Kierkegaard True Art

Jan van Eyck was born during c. 1935 in Maaseik, Bishopric of Liege, the Renaissance period. He had a sister Margareta, and at least two brothers, Hubert (died 1426) and Lambert was active between 1431 and 1442 (Both of them were also painters). Yet the order of their births is not known. Another significant, and rather younger, painter who worked in Southern France, Barthélemy van Eyck, is presumed to be a relation. It is not known where Jan was educated, but he had knowledge of Latin and used the Greek and Hebrew alphabets in many of the inscriptions, indicating that he was schooled in the classics. (From Wikipedia) The first ever record of Eyck is from the court of John of Bavaria at The Hague, where payments were made to Jan van Eyck between 1422 and 1424 as court painter, with the court rank of valet de chambre. This suggests a date of birth

There are different ways for art to portray elements of truth and lies; but what Picasso was mostly referring to with his quote was that art might be a representation of the truth however lies to the human eye in terms of perception. The word art is somehow “controversial, especially in contemporary philosophy” because it relies on different AOK’s and WOK’s. The main area of art focused to support Picasso’s quote will be theatre and what philosophical role it plays in our everyday society, do we really need it, and is theatre the true or false image of reality? It is evidently challenging to make any sense out of this quote especially when the truth can

Once the reality of the self is solidified, the next question is of what to do, or of ethics. George Stack argues that, to Kierkegaard, by choosing the ethical, people have begun to create themselves (Stack 145). Therefore it is within the logical progression for Kierkegaard to describe ethics next. As Kierkegaard examines the story of Abraham and Isaac, he illustrates issues of morality and ethics as he attempts to defend faith. Kierkegaard addresses the ethical problem of the story in the form of his four "Problematas", where Kierkegaard defines the ethical as "the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone" (83). When one goes outside of the universal, he sins (83). Throughout Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard discusses, through the person of Johannes de Silentio, ethical questions regarding Abraham's relationship with God as well as his relationship with Sarah. These questions are the questions that Kierkegaard uses to illustrate what faith in modernity looks like, and without these ethical problems there would be no springboard for which Kierkegaard could jump into his concept of

Since, faith is the paradox whereby the single individual’s inner ethical is higher than the outer universal ethical, therefore the single individual preforms the absolute duty to God. When the single individual carries out his absolute duty to God it can not be allowed to be interceded and thus the absolute duty cannot be understood nor communicated in the universal. If there was the possibility of faith being communicated than, this according to Kierkegaard would not be faith in its true essence, but rather simply religious trial.

In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard differentiates between the subject as the knower, and the world (object) as the known: the only way we know the world is through ourselves. Kierkegaard emphasizes the importance of "how" the subject is related to the truth,

How does the individual assure himself that he is justified? In Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, Abraham, found in a paradox between two ethical duties, is confronted with this question. He has ethical duties to be faithful to God and also to his son, Isaac. He believes that God demands him to sacrifice Isaac. But, Abraham, firmly adhering to his faith, submitted to what he believed was the will of God. By using his perspective and that of his alternative guise, Johannes de Silentio, Kierkegaard concentrates on the story of Abraham in such a way that his audience must choose between two extremes. Either Abraham is insane or he is justified in saying he will kill Isaac.

Although remembered by many as foremost a philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard was quite the theologian in his time, with his own unique approach to theology and Christianity in general. In a time that was ruled by objective methodology in every aspect of acquiring and summarizing knowledge, Kierkegaard sought to bring Christianity back into the realm of the subjective, thereby making it much more interactive and personal. What this paper focuses on is Kierkegaard’s requirement of sacrifice that all Christians must be willing to make in order to be considered true Christians, followed by both a critique and a praise for his contagious notion.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the meaning of subjectivity of truth was another point of contention. Hegel derived his opinion from history, noting that each successive generation changed where their knowledge came from thus making it’s origin fluid and unabsolute. Kierkegaard derived his opinion from within, another point of existentialism, and thought that truth was something an individual must discuss from within and be wholly passionate with the decision. Nevertheless, both resulted in the conclusion that truth is not absolute, but Hegel regarded the Truths of humanity with prominence, while Kierkegaard conversely regarded the truths of an individual as much more

Non-adherence to ART may thus take various forms, such as not taking the medication at all, taking the medication at the wrong time, taking the wrong dose due to misunderstanding treatment directions, or prematurely terminating the medication without consulting the health provider (Miller, 1997). Other patterns of behaviour indicative of non-adherence include not filling prescriptions, self-adjusting the regimen to modulate side effects and toxicities, and incorrectly understanding the doctor’s instructions (Chesney, 2003).

Starting with Kierkegaard, it is best to understand that he has a deep fulfillment to God and that he feels is the absolute. This absolute is to live in the realm of a paradox and that paradox is proving the existence of God and experiencing it for yourself. To understand this is to go through the different stages, of aesthetic, moral and religious. The aesthetic is all about the individual and focuses on oneself as an individual. The moral is having to be antagonistic towards yourself in

So it is the HOW which is important to Kierkegaard, not the WHAT. The strongest example of his reasons for this comes in his

Is art a form of self-expression from the artist to their audience? Self-expression is defined as, “the expression of one's feelings, thoughts, or ideas, especially in writing, art, music, or dance.” (English Oxford Dictionary). The source of inspiration for art is unknown for certain, but it is commonly believed that it comes from inside the artist, based on their life lessons and experiences. If the inspiration comes from within, then artists are expressing themselves through their art, thus art is self-expression. There are innumerous forms of art, from writing to dancing; singing to creating a drawing, public speaking and everything in-between. A person who is whistling is expressing how they are feeling through the notes that they hit. Someone who is drawing can use darker colors, such as browns and blacks to give off an eerie tone. Does that mean that all art is self-expression? No, not all art is self-expression, maybe it isn’t self-expression at all. This leads to the debate over whether art is self-expression if the inspiration comes from an outside source, rather than from within.

Kierkegaard's works are not straightforward proclamations of his philosophy: he wrote under pseudonyms and assumed the persona of these fictional characters in his writing. Thus, one must be careful when attributing a particular position to Kierkegaard -- often the view is advanced by a pseudonym, so various inferential processes must be applied in order to substantiate a claim that Kierkegaard really meant any statement.

The aim of this paper is to attack Kierkegaard’s “teleological suspension of the ethical” and point out what I see as some flaws. I will start by laying out Kierkegaard’s ideas regarding this subject. Next, I will explain what makes a “knight of faith” and a “knight of infinite resignation” and how they each relate to

Sigmund Freud established and originated the psychoanalysis with the emphasis on helping the patients of neurotic illnesses. Freud formulated his method through Joseph Breuer’s hypnotic method that is the free association. He revolutionalized the ideas of how the human mind works; He challenged the long-standing identification of the self with the conscious thinking subject. Freud established the theory of the unconscious. This becomes a controversial one that is comparable to the Copernican revolution that the sun is the center of the universe and Darwin’s theory of evolution that man is a descent of the apes; in this analogy, Freud, argued that a large part of what makes up the mind is often hidden from the subject person as a conscious