back
38 comments
It might seem odd but I had a profound philosophical awakening playing Nier: Automata. You 'experience' Kierkegaard's philosophy in the game along with other philosophies which could be spoilers if anyone decides to play it.

I almost didn't play the game, I passed on it a few times until SkillUp (a YouTuber I respect) did a video on it entitled "The Masterpiece You (Probably) Won't Play" (https://youtu.be/-NiyfG8Ctbo).

If you aren't going to play the game, and I recommend you try it, Wisecrack did a really good philosophical analysis of the game here: https://youtu.be/UiOTSKBy6ME and here: https://youtu.be/LCcednqOLwQ

Rendering is fucked up on this page and Reader Mode doesn't automatically engage. Explicitly do the "about:reader?url=" trick to fix it.

The author's got a bad misstep in the first paragraph; Socrates, if he existed, was skilled, landed, honored in military service, and his "poverty" was part of his apology when he was sentenced to death. This matters deeply because there is another important Greek philosopher who, if he existed, lived a much more impoverished and simple life, namely Diogenes [0]. This contrast between Socrates and Diogenes is worth carrying into the rest of the piece.

Kierkegaard was Christian, and living in an era where Christian foundational beliefs were considered scientifically supported. As a result, his philosophy cannot escape the Christian mindset. While the author name-drops existentialists, folks like Camus and Nietzsche, they don't seem to grok that existentialism aggressively rejected the same trappings of society to which Kierkegaard felt encircled and trapped, particularly the religious trappings to which Kierkegaard felt such obligation and wonder.

At least Kierkegaard was right to criticize Hegelian dialectic as "nonsense". Plain language philosophy [1] is so much simpler, although it wasn't ready yet in Kierkegaard's time.

The author uncritically accepts Kierkegaard's view that Christian myths much be accepted as paradoxical or absurd yet true. When countervailing evidence disproves each myth, we are not merely being fervent or zealous if we hold on to those stories, but actively denying reason and empiricism.

The author concludes by suggesting that we look inward to an intuitive religious or spiritual path, and ignore the distractions of society. Further, they insist that the philsophical truths revealed here or there by Kierkegaard or his biographers are ageless and that the "peculiar challenges of our moment" are not "the meaning of our lives". That is high-minded, but simply not true. A lot of folks will think of COVID-19, but I think of secularism and the decline of the Church's ability to control minds.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_language_philosophy

I’m curious about the evidence that disproves each myth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible is a good community-sourced overview.
See also the recent post on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22965049

Is it Philosophy Day on HN or something? :)

If you want to know how to live, start with the stoics. They answered this question VERY successfully thousands of years ago.
If you already have all the answers, Kierkegaard would definitely be of little interest for you.
I think the internet has kind of inoculated us to such philosophies. There are so many people online who are depressed and try to channel it into insightful writing. In the end, these insights turn out useless: life just isn't a very deep thing. He should've married Regine and got on with it.
> life just isn't a very deep thing

Surely life is the most profound and magical thing you will ever experience?

'surely'? - how does one justify saying that?

'profound' - what does that even mean in this context?

'magical' - Speak for yourself. Me & my brothers had our lives destroyed by appalling parents. It's not something you recover from. You don't speak for everybody. Don't try.

It's true by definition (of "your life" as the time during which you can at all experience things). In that sense it doesn't matter how profound and magical your life has been or will be; it's still the most profound and magical thing you'll ever experience.
Your interpretation of my comment seems to me to have taken my meaning in a way I did not intend it. I don't want to argue your points because I was not making a statement in the mathematical sense, nor academic philosophical sense.

The point really is that it is a question, that you can ask yourself. Whether you immediately conclude that the answer is "certainly not" does not deny the question of being asked. "Surely" is simply there to suggest my opinion on the matter, not a demand that I am correct.

Edit - I can't resist:

My own life is not without misery. My history still troubles me to this day. I feel possibly a similar grievance to my upbringings as you do. That is not to say there is something interesting about "life". The seemingly unfathomable nature of it, is to me a wonder. It's magical in the sense I have absolutely no idea how it works, but it definitely seems to exist. Biblical Hell of course would not be excluded by this definition. I am not making any mathematical arguments, my comment is just an attempt to summarise my feelings in this regard.

Btw, if my comment angered you then I apologize.

All I was bleating about was precision of speech. In a formal or semiformal context, I'm not going to care about semantic accuracy down the pub (wait a minute, what effing pub? They're all closed. Dammit, this sucks, it really does).

Precision and meaning matters when debating IMO, as I've outlined elsewhere on this thread, that's all I'm getting at. Lack of it causes lots of problems, beyond random guys exploding at you on the interwebs.

Don't worry about offending me, you hit a very exposed nerve by accident, wasn't the first time. No probs.

I guess 'surely' technically qualifies as you do not have anything to compare it to. But because of that, describing it in any quantity can only be guesswork.

Edit: that is to say, you only have one life, and comparing the whole to individual parts doesn't really make sense.

surely this has got to be the edgiest comment on HN.

> 'surely'? - how does one justify saying that?

life is the superset of all possible experiences. If any element has a property (i.e. is deep) it will be contained within life.

I don't think anyone is trying to take anything away from your tragedy, but we are discussing semantics. Life can be "not very deep" and still be the deepest thing in existence, by definition.

But then by definition it is also necessarily ("surely") the least "profound" and "magical" thing anyone ever experiences.
My plaint is really about semantics. So let's discuss that, especially as you mentioned it. Also let's be clear: this is about clarity and good use of language. I don't like sloppy use of English in any context. Clarity matters.

I'll try to leave out my life experiences except where relevant. I suppose we have to start with that. The original comment I was replying to said life was great (I summarise). Without qualification it covered everyone's lives (mathematically it was implicitly universally quantified), and said life is great. No it's not, not universally, and it can be quite the opposite. In many cases yes it's lovely (or I hope so!) but you cannot speak for everybody. Therefore, don't.

Further, if you talk about existence ("Surely life is the most...") then you cover animal's lives. Do they have magical and profound existences? Point is not to answer that but to say be careful what you drag in with lax pronouncements. I'll not take the animal thing further.

So, 'profound' - I asked what this means and have not got a reply. This is about semantics, so what are the semantics of this word, in this context? I literally do not know. Words like this are too easily used without thought. There's nothing profound (I assume defined as having hidden depths or meanings) for me about waking up in the morning, going to work etc. It's just life. If you break it down this way I suspect most people would say the same. The phrase The Daily Grind is a bit cynical and used thoughtlessly too, but it suggests another side to the coin. So what does 'profound' mean here, and is it justified. It needn't be a complex or long answer, but if words matter, this matters.

OK, 'magical'. If you're american (I'm a brit) this kind of pretty but ultimately empty (or at least ill-defined) word gets broadcast at you from an early age by disney. It just gets parroted back. When I hear more disney turds about how Precious Family Is, ruthlessly equating family with something wonderful (which I assume it often is, I hope so!) then I tend to well up with either disgust or dry, bitter cackling laughter. I probably sound like macbeth's witches. That's not about semantics so much as using words properly, to mean something. I've read some philosophy that is just a tangle of words because the writer is not clear themselves on how to justify a thing and are really trying to fog things up like a squid with its ink (conversely I picked up a book by some philosopher and it was wonderfully clear. You might not agree but at least you could get exactly what he was saying, and with that comprehension, you could agree or not, but at least you knew why).

All I'm asking for is clear, thoughtful and justified use of words to clearly express ideas. I guess this is the basics of philosophy, so it's relevant especially here.

I am not a philosophy grad nor is English my native language so I am sorry but I am not educated enough to continue this discussion.

I agree with you that he could have been more specific, but I do not agree with > said life was great (I summarise). In my interpretation of their comment, I took it to mean life has the potential to be great.

For the other two terms I have no opinion, will leave that to OP. But damn, if this is at all representative to what studying philosophy is like, isn't it exhausting?

> But damn, if this is at all representative to what studying philosophy is like, isn't it exhausting?

Worthless slop is worthless. To make it worth something you need to be precise. Yes, it can be, not exhausting, but sometimes tedious. But that attention to detail is necessary in any constructive endeavor be it software, hardware, mathematics, engineering, governing, why do you think philosophy should be any different?

The end results can be worth it. I used to argue a lot with someone, it's only when we agreed to be precise about what we were saying that we got anywhere (to be precise 'got anywhere' = 'started to understand each other's positions and assumptions').

Edit: trying to debate with someone who can only respond with emotionally based certainties and often descends into shouting and blank denials is a wearing and disheartening experience. Also not useful if you're arguing about important things like, I dunno, what to do about pandemics.

