A Conversation on Kierkegaard's 'The Present Age'

Dr. Ellie Anderson and Dr. David Peña-Guzmán, Philosophy professors and co-hosts of Overthink podcast, discuss the Kierkegaard's book "The Present Age." From action to mass media to Hegel, Ellie and David break down Kierkegaard's key points, concepts, and critiques of the culture of his day. How might Kierkegaard's analysis be relevant today, over 150 years later?

Find Overthink @overthink_pod on Instagram and Twitter.
Graphics and editing by Aaron Morgan

Find us on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok at @overthink_pod

[markburgan]

As someone who finds Kierkegaard wildly relevant to our current age, I love the final question you ask about where we would possibly go from here. From a bygone passionate aesthetic age to our modern, empty, reflective and ethical one it strikes me as humorous that the answer would be to turn toward religion. Having studied theology and worked as a hospital chaplain, I have some personal experience backing me when I say that mentioning “religious commitment” in the 21st century is a sure fire way to convince whatever stranger you’re talking with that you are either ignorant, dumb or outright insane 😂 but I think the turn to the religious in a slightly less theocentric interpretation involves an affirmation of individuality and personhood that raises the individual over and above the social in a counter-intuitive way (thinking of the teleological suspension of the ethical here).

My reading and teaching on Kierkegaard has “convicted” me that commitment without passion (form without substance) can be a starting point for developing passionate commitment, which may be seen as irrational to others but is the sort of insanely reasonable choice only truly understood from the other side (perhaps the other side of the “leap”). What you mention about the cynicism of our modern age is a perfect example to me of how passionate commitment, genuine “action” will not be understood by the crowd who is surely convinced that no genuine choice is possible in a society corrupted by the systemic influence/operation of injustice and hate.

In a way, I think Kierkegaard helps me combat some of the cynical, nihilistic detractors from action which quite effectively suppress and depress my hopeful, dreaming and desiring self. It’s so easy these days to compromise on one’s passion and thereby lose one’s self, and yet I think that passion speaks to what is most compelling, unique and lovable in every person I meet. That’s the question I’m always left with after reading Kierkegaard, how can I infuse my every day commitments with real passion while allowing reflection and contemplation to shape those same passions?

Thanks for the video and discussion!

[kuutonen]

You guys have a great dynamic, thanks for the vid.

[BillyMcBride]

One follower of Kierkegaard was the poet W.H. Auden, and after watching your good video on some of Kierkegaard's philosophy, I have a better understanding of one of my favorite mottos of Auden himself: "criticizing bad literature is not just a waste of time, but it is also bad for the character." And, like you both, I also enjoy reading both Hegel and Kierkegaard. I read Hegel because he doesn't talk to me but because he sounds like he talks to himself in solitude, and I read Kierkegaard because he was a master at indirect communication with his own readers. Thank you both for helping me again to read.

[emiliobarukgallardoflores]

I love how much you both make philosophy feel like gossip

[lenvm]

Absolutely love these conversations. They must involve tremendous labor to appear so effortless. This is what I wish my college philosophy class had been.

[RocketKirchner]

As a Christian and one who has lectured on Kierkegaard to atheists groups the word “ Passion “ is key . In his book “ Philosophical Fragments “ Kierkegaard makes it clear that the passionate Christian and the passionate atheist are united in their passion and that apathy is the enemy of inward intensity .

[JonathanDunlap]

I can't put into words how much this brightened my afternoon. I really came to understand the concept of otherness from Immanuel Levinas, who's writing really expanded my perspective on concepts like ethics-first phenomenology when confronted with otherness.

[olaguecoe]

34:31 Magistral conclusion on Kierkegaard's thoughts. I like the whole video and the whole discussion and points of views.

[robertalenrichter]

But, a stimulating discussion. I enjoy this sort of exchange.

[Undressful]

You guys are so cool I almost feel the world is alright :))) cheers

[INORANizm]

"We live in a world without the right action". That's true. We get lost in thoughts.

[strategy]

Brilliant. Yoked to more episodes like this 😂

[Kgchaves]

Wonderful! Can you say more about the book you were working on about information and meaning?

[robertalenrichter]

"Nostalgia", on the other hand, is interesting because nowadays it has such negative associations, as though some sort of moral weakness. Does feeling discredit recollection? Or vice versa?

[olaguecoe]

16:02 I dont think that Kierkegaard its looking for a phillosophy of action, rather than a phillosophy of meaning; obviusly, a personal, subjective meaning, one that conflicts the individuals, then, to act. But I dont think, he emphasys nor its pointing for what we call nowadays (after that left-marxist interpretation of Hegel is), a phillosophy of practice. I think that, if Kierkegaard would still living, he may not like that phillosophy (the franckfurt school, the marxism, and all the pragmatist school of thinking). He is in the pursuit of subjective meaning, because, he is a profound crsthian. He wants that cristianity and all the cristhian meaning of life be genuine and conflictive to the individual; then, and just then, we may pass to a practice way of life, but for Kierkegaard its not necesary pass from honesty to practice by a dialectical phillosophy (by a phillosophy of practice); only in the religiuos state, in a religious state of mind, we can have a truly and honest, an authentic meaning of life (this, in consideration of Kierkegaard's opinion).

The whole thesis of one of his great works, one that brings the image of the great hero of faith in the Biblie, Abraham, ("the father of faith", as he is call in the book of Hebrews), this biblica hero isn't living in "Fear" and "Trembling" because he believes; truly, genuinly he believes, that brings him genuine confidence in Gods comadment to sacrify his son, Isaac, because basically he proundly have thrust in God. He, in fact, points that, if faith was a matter of acts, the whole scene of Abraham and Isaac would make no sense as the Biblie narrates, and the logic and practical conclusion to considere Abraham as a great hero to the opinion of the world, would be that he effecively sacrified Isaac.
So, Kierkegaard is aiming to a genuine and truly cristhian way of living, rather than a "phillosophy of..." (however we can denominate any doctrine of thinking).

[DemetriosKongas]

You make an interesting reference to flirtation, disapproved by Kierkegaard. Is this disapproval due to the fact that flirting exploits the ambiguity of promises – the difference between someone being promising and someone making a promise? In that case, flirtation is the saboteur of the cherished commitment.
In so far as we value reliability and relative predictability, it is inevitable that flirtation – the consciously or unconsciously production of uncertainty – will be experienced at best as superficial and at worst as cruel! Noted Adam Philips.

[UtopiaForMore]

That doughnut shaped vase on the shelf ruined my focus too many times 😐

[livetostudy]

Please make videos on Rene Descartes too.

[IRCwizard]

Great discussion at end. Highlights when Winston Churchill states socialism is the gospel of envy!!

[artlessons]

On the flirting section... My thoughts upon hearing it gathered up a collective that makes sense to me, though rooted in deep grounds!
Taking philosophy being the “ love of wisdom ( Sophia) Kiekeguard when coming to the fork in the road, chooses Sophia over his physical bride. ( divided from the Christian faith, thus individual ) . He was all in with Sophia!
When he speaks of flirting and gossiping as shallow communication (levelling, logic, reason ) l think he feels those speakers are not all in with Sophia, she is a side mistress. He philosophically very much presents Christian thoughts, especially the Christ figure. ( who was all in with the word of God )
Even the dialogue in the podcast between David and Elle( cause and effect...time frame of social media) tends to package or level out the words before absorbing them in silence the meaning.
Thanks
( ps) True, it is much easier for a listener to be silent than the ones staging the discussion. Who is more reactive than reflective? Reflective prior to reactive would be a good recipe in philosophy though the clock rules.