many great figures who speak highly of the love shared with their partners that strengthened their careers and who they are as people. — TimeLine

Examples?

There is a clear schism of documented cases only because it exemplifies people' preferred trend to tragedy. — TimeLine

I don't know what this means.

A rarity does not mean an impossibility, the chance still exists that is enough to doubt any claims of failure. It is better to have tried in this mutual love and failed, then to have lived an entire life regretting and Spinoza is clearly right. The path to anything wonderful is always short and narrow and that intensity proves the authenticity of your love, such an intensity being delayed qua K. — TimeLine

No it does not mean an impossibility, and I stated that myself. K chose to pursue his genius, and he could have failed at that, too. He might have succeeded in expressing his genius equally but differently if he had gone with R; but certainly not if he could not go wholeheartedly, and that has been my only point. If he really lived in regret then that would be an expression of his weakness, but he obviously did not live in regret to an extent that it crippled his creative spirit.

On the other hand, it would not have been weakness, but rather would have been strength, to feel his loss without regretting it, and this could actually have contributed to his work. K chose his path, took his risk and lived with the consequences; what more could be asked of him? If he indulged in some capitulation and regret, is that so surprising; he was not superhuman, after all.To be honest, I think it is you that is doing the idealizing here.

He might have succeeded in expressing his genius equally but differently if he had gone with R; but certainly not if he could not go wholeheartedly, and that has been my only point. If he really lived in regret then that would be an expression of his weakness, but he obviously did not live in regret to an extent that it crippled his creative spirit. — John

It is incorrect of you to say that his decision was right when he himself is conscious of it being wrong and thus you are injecting a level of your own idealization of K rather than appreciating the humanity behind his decision, that he is a man after all.

He lived in regret because his actions were regretful, they were wrong and he was conscious of that. He realised that she was perfect for him and worth courting, thus in the end, he missed out on the most important aspect of our existence, mutual love.

What made Kierkegaard a great man and a great philosopher was the fact that - save for initially, hence the initial self-deception - he was courageous enough to admit that he made a terrible mistake and that he was sorry for that mistake, something he clearly wanted to tell her. It is quite the opposite of what you think, admitting that his decision is not a strength but cowardice.

Life is meant to be shared within the boundaries of authentic and mutual love. That is not an idealization. That is a fact.

I don't know what this means. — John

It meant most people prefer stories of tragic love, which is why we rarely hear of the success in love; our preference has always been with our imagination that we blindly walk past an opportunity for genuine love.

Examples? — John

Do you need to make a celebrity of something so human? My physics lecturer who is a brilliant mind and authored several books speaks highly of his wife and partner of 32 years, in the introduction of his books and publicly. To pretend that long-term happiness between two people who genuinely love and care for one another as being very rare is farcical at best.

Perhaps as an impetus that transforms one to consciousness, hence “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." When he became conscious of his self-deception, he became tortured at his failure as one comes to see that only lies are what muddy a will; the will itself flows through love with others.

because he was an idiot. — TimeLine

...

that even Kierkegaard himself was conscious of - though a few years later - his mistake to his everlasting regret. — TimeLine

This is false. Cite any evidence of K. thinking of his leaving Regine as mistaken.

K mentioned that there was absolutely nothing about Regine that could have justified his abandonment of her — TimeLine

Where did he mention this? Cite it please.

He lived in regret because his actions were regretful, they were wrong and he was conscious of that. He realised that she was perfect for him and worth courting, thus in the end, he missed out on the most important aspect of our existence, mutual love. — TimeLine

What is your EVIDENCE for saying K. thought that he personally missed out on love?

Furthermore, not everyone will agree that "mutual love" is the most important aspect of our existence. That's what you think because that happens to be your dominant desire.

The facts are completely the other way around. Regine implored K. to take her back for YEARS and K. still refused. It wasn't a momentary lack of judgement.

It seems to me that either you must condemn K. completely, or approve him - but you can't say "oh he regretted what he did, and became a changed man" because there isn't any evidence for that.

Life is meant to be shared within the boundaries of authentic and mutual love. That is not an idealization. That is a fact. — TimeLine

I don't know. Not everyone's life is meant to be shared within the boundaries of authentic and mutual love. Take Alexander the Great. You think Alexander married because of love? Absolutely not - he married as was necessary to build the strategic alliances that his budding empire needed. Of course he probably chose to marry women he liked, who looked nice, were pretty and sexy for the time, were socially well-regarded, etc. But he just couldn't marry purely for love - that would have meant hurting both himself and the woman. He would be away on the battlefield most of the time.

What did Marcus Aurelius want most? A quiet life at the countryside. Rulers generally don't have a quiet life at all. They don't have time for family, taking care of their woman, etc. It comes with the territory.

