Week 1

Reflections about the Sickness undo Death by Kierkegaard and the Metamorphosis by Kafka.


For myself, Gregor's metamorphosis was an absurd story. How come that Gregor at no point questions his transformation to his changed state, despite various references in the story about him being a decent (hard working, family man) human?

At the beginning of Sickness undo Death, Kierkegaards somewhat weird point on the self relating itself to itself and itself to others was quite nicely illustrated by Gregor's odyssey as described by Kafka. The self emerges only in relation to others, but must also be bound in time and space. Thus, the self must be contained in a body, and for Gregor, the morning of his metamorphosis and following events, highlighted the importance of such a relation. Despite keeping all of his mental capacities, he must adapt to being a small bug and upon opening the door does so in a very human way, which aggravates his new body. He soon learns that a favourite dish of his as a human, milk, seems unappealing to him and instead his tastes change towards more insect like wants. He continues to develop into a being that is in no relation to his former family, despite somewhat observing their everyday life. His detachment from his human body is also evident when his sister and mother try to move out his much loved furniture. In a way, despite wanting it to benefit from the more space, it represents a radical break with the past (in which, he seems to have been quite a good fellow) and illustrates the dire situation he is in.

In some way's he commits suicide, as he decides not to devour the offered food. But does that constitute a self-conscious act or does he (perhaps absurdly) believe that his death is just the passing towards the next stage of life, as emphasized by Christianity?

I feel that once I read Kierkegaard’s text, Gregor classifies as “But in despair as he is, he does not dare to let it come to such a decision. There he stands still, time passes- unless, even more in despair, he succeeds in healing it by forgetting it, and this instead of becoming a penitent, he becomes his own receiver of stolen goods.” (Kierkegaard, 2004, p.90-91). Since he despairs for instance about the houses outside of the window that he, as a result of his transformation is no longer able to observe. In my point of view, he does not reach a higher level of despair, such as those described by Kierkegaard. He seems quite content with the situation and, as Kierkegaard described, despite not exhibiting despair, him and much of the population still suffer from this contradiction. What are your opinions on his (mental) state?


Another point of discussion I want to take up is despair in the youth and ask you on your opinion of the people starring in the following video.
Have a look at this video (no need to watch it all- although it is quite cool) and tell me your thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK_sgbeWlRw

Kierkegaard (2004) mentions that the most common form of despair is about something earthly or over the earthly. He, and I think his description is fitting for the “crazy” climbers, notes that (persons who despair more as compared to others)  “They have not learned to fear, have not learned “to have to” without any dependence, none at all, upon whatever else happens. Therefore, they are unable to bear what already appears to them to be a contradiction, what in reflection in the surroundings looks all the more glaring, so that to be concerned about one’s soul and to will to be spirit seems to be a waste of time in the world, indeed, and indefensible waste of time that … is punished in any case with scorn and contempt as a kind of treason against the human race, as a defiant madness that insanely fills out time with nothing (p.87-88)”.

Would you consider them to be in despair, or are they regular people who have not felt it? Would you think that they are religious (in that they are Christian and believe that their self is in an eternal state whatever happens to them?