Do you think Kierkegaard’s strategy of indirect communication is a good one?
Kierkegaard described the indirect method as accepting the other person’s fantasy as good money.
For example, a deliriously insane man who sees unicorns, gremlins, and other trippy s-t refuses to leave his room.
The medics are there are telling him directly to come down and take his medications, and refuses to indulge his fantasy.
The man is still crazy and dismisses those medics as part of his fantasy.
However, another person, using the indirect method, involves himself into the man’s fantasies; helping him slay the gremlins
and monsters and gaining the trust of the man in order to help to the medicine and thus leading him out of his fantasy.
I think Kierkegaard sees himself doing the same time in the pseudonymous works, trying to lead deluded Christians from their
fantasies by accepting it and then undermining or leading away from it gradually. (e.g. accepting Hegelianism and then undermining
it)
There are a number of implications made within your proposition. Specifically I’ll express my interpretation of your indirect belief that those who are content in their peaceful delusion called ‘christianity’ in your instance are in some sort of threatening position. And cut off from the resources we all share that could naturally change their own view through their own experience. These equally sensible humans pose no threat to the ‘correct’ faith that I assume u support. Is the ‘hero’ dragon slayer in your story in its own context, not just as crazy for believing he is saving these percieved ‘less thans’ by decieving and misleading them from the beginning of his conquest? What true possible explanation is there for such fallicies? I’m open for any basis grounded in truth but so far all I have received is that its ok to invest with lies and betray all truth until our objective is understood. Yet your hero can’t even attempt without submerging himself in his own delusion (assuming both realities align) by pretending he exists on the same plane as his inferiors? This sounds like a sales pitch. And is at best- comical
Not if one is sure of his own morality and honest intent. then there is no need to decieve your fellow man because you see a possible weakness he reveals in his natural state.
“Gaining trust” sounds sneaky. Funny, I have no fundamental problem with deceit. But sneakiness? That has a different connotation to me. Don’t ask me to explain that. Not this morning anyway.
Maybe it’s better to just get to know another person, with no preconceived conceptions or intentions - and see what happens.
Yeah, rejection of a belief so that it can be replaced with another belief, the belief that there is no intent causing reality. Do try to be logical volchock.
Very, very few atheists stop with “No God”. Instead, they go further: “If No God, how ought we to live?” Then, of course, they can commense to “deceive into truth” and trick everyone into following their agenda.
Well, not that we will really have a choice here anyway.
I disagree, mainly because I think you’ve misinterpreted what Kierkegaard was trying to do with his use of various–I prefer noms d’plume to pseudonyms. And, if anything, K. was a religious poet and wasn’t trying to undermine religious faith so much as he was trying to bolster it.
In the meantime, welcome to both you and Aus10man.