My physics lecturer who is a brilliant mind and authored several books speaks highly of his wife and partner of 32 years, in the introduction of his books and publicly. — TimeLine

This doesn't mean they have a great relationship. Donald Trump speaks highly of Melania in his books and publicly. Does that mean they have a great, loving relationship? Unlikely, because Trump just doesn't have the time for that to begin with. His previous wife Marla shagged Trump's bodyguard - who recently killed himself by overdosing - struggling to find employment after Trump kicked him out.

The fact is MOST people in the West today don't have great married lives at all. For most it's quite terrible actually. Divorce rates are at 50%+ in many of the most developed places.

Even amongst those who don't divorce, how many do you think aren't troubled by things like infidelities, adultery etc.? All my family (who aren't divorced) have cheated on each other for example. That includes older generations too.

So yes, John is right, that kind of love is RARE. It's not something "so human". People who won't cheat on each other are people who don't need each other (or other people) to begin with. That takes training, it's not the natural human condition.

Interesting take.

Cite any evidence of K. thinking of his leaving Regine as mistaken. — Agustino

I do retract my comment of his idiocy; I spent today in a profoundly draining conference and typing on my phone is not that easy. But, one could perhaps be classed as rather strange if he felt that his future lineage would ultimately be 'cursed by an extreme melancholy' as his family had been, when clearly the melancholy itself was created.

K mentioned that there was absolutely nothing about Regine that could have justified his abandonment of her — TimeLine

"...and she is and remains an intermediate court, a legitimate court, that must not be bypassed."

"...she was the beloved. My life will unconditionally accent her life, my literary work is to be regarded as a monument to her honour and praise. I take her along into history."

K mentioned that there was absolutely nothing about Regine that could have justified his abandonment of her
— TimeLine
Where did he mention this? Cite it please. — Agustino

"I cannot quite place her impact on me in a purely erotic sense. It is true that the fact that she yielded almost adoringly to me, pleaded with me to love her, had so touched me that I would have risked everything for her. But the fact that I always wanted to hide from myself the degree to which she touched me is also evidence of the extent to which I loved her… had my vita ante acta not been melancholic, marriage to her would have made me happy beyond my dreams.”

Do you think that an attempt for forgiveness meant a regret on part of the person seeking this forgiveness?

He never for a single second denied that he loved Regine. He believed it in his heart - he had the infinite hope of someone who was certain about it - had complete faith in it. — Agustino

Cite please.

Regine was his - not in time, but in eternity. He gave her up in time so that he may have her forever. — Agustino

Cite please.

Furthermore, not everyone will agree that "mutual love" is the most important aspect of our existence. That's what you think because that happens to be your dominant desire. — Agustino

Oh, you know my desires, do you? Well, here I was thinking that I was an authority to myself. Praise, O mighty Augustino, for seemingly crossing the metaphysical boundaries into the transcendental realm that is my subjective. Hail, Augustino, for thou art a god. :s

Love is what all people desire. This is merely an ad hominem attack to try and purport that my approach to the subject is skewed by proxy, perhaps because I am a woman. And mutual love needn't be erotic alone. It could be true friendship. It could be familial. But it must be reciprocal and genuine.

Regine implored K. to take her back for YEARS and K. still refused — Agustino

No, he came to her telling her that he wants her, asking for her hand in marriage and then changing his mind because his disposition was prone to this 'melancholy' for which she, in her devotion and love for him, implored him that she will do whatever it takes for him. You have confused her affections and her love for him and his waywardness whereby he would court her affections by telling her his eloquent and ardent feelings and then retracting the moment she reciprocates. She was constantly confused between these two states, but clearly she was devoted to him and loved him and he knew that and no doubt felt the same way in return.

He was terrified of the happiness that he would have attained with her.

I don't know. Not everyone's life is meant to be shared within the boundaries of authentic and mutual love. Take Alexander the Great. You think Alexander married because of love? Absolutely not - he married as was necessary to build the strategic alliances that his budding empire needed. Of course he probably chose to marry women he liked, who looked nice, were pretty and sexy for the time, were socially well-regarded, etc. — Agustino

I think Alexander the Great or Marcus Aurelius are extraordinary examples; he was merely a humble philosopher from Denmark and millions of men are just men who want to do something significant - like maybe write a book or work in a particular field - not become some whopping leader of a great empire. I agree that many men choose women who look nice and are socially well-regarded, but this is precisely why so many marriages end up failing; it has almost become easier to live in a lie, as long as there remains some superficial or fleeting happiness, which is usually the pat on the head from others in this social group. Genuine love promotes a longevity as it transcends this spatiotemporal domain; it is not about looks or society, just two people who are united with the same sensual experience. "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil... She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness... Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her."

