User Tag List

First 233132333435 Last

Results 321 to 330 of 349

  1. #321
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Kierkegaard had to endure social gossip concerning his breakup with Regine Olsen.

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Kierkegaard's breakup was not the source of his ostracization, his attack on religion was. But hey nice try.
    Peguy is not wrong about Kierkegaard suffering socially because of the break up.

    It did create social gossip and the blackening of Kierkegaard's name and character at the time. He fled to Berlin as a result.

    Source: Kierkegaard by Josiah Thompson, pp. 91-116


    "Sren Kierkegaard" by J. G. Robertson
    The Modern Language Review, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Oct., 1914), pp. 500-513

  2. #322
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Peguy is not wrong about Kierkegaard suffering socially because of the break up.

    It did create social gossip and the blackening of Kierkegaard's name and character at the time. He fled to Berlin as a result.

    Source: Kierkegaard by Josiah Thompson, pp. 91-116


    "Sren Kierkegaard" by J. G. Robertson
    The Modern Language Review, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Oct., 1914), pp. 500-513
    Are you serious??? You really want to make the claim that he was ostracized because of the breakup...and that that is somehow relevant to the claim that I made regarding the fact that men have routinely chosen a life of contemplation/work, over marriage, without being called commitment-phobic throughout history? Every single man I mentioned went on to a live productive, interesting live without being married. I can give a list three times as long as the one I provided if you'd like. Those were the first that readily came to mind. Even old Kierkegaard did all right for himself, despite his supposed two minutes of social discomfort regarding the demise of his non-marriage (we were talking about marriage right?) to Regine. Social gossip does not equate with being ostracized and Kierkegaard broke up with Regine because he wasn't a happy camper in the first place. He didn't flee to Berlin simply because he got into trouble for being commitment-phobic. Puhleeeease.

  3. #323
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Are you serious??? You really want to make the claim that he was ostracized because of the breakup.
    I was merely backing Peguy up as being correct in that Kierkegaard did suffer social consequences for breaking off with Regine. He did flee in an attempt to mitigate gossip.

    Breaking of engagments in his time was seen as breech of promise and very serious.

    I really don't care much about the other agenda you've attached here, just the one point that you were accusing Peguy of being wrong about, because he wasn't wrong.


    I agree that some people are not suited to marriage.

  4. #324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Both Kierkegaard and Rousseau had to face being ostracised from society during their latter years. Rousseau is known to have had a few illegitimate children. Kierkegaard had to endure social gossip concerning his breakup with Regine Olsen.
    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I was merely backing Peguy up as being correct in that Kierkegaard did suffer social consequences for breaking off with Regine. He did flee in an attempt to mitigate gossip.

    Breaking of engagments in his time was seen as breech of promise and very serious.

    I really don't care much about the other agenda you've attached here, just the one point that you were accusing Peguy of being wrong about, because he wasn't wrong.

    I agree that some people are not suited to marriage.
    This is what I was responding to, and no Kierkegaard was not faced with ostracization because of the ending of his affair with Regine. Neither he (Peguy), nor you, are correct about that. Social gossip is a fact of life for everyone. I guarantee you it's just as prevalent about and among the supposedly happily married.

    About Rousseau, you're also dead wrong. There is an entire empirical record which supports what I said. You don't get to make claims about the subjective reality of other people. You have absolutely no clue about what that is or was like, especially when you are talking about someone that's been dead for over 200 hundred years. There is a mountain of evidence that Rousseau and his NON-wife had many children which they abandoned, all during the time in which he was a major figure in society. He NEVER suffered any social consequences for his choice to not marry.

    Regarding the rest of your post...pffft, whatever...

  5. #325
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    This is what I was responding to, and no Kierkegaard was not faced with ostracization because of the ending of his affair with Regine.
    He went to Berlin, so it will never be known if he would have suffered social exclusion in Copenhagen at the time of the scandal.

    And Rousseau certainly did suffer the loss of important friends, like Diderot over the way he treated his children. These conflicts led in part to his later paranoias that alientated even more people.

  6. #326
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    He went to Berlin, so it will never be known if he would have suffered social exclusion in Copenhagen at the time of the scandal.

    And Rousseau certainly did suffer the loss of important friends, like Diderot over the way he treated his children. These conflicts led in part to his later paranoias that alientated even more people.
    I think it's just awesome that you believe that you can read the minds of long-dead philosophers, but sorry you still have no clue what caused his paranoia. He had a pretty horrid childhood, I'd be willing to wager that that probably led to more of his difficulties than the social ostracism that he didn't actually suffer. Rousseau routinely cut people off and out of his life...for reasons that clearly had nothing to do with his unmarried, babymaking ways. Being the avid reader you are, you may want to look into the history of his falling out with Hume (in which the actual causes are accounted for by Rousseau himself) for evidence of this. In the meantime here's a little tidbit on Diderot (Diderot's beef with Rousseau clearly wasn't about Rousseau's marital status, there were plenty of other aspects of the man that were not terribly pleasant to which he objected)

