of the unconscious and subconscious that help power who we are. Through psychoanalysis Freud began to reclaim the self as an individual and stressed the importance of the external world and it’s direct role with the internal realm of an individual. Although it was originally found to be a sort of therapy for those with mental illnesses, it has an interesting and analytical and philosophical view of the self, and through this spawned new beliefs in philosophy. Through the establishment of the id, superego, and ego, and the past’s affect on the shaping the present state of the self, psychoanalysis reclaims the self for an individual and is successful in doing so.