Kierkegaard on Truth (Objective and Subjective)
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 08. 2024
- This is a video explaining Soren Kierkegaard's differentiation between subjective and objective truth (in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript). I go no to explain what I think this important distinction means for how we educate.
Wonderful video! I am in a Christian school learning about the modern eras and truth and confused because this aspect hasn't been explained to me yet, or at the least I missed it somehow. It sheds a new light and a new hope on the argument. For a short while, it seemed like people just decided to start believing the grass is blue instead of green, but put this way it actually makes some logical sense. Although we disagree on evolution, I'm happy to applaud you for proposing this concept so fluidly and thuoghtfully. Thank you.
Thank you. This is very interesting and very relevant to discourse today.
an excellent explanation, thanks so much!!!
Thanks for your breakdown ! Awesome vid
Great explanation, thank you very much.
Amazing. I love it.
Love it thanks so much!
i love this
Good job.
2,400 years later and Socrates is still the most correct. The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. Anything you choose to accept as truth demands that you take a huge leap of faith
Thanks for sharing your knowledge on these topics. I also wonder if Kierkegaard might also be addressing something along the lines of the book of James. That belief/faith in Jesus as in a certain assent to him being a certain way without a life lived according to his message of love is not really "belief" or "faith" (or as James says "dead faith") That is if you say you are a Christian but you do not give to the poor you are not appropriating that truth. I think the same maybe could be said for people that say they do not believe in objectively real morality yet they still seem to act in ways that suggest objectively real morality is true and not just like a matter of taste. So it goes beyond just saying something you know someone wants to hear when you don't actually believe it. It something at some level you believe and assent to but you do not fully incorporate that belief into your life. I have never read Kierkegaard and so wonder if he may have been thinking along those lines. What do you think?
Jordan Peterson talks about this and says that a fundamental definition of belief is acting as if you believe it. I agree with you. This parable is relevant
(Matthew 21:29-32) 28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
There is also succinct truth and verbose truth.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS JORDAN PETERSON AT THE BACK
And a serious comment... You say that "if you are touched by Christianity, you don't need prove its truth in an objective sense, even though you could." (Pp)
Could you though? I don't know if that is Kierkegaard's position or yours but it seems like you have just fabricated an objectivity that you have no reason for. Is this a claim that there IS an objective argument for all truths or that objectivity... is actually subjective? Great video, thanks. 😊🙏
But water boils at 100 degrees celsius. 😉😜
At sea level.