Donald Trump speaks highly of Melania... — Agustino

:-|

As I said, authentic. The love must be genuine. Anyone and everyone can say 'I love you' but it is not often that one actually genuinely means it.

Infantile love follows the principle: "I love because I am loved."
Mature love follows the principle: "I am loved because I love."
Immature love says: "I love you because I need you."
Mature love says: "I need you because I love you.”

Even amongst those who don't divorce, how many do you think aren't troubled by things like infidelities, adultery etc.? All my family (who aren't divorced) have cheated on each other for example. That includes older generations too. — Agustino

This is what happens when you do not actually love your partner. It is not easy finding a genuine bond, no one is saying that it is. Most people escape out of loneliness to form a bond solely because they will connect with a social group rather than actually have strong feelings of love and respect for their partner. They often play games with one another to keep things going when there is an underlying hostility or disregard, stay silent and accept their foolishness to a point of even sacrificing ones own identity and self just to survive, cheating and committing sexual immorality to make one feel momentarily alive. How tragic is such self-deceit, this public show.

We become disillusioned, but the latter does not mean it doesn't exist and most likely there is a strong percentage of couples that remain bound together by genuine affection.

Do you think that an attempt for forgiveness meant a regret on part of the person seeking this forgiveness? — TimeLine

No. I was once madly in love with a melancholic. It didn't help at all that I am myself and so understood. It's kind of like this:

No. I was once madly in love with a melancholic. It didn't help at all that I am myself and so understood. — Mongrel

I am not sure whether there is a masochistic perfection to loving someone when you are down (and you are down all the time), but I hardly this this is true if you say once, which is past tense.

I don't understand what you're saying. Sorry.

That's ok. The feeling is mutual.

I figured. :)

But how, you said you didn't understand? :P

We each are interpreting K by our own experiences. Our experiences vary, so we're having trouble understanding one another.

The subject-matter can certainly influence a comparative articulation of our own experiences such as your utterance of the melancholic of which I don't understand as I have a happy disposition. Kierkegaard, however, was quite clear.

Kierkegaard, however, was quite clear. — TimeLine

You may be right. I have to admit that though I had Sickness Unto Death at my bedside for years, and both Fear and Trembling and Repetition both made permanent marks on me, I haven't really thought a whole lot about what actually happened between K and Regine. I partly don't think it's any of my business. :)

K claimed to be a very "inward" person, which I take to mean introverted (in the way Jung meant it, not the popular meaning of shyness). An extremely introverted person sometimes deals with representations of people more so than the real people themselves. It's a condition that can result in really bizarre behavior.

Did he ever arrive at the faith he would need to marry Regine? I think he might have wanted to find out if he could float in that water that is "70 fathoms deep." Obviously fate had other plans. My assessment: fate had the right idea. K would have made Regine's life cold and hollow.

My life will unconditionally accent her life, my literary work is to be regarded as a monument to her honour and praise. I take her along into history. — TimeLine

All this quote tells me is that K. had an ambition to land in history, and because he loved R., he's happy take her with him into the pages of history books. Perhaps as a way of making up for breaking his engagement with her.

I spent today in a profoundly draining conference — TimeLine

I spent today running around - what are you doing at draining conferences?

typing on my phone is not that easy — TimeLine

Then don't type on your phone - think about it till you get to a computer :P

Do you think that an attempt for forgiveness meant a regret on part of the person seeking this forgiveness? — TimeLine

I see nowhere in the citations that you give that K. thought that he shouldn't have broken off the engagement. He did have a reason for doing it, and that was that an attachment to a woman would not have allowed him to be completely devoted to God. What do you think of monks? Monks must forfeit erotic love in order to love God more fully. Similar to how Abraham had to give up his son Isaac (or be willing to) in order to have him.

And no, I don't think an attempt at forgiveness necessarily means regret about the action. For example, I may regret hurting X, but not regret breaking up with her. K. clearly regretted the suffering he caused his beloved - but he did not regret his decision.

Cite please. — TimeLine

Cite please. — TimeLine

:-} Thou shalt not steal rules out of Agustino's playbook.

With regards to the first citation, for example the fact he dedicated his work to Regine and took her with him in history - that represents his love for her.

With regards to the second citation you seek, I refer you to the passages from Works of Love I quoted before.

Oh, you know my desires, do you? — TimeLine

Well yeah, I do, cause you go around shouting them left and right when you post on the forum, no wonder!

Well, here I was thinking that I was an authority to myself. Praise, O mighty Augustino, for seemingly crossing the metaphysical boundaries into the transcendental realm that is my subjective. Hail, Augustino, for thou art a god. :s — TimeLine

I appreciate your praises, but please deliver them to the one True God who alone is Worthy of Praise.

