-Sartre and Kant. Ecclesiastes was better.

-To take Ecclesiastes seriously. There is no pleasant, suburban “be a good guy” mentality. If any could have had it, he could have. The universe cannot be, for anyone, a couch we can pleasantly pass time on and get by, just for our own reason for doing so.  This would be absurdity and vexation of spirit.

-Kierkegaard: to the lover of sense pleasures, or “the good guy”, life is ironic. They are saved from it by seeing their ironic existence.  Our duty is to show its irony. This is apologetics.

-Human life finds itself in the presence of a “big question about what it all means” and there is no possibility to just shrug in the face of it, or fire off ironic and dismissive clever answers. The world cannot be pleasantly adjusted to. We must transcend it or call it absurd. Real absurdity or real divine union. Everything else is insipid and ultimately dishonest. The Lukewarm.

-The sort of mentality that could read the Symposium and say “well, it doesn’t all need to lead to something like that- my life could be perfectly meaningful without all that”. Dishonesty.

%d bloggers like this: