I just dropped in to see what relation my relation was in.

Thanks for putting the videos up! Kierkegaard has changed my life. Dave

Dreyfus is soooo articulate, really great listen, thanks partially %ruined% life for this gem

"-gaard" is pronounced exactly as "gore" is. And the "ie" sound is like the "ee" in "keep".

@meanmrmustard89 Yeah, I go back and forth on whether to have my "audio" uploads alternate images or just go with one static image. I figured alternating images help the viewer understand whether the "movie" is actually running. But perhaps it's just irritating to no positive benefit. Will consider, thanks!

I appreciate the changing images, but I think it might be even better if the frames were tied to the audio a little more directly. For instance, showing the image of Kierkegaard when he is being quoted or his life is being discussed, maybe the cover of the book when a passage from that book is mentioned, etc. Either way and regardless of whether you even read this, I'm grateful for your uploads.

We are not the self in ourself [itself], but the self in half ourself[itself]. Fascinating and thoughtful. Jesus Christ in the Gospels said, "I AM the door [to bringing heaven on earth our purpose in praying with God] " If this is so His Father's name is the key to this door. I believe there are five basic belief steps we need to take in order to understanding His Father's name in each of us [subjectively]. 1) God exists, 2) I AM, 3) God thinks, 4) I pray and meditate, 5) God lives in us.

19.00 the self is that which perceives itself...something like that

Excellent!

lol "let me correct kierkegaard at this point" kierkegaard wrote the way he wrote not as to make logical sense but intutive and imaginative sense, much like zen and eastern teachings which point symbolically towards insight. and construct a picture, not a complete logical statement, but a 'sense'. inner lively inner sense of life and living, poetically.

What am I hearing at 1:06 exactly?

great!

I know there's got to be some relationship between this conception of the self and Hesse's "Steppenwolf" but I'm hazy on the exact relationship. I can't help but think of Harry Haller forever balancing between "the martyrdom of the spirit and the martyrdom of the flesh" but never surrendering to either. Hesse seems to be arguing contrary to Kierkegaard, that life is found in extremes? Or is the Tractate meant to be an ironist take on Harry's dilemma?

Cool!

What's going on at 12:45? is it cut? what does he say?

The first paragraph of the book gets discussed at 17:55.

The true self no doubt. Affect regulation(Allen Schore) Sincerely believing

maybe if you could fade them in and out rather than jumping

Nice uploads, very interesting! However, the incessant cycle of pictures is rather annoying. I suppose it isn't really necessary to watch though. LOL, either way, cheers for the great uploads!

thanks for posting such a great lecture! I have to disagree with Drefyus at the end here. One CAN fully satisfy spiritual needs and physical needs simultaneously! I can give the simple example of taking a vigorous hike up a mountain that stimulates the body, clears the mind and frees the spirit! This is perhaps the archetypal quest of our current times. Wow- the mind/body schism has been present in the west for so long! I like Kierkegaard's take on it: The relation to the relation is the Self!

Kierkegaard's definition of self in The SUD sounds like when you write down a great conclusion you reached, read it down later, and don't understand shit cuz you didn't explain the context or process.

waht bro

but i do'nt evan gotta tell yuo waht i sadi when Dale was al "les get lit and jump of the roofs of my houes" i was all DAde" las thyme we did that yuo broke yuore rist and i got a hurnia )(and shit wile were on the thoipic maybe evan hypoxia_ so less jsut relaxcs and lay all are cards on the tabble and sea waht we got seea wahts on teve sea wahts on the inretets mayeb get a lil painted, so we did taht and sure enofguh endud up on the roff of his horse,. yah well won werd: painte,. so anywho he's

So, I cant help by think that is a shed load of naval gazey over complication going here. The whole relationship of the relating being to the relationship to relating blah blah is a red herring, as is the misunderstanding and over complication of Heidegger. That human beings are the being for whom being is an issue is just another, albeit self consciously over complicated way saying that what marks humans apart from other animals is our consciousness of our own existence & the fact that we care about it. (Care being a key concept in Heidegger's philosophy) when K talks about our relatedness to our relationship with being as being fundamental to the self (which exists only as a relationship to awareness of our own existence) he is, in the simplest possible terms, referring to our own awareness of being. These notions require no reference to canonical philosophy and are only complicated when one is seduced by an intellectual pursuit of understanding as against a clear minded desire to think properly about what it means to be. Which is, of course the starting point from which we should precede. yaffel yaffel yaffel, now the mouse organ has gone to bed and proffessor yaffell the art deco woodpecker returns to his role as a bookend.

?...

18:03

senseless

this guy is too hard to understand

On the surface it looks like a bunch of convoluted, archaic make-believe - not fit for today (in light of advancements in knowledge, where an adequate philosophy evolves with knowledge)... and listening, that's exactly what it sounds like (and is) - philosophy used to try to divine reality through sheer speculation, before science really got going, and that is where these philosophers were. My suggestion - begin with Bertrand Russell, and take it from there (build on his ideas - because it hasn't been done yet, and it's been 100 years, and knowledge has advanced)...