Heidegger's “Dasein” reminds me a lot of Sartre’s “Being-for-itself”, can the two concepts be considered analogous?
My impression from the readings is that both authors believe dread to be the fundamental relation between an individual and the world. For example, Kierkegaard compares dread to someone experiencing dizziness when looking down a deep precipice, and how the reason for this dizziness is due to both the precipice and the act of looking down.
The pieces of work written by Kierkegaard and Heidegger both explain anxiety in an interesting way, however both articles seem to have a similar consensus, is it possible Heidegger modeled some of his work after Kierkegaard?
My response to reading these two pieces is that both authors had a similar approach to what anxiety is and the root behind it. Both felt that “Dread” was the connection between a man and his life. For example, both authors related it to fear, saying how although fear and dread are not the same thing, you find fear in dread, and this is where the anxiety begins.
In the section of Kierkegaard's work called Dread as a Saving Experience I find it interesting that he tries to put a positive turn on dread and shows how it can result in infinite possibilities.
It seems like dread is something that can hinder an individual as well as push the individual forward. If it is left to consume you then you will crash but you can also use it to grow.
1. As anxiety is a very terrible thing to feel or as Kierkegaard refers to as "dread," he has a section in his work called "Dread is a Saving Experience." Where people search out hoping to experience "dread," or excessive fear. Which I personally find odd, because I would think people look for an adrenaline rush over a sense of anxiety, dread or fear. 2. In Heideggers' piece he says, "Dread is not a mode of fear." This statement confused me, because I have always associated dread and fear together. Due to the simple fact that when I am feeling a sense of fear- I usually am also feeling some kind of dread or regret for knowing I could have potentially avoided the situation or circumstance of the situation I had gotten myself into.
I find the paragraph on pg. 313 very interesting. I think Kierkegaard is trying to explain human nature, I believe he is trying to say the anxiety we feel affect our decisions and you cannot fault anyone for the choices they make because they are unaware of right or wrong. People are just acting out of fear
To me the Heidegger reading was much easier to understand and I feel like Heidegger was trying to simplify the concept of dread. With his writing I like how he took examples from Kant and Aristotle and gave his point of view
While I know these are different concepts, I can’t help but notice some similarities between Kierkegaard’s conception of dread, and Sartre’s. To me, the most significant similarity seemed to be how each concept relates to freedom. Sartre says someone experiences anguish when they are free to decide, and Kierkegaard describes dread as coming from “the possibility for possibility.” This is the same freedom that Sartre talks about and it is interesting to me how the two have such a similar feeling when confronted with freedom, but they each call it something different, and treat handle the problems that arise differently.
Heidegger writes on fear, and how all fear is rooted in dread. To him, dread comes from Dasein, which I understood to mean the phenomenon of existence. This deep connection between dread and being closely reflects Kierkegaard’s conception of dread and how it is always present when confronted with freedom. In both circumstances I am reminded of Buddhist teachings that all life is suffering. I wonder how common this kind of angst is within the human condition.
I had found both of the readings to be something of a treat. With regard to Kierkegaard’s writing I found sympathies with his notion that dread stems out of grasping both the finite and the infinite as we gaze into the abyss as it were. As for Heidegger I could not help myself in finding two ways to read his piece, the first being the conventional reading where the wise philosopher makes us aware of the different forms of fear and how phenomenologically it illuminates diffrent things in our environments. However the second reading keeps in mind that Heidegger himself was a member of the Nazi party and is on record for being very anti-Semitic. It is this second reading that, at least in my mind, makes the piece perversely interesting, especially when one considers how well the Nazi ideological superstructure was able to exploit some of the basic principles laid out within the text.
In Kierkegaard's "Dread as a Saving Experience," he defines dread as the possibility of freedom, a natural response to an infinate amount of potential possibilities. So it makes sense for such an overwhelming experience to cause anxiety. However, he also moves on to suggest that dread is inherently neither positive or negative and is interpreted subjectively.
This reminded me of something directors remind actors, anxiety and excitement are, biologically, very similar. It's just how to mind convinces the individual to respond to the changes in the body to create the two opposing emotions. Thus, you could effectively learn to control anxious behavior and direct it in a much more productive manner.
Kierkegaard seems to be saying that dread/anxiety is caused by freedom and the possibility of to make individual choices, but that it is far worse to be "innocent" and to not look into the abyss of endless possibilities.
It's interesting that Heidegger, in his account of worldly things that are threatening, mentions that we are in part fearful of them because of insufficient coping skills to deal with them. In learning about anxiety in prior psychology classes, many theories/definitions of anxiety incorporate a lack of sufficient coping skills as an integral part of the theory/definition. I wonder if this is a direct result of the influence of philosophers such as Heidegger?
What I find to be true while reading Kierkegaard is that the "infinite possibility of being able" is a big cause of anxiety and dread for the fear that we make the wrong choice. I didn't really get anything out of Heidegger's piece, it's hard to understand what his point is and I wish he'd just get to it.
Christopher Atuahene Professor Gilliland Philosophy 408 10 September 2018
Kierkegaard A question I have is what thinkers influenced Kierkegaard to believe that reason was not as important as many philosophers believed it to be. It is a common belief outside the great thinker community that somethings are unknown and will never be known. The ignorance of common folk keeps their anxiety low because it is well known that ignorance brings peace. Despite being a great thinker instead of searching for the reason for everything Kierkegaard believes that to live a less stressful life it is better not to know. I am just curious as to who were the influencers who helped him develop a belief ahead of its time.
Heidegger's “Dasein” reminds me a lot of Sartre’s “Being-for-itself”, can the two concepts be considered analogous?
ReplyDeleteMy impression from the readings is that both authors believe dread to be the fundamental relation between an individual and the world. For example, Kierkegaard compares dread to someone experiencing dizziness when looking down a deep precipice, and how the reason for this dizziness is due to both the precipice and the act of looking down.
The pieces of work written by Kierkegaard and Heidegger both explain anxiety in an interesting way, however both articles seem to have a similar consensus, is it possible Heidegger modeled some of his work after Kierkegaard?
ReplyDeleteMy response to reading these two pieces is that both authors had a similar approach to what anxiety is and the root behind it. Both felt that “Dread” was the connection between a man and his life. For example, both authors related it to fear, saying how although fear and dread are not the same thing, you find fear in dread, and this is where the anxiety begins.
In the section of Kierkegaard's work called Dread as a Saving Experience I find it interesting that he tries to put a positive turn on dread and shows how it can result in infinite possibilities.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like dread is something that can hinder an individual as well as push the individual forward. If it is left to consume you then you will crash but you can also use it to grow.
1. As anxiety is a very terrible thing to feel or as Kierkegaard refers to as "dread," he has a section in his work called "Dread is a Saving Experience." Where people search out hoping to experience "dread," or excessive fear. Which I personally find odd, because I would think people look for an adrenaline rush over a sense of anxiety, dread or fear.
ReplyDelete2. In Heideggers' piece he says, "Dread is not a mode of fear." This statement confused me, because I have always associated dread and fear together. Due to the simple fact that when I am feeling a sense of fear- I usually am also feeling some kind of dread or regret for knowing I could have potentially avoided the situation or circumstance of the situation I had gotten myself into.
I find the paragraph on pg. 313 very interesting. I think Kierkegaard is trying to explain human nature, I believe he is trying to say the anxiety we feel affect our decisions and you cannot fault anyone for the choices they make because they are unaware of right or wrong. People are just acting out of fear
ReplyDeleteTo me the Heidegger reading was much easier to understand and I feel like Heidegger was trying to simplify the concept of dread. With his writing I like how he took examples from Kant and Aristotle and gave his point of view
ReplyDeleteWhile I know these are different concepts, I can’t help but notice some similarities between Kierkegaard’s conception of dread, and Sartre’s. To me, the most significant similarity seemed to be how each concept relates to freedom. Sartre says someone experiences anguish when they are free to decide, and Kierkegaard describes dread as coming from “the possibility for possibility.” This is the same freedom that Sartre talks about and it is interesting to me how the two have such a similar feeling when confronted with freedom, but they each call it something different, and treat handle the problems that arise differently.
ReplyDeleteHeidegger writes on fear, and how all fear is rooted in dread. To him, dread comes from Dasein, which I understood to mean the phenomenon of existence. This deep connection between dread and being closely reflects Kierkegaard’s conception of dread and how it is always present when confronted with freedom. In both circumstances I am reminded of Buddhist teachings that all life is suffering. I wonder how common this kind of angst is within the human condition.
I had found both of the readings to be something of a treat. With regard to Kierkegaard’s writing I found sympathies with his notion that dread stems out of grasping both the finite and the infinite as we gaze into the abyss as it were. As for Heidegger I could not help myself in finding two ways to read his piece, the first being the conventional reading where the wise philosopher makes us aware of the different forms of fear and how phenomenologically it illuminates diffrent things in our environments. However the second reading keeps in mind that Heidegger himself was a member of the Nazi party and is on record for being very anti-Semitic. It is this second reading that, at least in my mind, makes the piece perversely interesting, especially when one considers how well the Nazi ideological superstructure was able to exploit some of the basic principles laid out within the text.
ReplyDeleteIn Kierkegaard's "Dread as a Saving Experience," he defines dread as the possibility of freedom, a natural response to an infinate amount of potential possibilities. So it makes sense for such an overwhelming experience to cause anxiety. However, he also moves on to suggest that dread is inherently neither positive or negative and is interpreted subjectively.
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me of something directors remind actors, anxiety and excitement are, biologically, very similar. It's just how to mind convinces the individual to respond to the changes in the body to create the two opposing emotions. Thus, you could effectively learn to control anxious behavior and direct it in a much more productive manner.
Kierkegaard seems to be saying that dread/anxiety is caused by freedom and the possibility of to make individual choices, but that it is far worse to be "innocent" and to not look into the abyss of endless possibilities.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that Heidegger, in his account of worldly things that are threatening, mentions that we are in part fearful of them because of insufficient coping skills to deal with them. In learning about anxiety in prior psychology classes, many theories/definitions of anxiety incorporate a lack of sufficient coping skills as an integral part of the theory/definition. I wonder if this is a direct result of the influence of philosophers such as Heidegger?
What I find to be true while reading Kierkegaard is that the "infinite possibility of being able" is a big cause of anxiety and dread for the fear that we make the wrong choice.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really get anything out of Heidegger's piece, it's hard to understand what his point is and I wish he'd just get to it.
Christopher Atuahene
ReplyDeleteProfessor Gilliland
Philosophy 408
10 September 2018
Kierkegaard
A question I have is what thinkers influenced Kierkegaard to believe that reason was not as important as many philosophers believed it to be. It is a common belief outside the great thinker community that somethings are unknown and will never be known. The ignorance of common folk keeps their anxiety low because it is well known that ignorance brings peace. Despite being a great thinker instead of searching for the reason for everything Kierkegaard believes that to live a less stressful life it is better not to know. I am just curious as to who were the influencers who helped him develop a belief ahead of its time.