The segment about acting by virtue of the absurd I also get. but the very last segment I don't:

"...I must act, but reflection has closed the road so I take one of the possibilities and say: This is what I do, I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection."

So I understand that the decision he makes is based on faith, but why does he state that "I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection"? If his reflection tells him that he could do one thing just as easily as another, why would they stop him from taking another option? Is it a matter of faith?

Thanks.

An example that Kierkegaard uses is found in one of his famous works, Fear and Trembling. In the story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis, Abraham was told by God to kill his son Isaac. Just as Abraham was about to kill Isaac, an angel stopped Abraham from doing so. Kierkegaard believes that through virtue of the absurd, Abraham, defying all reason and ethical duties ("you cannot act"), got back his son and reaffirmed his faith ("where I have to act").[6] However, it should be noted that in this particular case, the work was signed with the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio.

This might be best answered with this excerpt of wikipedia; I just recently became interested in Kierkegaard, but I suppose the only possibility is faith.



:cool:

"...I must act, but reflection has closed the road so I take one of the possibilities and say: This is what I do, I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection."

So I understand that the decision he makes is based on faith, but why does he state that "I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection"? If his reflection tells him that he could do one thing just as easily as another, why would they stop him from taking another option? Is it a matter of faith?

Eh take Wikipedia with a grain of salt Leonard.

kennethamy has it right regarding the quote proper: reason can only take you so far, so you must act (with faith or passion or what have you).

The confusion is what you think SK means by otherwise. Otherwise doesn't refer to any other choices, SK means doing and not doing. The chooser has made his choice already: "This is what I do". The opposite of which is staying put and not choosing.

So I understand that the decision he makes is based on faith, but why does he state that "I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection"? If his reflection tells him that he could do one thing just as easily as another, why would they stop him from taking another option? Is it a matter of faith?

But not choosing is very often just choosing not. As William James pointed out. If, for instance, I do not choose to save the drowning child, that is equivalent to choosing not to save the drowning child.

It depends on whether inaction is an equally valid choice among the best available rational choices. If he dithers because he doesn't know what choice to choose, he falls victim to what SK calls the Absurd. If he chooses to not act through virtue of the Absurd, that is indeed a choice that the chooser has decided. They both might have the exact same consequences, but in the former, he lets fate decide for him, and in the latter, he chooses.

In Buridian's Ass, the Ass didn't choose to die through death by starvation; he died by starvation because of his inaction; he fell victim to the Absurd.

In Buridian's Ass, the Ass didn't choose to die through death by starvation; he died by starvation because of his inaction; he fell victim to the Absurd.

I think this points to the reason an action is taken in spite of having no criteria for choice: because the will to live demands it.

Poetically speaking, if you just sit there, you might begin to feel energy welling up.. demanding outlet. Some would call this energy eros... as opposed to thanatos.

An illustration might be this: I reach a point where, because of loss of all hope, I no longer have fear. I could fly an airplane into a tall building. I could trust my fellow humans in spite of all evidence suggesting that I should fear this. But I fear nothing. It's an absurd situation. I would sit in a chair and do nothing if it weren't for the eventual "ants in the pants" syndrome... the call of eros.

Absurdity is an essential feature of humor.

How would the will to live prompt you to commit suicide by flying a plane into a building?

Good point. The mind's forte is coming up with explanations... ten explanations for every thing!

Actually, I wasn't suggesting that the will to live prompts anything but action itself. Poetically speaking, the raw will meets all the apparatus of expression and what comes out is some kinetic event. That's a physics model commonly used: Potential = the apparatus x kinetic energy... that's the boil down on a lot of simple physics... Like if I drop a marble in a vat of water, the actual event is shaped by the resistance of the water... if I drop the same marble in a vat of molasses, I get a very different event, but it's considered to be the same potential...

But as for why a person might chose to fly an airplane into a building... immortality of some sort might be the explanation... in other words, he's sacrificing his life.. not committing suicide... not in the sense of cessation of existence.... in other words, people tend to have a really hard time imagining the end of themselves.. at the point the building is filling up the view screen, lacking any fear... I don't think it really matters what the point was. It was the choice that was made.

But there was some reason to believe that Atta, and the others, did not believe in immortality. And, surely, not every suicide believes in immortality (or life after death). So, the question still is how could the will to live prompt suicide? Your analogy, I am afraid, does not help. You may mean by "action" itself, a mindless impulse. Sure, some people may very well have committed suicide on impulse. But I did not think we were talking about them.

The confusion is what you think SK means by otherwise. Otherwise doesn't refer to any other choices, SK means doing and not doing. The chooser has made his choice already: "This is what I do". The opposite of which is staying put and not choosing.

So essentially he's saying "I cannot do nothing because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of observation"?
I don't quite understand?

The thought process presumably goes something like this:

1. The two options appear equally valid.
2. I must choose one of them; failure to choose would be irrational.
3. Since I have no other means of deciding, I will choose whichever option happens (by chance) to come more prominently into my mind after this moment.
4. Option B has come more prominently into my mind.
5. Therefore, I choose option B.

Steps 3-5 of course happen very rapidly, so we are barely aware of them as separate steps.

One could use various terms to explain step (4), e.g. chance, randomness, quantum uncertainty. But there doesn't seem to be anything particularly 'absurd' about it. I don't think it's a profound philosophical question.

how could the will to live prompt suicide?