> life just isn't a very deep thing. He should've married Regine and got on with it.

Kierkegaard is way ahead of you. Your viewpoint is already presented as one of his personas or stages (called something like "the model citizen").

Existentialists have a reputation as sophists and phonies, pessimists write a bunch of subjective pessimistic crap, optimists write a bunch of subjective optimistic crap.
> In the end, these insights turn out useless: life just isn't a very deep thing.

Three pounds of flax!

the implication that internet edgelords of any flavor are holding a candle to or diminishing Kierkegaard in any way is pretty disgusting tbh.

and “insights turn out useless: life just isn't a very deep thing” is incredibly trite. i don’t mean this to come across as a personal attack, but dismissing K’s project out of hand and then making a pithy reference to his biography in what i suppose is an attempt to signal knowledge (or worse yet, understanding) of the matter at hand is just incredibly weak.

Wow, so what does it look like when you are attacking someone personally?
That is not a personal attack. You have someone effectively dismissing a philosophers work using something that just sounds profound “life isn’t deep”. Sorry, it will take more than this to counter Kierkegaard!
Look, I have no horse in this race, but this is clearly a personal attack in the reply above. Regardless, on what basis are you disagreeing with someone's interpretation of life as having no meaning or lacking in depth?
>Look, I have no horse in this race, but this is clearly a personal attack in the reply above.

in what way is it personal? In that he's attacking his conclusion for all of Kierkegaards' work? Or that he's trying to characterize your actions into a specific motivations?

Being called wrong , even in the softest ways, is now a personal attack?

I think it's fair to say that a 3-5 word sentence is a bit too shallow to characterize Kierkegaards' entire body of work. 'Sickness Unto Death' totally changed my outlook as a teenager reading it at the right time.

Here's the thing that's missing : life is as deep as we give it credit for, and many philosophies seek to enrichen and deepen the experience of life.

In my opinion, someone with the stance 'life isn't very deep' is in the perfect position to try to honestly absorb some of the pasts' philosophers and step away from the mammalian life of eat-sleep-breed.

In other words : our biological life is shallow in reason, philosophy and human thinking itself is what fills the world with reason, objective, and depth.

Anyone with the take-away that 'life isn't very deep' receives my greatest sympathy and sorrow. I remember how I felt when I came to the same conclusions, and i'm glad I have shifted away from that perspective with the help of philosophy and dialogue with others.

Re-imagining the world with the tools that philosophy gives you through practice is a fantastic experience, and I hope that the parent who believes that life isn't as deep as people give it credit for has the chance to undergo that epiphany themselves one day.

Man is the measure of all things.
I am not addressing any of these points about either of our own value judgments about life, because they do not address the point I have made, which is that nothing else matters if some particular person interprets the meaning of their life in a particular way. No amount of your belief in some philosophy or religion will change their interpretation of the meaning (or lack thereof) in their own life. If this person posted for example that nothing Jesus said matters, because they think life is completely without depth, that's the end of it. They don't have to respond to any external reasoning or justify dismissing some philosopher's entire body of work, because they assign the depth of their own life. You and I can discuss what that means with respect to our own value judgments, but it has no bearing on what that person thinks of their own. If you want to proselytize to that person for finding meaning in life, that's great, have at it. But you can't say that person's dismissal of some system of reasoning is invalid because his dismissal is based on value judgments entirely up to that person alone, and no amount of external reasoning on your part will "override" their value judgment.

About the reply above with the personal attack, here are a selection of phrases used to attack the author of the post, and not the author's argument: "internet edgelords", "pretty disgusting", "'insights turn out useless: life just isn't a very deep thing' is incredibly trite", "i don’t mean this to come across as a personal attack, but...", "a pithy reference", "an attempt to signal knowledge (or worse yet, understanding)", "just incredibly weak."

Give me a break, that's a personal attack.

Thinking "life just isn't that deep" is somehow a counterargument to Kierkegaard is like dismissing the works of Donald Knuth by saying that "computing is just not that complicated".
If a person with bad eyesight looks across a valley and tells a person with 20-20 vision that the view is terrible, the one with 20-20 isn't likely to agree.
But you don't get to decide someone's got bad eyesight if they tell you they see something perfectly clearly and you don't. If someone asserts that they see life as devoid of meaning or depth, you don't get to decide they are wrong simply because you disagree.
Good point, fapjacks.