Love is what all people desire. — TimeLine

Maybe - but some, in certain circumstances, would disagree.

This is merely an ad hominem attack to try and purport that my approach to the subject is skewed by proxy, perhaps because I am a woman. — TimeLine

>:O >:O yeah, it certainly must be 'cause you're a lady. I see. Why would I have something against you because you're a woman, for real now?

But it must be reciprocal and genuine. — TimeLine

Spinoza thought that the one true love - the Love of God - wasn't reciprocal. That's just one example of someone who disagrees with you.

No, he came to her telling her that he wants her, asking for her hand in marriage and then changing his mind — TimeLine

On the same day all this is happening? :o K. proposed in 1840, he retracted in 1841, and she remarried in 1847. That's a big gap right there. She only properly stopped talking to him once she got married.

He was terrified of the happiness that he would have attained with her. — TimeLine

I never knew happiness is terrifying.

I think Alexander the Great or Marcus Aurelius are extraordinary examples; he was merely a humble philosopher from Denmark and millions of men are just men who want to do something significant - like maybe write a book or work in a particular field - not become some whopping leader of a great empire. — TimeLine

Pff. This is just a modern prejudice. A great philosopher is just as capable as a great ruler. And no, he wasn't merely a "humble philosopher from Denmark". Why do you consider someone who writes an earth shattering work - like your baby Kant - inferior to someone who creates a giant Empire like Alexander? Clearly they're not inferior.

Don't forget the story. Alexander goes to meet Diogenes, who was a great philosopher but otherwise a beggar on the streets. Diogenes says "get the fuck out of my sunlight". Alexander's men laugh. Alexander rebukes them and says: "Truly if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes". Why? Because Diogenes was as great as Alexander was, despite lacking an empire. It's the character that counts, not the possessions. While Alexander's men were cowering and bowing their heads to him merely out of fear, fearing for their lives, there was one man who didn't give a damn and had the courage to stand up to him. That was worthy of respect, and Alexander was no idiot. He knew it.

with the same sensual experience. — TimeLine

Why the same sensual experience?

"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil... She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness... Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her." — TimeLine

Yeah yeah yeah, stop serving me stuff I agree with, it's boring :P

As I said, authentic. The love must be genuine. Anyone and everyone can say 'I love you' but it is not often that one actually genuinely means it. — TimeLine

Riiiight. And you know that that physics lecturer's love for his wife is authentic? Did you stalk them? :P

Mature love follows the principle: "I am loved because I love." — TimeLine

Wrong. Mature love says I love even if I am not loved back.

cheating and committing sexual immorality to make one feel momentarily alive. — TimeLine

I don't think peeps cheat to "momentarily feel alive" and any such thing. These are too high feelings for the majority of them. They cheat out of boredom and lust. Read the paper and fornicate - that's the modern man as Camus said ;)

We become disillusioned, but the latter does not mean it doesn't exist — TimeLine

Yeah so why you tellin' me? I already agree with that.

and most likely there is a strong percentage of couples that remain bound together by genuine affection. — TimeLine

:s check the stats please. A perfect relationship is as rare as Alexander's Empire, as rare as Kant's Critique. Most people don't reach up to those heights, neither in their relationships, nor in their achievements.

K claimed to be a very "inward" person, which I take to mean introverted (in the way Jung meant it, not the popular meaning of shyness). An extremely introverted person sometimes deals with representations of people more so than the real people themselves. It's a condition that can result in really bizarre behavior. — Mongrel

Nothing that can't be cured by just quitting to think, and going to do. I meet similar self-talk alllll the time. Even in martial arts, when I have to spar someone bigger than me, I always feel "I'm too weak, I can't do it, I'll get my ass kicked, it's gonna be nasty" etc. But sometimes I just don't give attention to those thoughts. Just fuckin' do it. Then it works much better. One of my sifus always said "no thought please, no thought". I'm also an introvert.

Life requires some extroversion. For a lot of my life, I've been half-consciously putting myself into a position where I have to be extroverted. But that's me. K had no intention of living a normal life. He knew he was amazing. He knew he would still be famous long after he was gone.

Life requires some extroversion. — Mongrel

Maybe. It's about accepting yourself. You don't like large groups, parties, etc. simple - don't get yourself there. Most people give in to peer pressure, or otherwise feel bad about not doing what others are doing. I used to be like that. Now - I just can't be fucked about what others think.

K had no intention of living a normal life. — Mongrel

Yeah, frankly I don't either lol :P

Yeah, he died a childless loser with mommy issues. Left a good mechanical imprint in the sand though, ready to be aped for generations to come.

It's hard to ape a mechanical footprint because you just have ape feet. You know?