    He also pursued an unconsummated romantic attachment with the twenty-five-year old Sophie d'Houdetot, which partly inspired his epistolary novel, Julie, ou la nouvelle Hlose (also based on memories of his idyllic youthful relationship with Mme de Warens). Sophie was the cousin and house guest of Rousseau's patroness and landlady Madame d'Epinay, whom he treated rather high highhandedly. He resented being at Mme d'Epinay's beck and call and detested the insincere conversation and shallow atheism of the Encyclopedistes whom he met at her table. Wounded feelings gave rise to a bitter three-way quarrel between Rousseau and Madame d'Epinay; her lover, the philologist Grimm; and their mutual friend, Diderot, who took their side against Rousseau. Diderot later described Rousseau as being, "false, vain as Satan, ungrateful, cruel, hypocritical, and wicked ... He sucked ideas from me, used them himself, and then affected to despise me".

  7. #327
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    I think it's just awesome that you believe that you can read the minds of long-dead philosophers, but sorry you still have no clue what caused his paranoia. He had a pretty horrid childhood, I'd be willing to wager that that probably led to more of his difficulties than the social ostracism that he didn't actually suffer. Rousseau routinely cut people off and out of his life...for reasons that clearly had nothing to do with his unmarried, babymaking ways. Being the avid reader you are, you may want to look into the history of his falling out with Hume (in which the actual causes are accounted for by Rousseau himself) for evidence of this. In the meantime here's a little tidbit on Diderot (Diderot's beef with Rousseau clearly wasn't about Rousseau's marital status, there were plenty of other aspects of the man that were not terribly pleasant to which he objected)
    I never said Diderot held any grudge against Rousseau about not being married. (I am not sure why you want to add to what I am saying.) It was only about the way he treated his children in constrast to the way he presented his ideal of childrearing in his works.

  8. #328
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I never said Diderot held any grudge against Rousseau about not being married. (I am not sure why you want to add to what I am saying.) It was only about the way he treated his children in constrast to the way he presented his ideal of childrearing in his works.

    Maybe because this entire thread is about children born out of wedlock. Diderot had bigger fish to fry with Rousseau than that of the way he didn't treat the children he didn't raise. Rousseau was as justified in taking a stance regarding the rearing of children as you are, and it was likely his lack of experience (he never actually raised any of them, seems a little suspect to call giving up a child "treatment"....treatment generally involves some sort of interaction with the individual being "treated") that led to the ideal he laid out in Emile.

    Nevertheless, my original point has been made. These men had decent lives and were not penalized for their choice not to marry. I'd done with this tangent.

  9. #329
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Marriage could have invented then evolved for childrens sake. Maybe people long ago noticed when they conducted the ritual the child seemed more secure. And when those people didn't conduct the ritual the child seemed less secure. Then the ritual was adopted as common sense practice for the sake of children.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  10. #330
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Maybe because this entire thread is about children born out of wedlock. Diderot had bigger fish to fry with Rousseau than that of the way he didn't treat the children he didn't raise. Rousseau was as justified in taking a stance regarding the rearing of children as you are, and it was likely his lack of experience (he never actually raised any of them, seems a little suspect to call giving up a child "treatment"....treatment generally involves some sort of interaction with the individual being "treated") that led to the ideal he laid out in Emile.

    Nevertheless, my original point has been made. These men had decent lives and were not penalized for their choice not to marry. I'd done with this tangent.
    You broadened the scope of the thread and brought in new topics and tangents. You changed the subject from more children being born out of wedlock and whether or not this is good for those children to a discussion of whether or not marriage is fair to adult women and then moved on to many other aspects. So you have participated as much as anyone in broadening the scope of the discussion and therefore have little room to niggle others for doing the same.


    One thing to remember about Rousseau's situation is that most people (His public) did not know about his children being sent out as they were (or even their existence) and under the circumstances they were (to an orphange where it is said it was basically infanticide to send them there, massive numbers of children going through there and dying).

    Only people close to him knew and when some of them tried to use the information against him, Rousseau would deny it and be believed over his attackers. So the public really didn't accept this as truth until his Confessions was published after his death. So it can be said, among the people who did know, he did suffer the loss of reputation and it would have been damaging enough to him that he felt the need to lie and cover it up until after his death.

Similar Threads

  1. "14 out of 9 people are a disguised puppet": the Truth about Science
    By Mal12345 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-16-2014, 01:42 PM
  2. Which of these kind of people are you attraced to/would rather be....?
    By Illmatic in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-08-2011, 04:32 PM
  3. Which of these kind of people are you attraced to/would rather be....?
    By Illmatic in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2011, 02:56 AM
  4. [ISTP] If 6% of people are supposed ISTPs
    By esidebill in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 06-07-2011, 01:33 PM
  5. I don't know who any of you people are any more
    By prplchknz in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 11:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO