Caroline's got it before me, the unhappiest man has experienced the future in thought, and now remembers that thought. But what he should be doing is hoping for the day that it really does happen.
"this experience he now remembers, instead of hoping for it" is the specific experience in thought. Dream car, loving wife, big house are examples of thought experiences that he remembers, but he ought to hope for it instead. When the unhappiest man doesn't hope, he doesn't do anything to make it happen, because it "happened" already.
Trying to change a past that can never change, and doing little to make a future happen in reality... his present must suck.
Thought experience is different from actual experience.
NS: Indeed! Labyrinth, could you please narrow down the cite for this quote for me? Because this statement certainly doesn't stand reasonably on its own shaky legs. One can only hope that the context will rescue it, and suffering Soren, from utter nonsense.
If concepts equated with living perceptual experiences (noumena with phenomena), then the starving would need to only think of a nutritious feast, and be done with all but the burp.
Eye-opening! Is it merely taking for granted future attainments? Or is it also restricting oneself to a linear future path? (I guess they could be related...) I'm wondering this because while this explains the writing's relevance to us today, is this necessarily what Kierkegaard meant? Philosophers (Kierkegaard too was of an affluent family) from the time period and those preceding were generally financially independent. I'm sure Regine doesn't figure in this as this book was written before the broken engagement(?).