As earlier stated, there exists a lot of similarities in both the despair in weakness and despair in defianc

Asearlier stated, there exists a lot of similarities in both thedespair in weakness and despair in defiance. As explained byKierkegaard (45) when there occurs an increase in the level ofconsciousness, in the same proportion as in the increase ofconsciousness, the amount of despair also increases. The higher thelevel of consciousness then the stronger the level of despair is. Inboth forms of despair therefore, it is a measure of how conscious orunconscious one is and how that affects their being. As explained inthe despair of weakness, a despaired individual does not want to behimself. Nonetheless he progresses in one dialectical step further,and the desire and the conscious of the reason as to why thedespaired does not want to be himself then the scenario changes wherenow defiance is present. Arguably, the Despair in weakness anddespair in Defiance are not different but are just stages of despairbased on the argument presented above (Kierkegaard 64).

Oneof the major differences between the despair in defiance and despairin weakness is the fact that the despair in weakness is actually as aresult of one’s weaknesses and therefore, a person with despair inweakness is interested with the external than the internal. Theexternal environment defines their satisfaction of life what theyhave and do not have. A change in their external would create asatisfaction and according to their judgment they would not despair.The author gives an example of a poor man who gets money and proceedsto buy the material things that he so much wanted to acquire but didnot have the ability to acquire. Firstly, this is a despair definedby weakness of not have money to purchase material possession andtherefore, money would create some state of satisfaction and theindividual would think they are not in that state of despair anymore.Nonetheless, even with the change in the external, the poor man stilldoes not change the definition of himself since after he got drunkand fell asleep by the road side, and being told that to put asidehis legs not to be run over he does not recognize his legs with shoesand stockings. He thinks of telling the man to run them over they arenot his legs. That is an indication that the despair in materialpossession is more internal than external. On the other hand, fordespair in defiance material possession cannot alter the person’sview of himself he does not wish to have something in order to be outof despair as viewed in the despair in weakness a major difference inthe two forms of despair (Kierkegaard 58).

Despairin weakness is motivated by the environment to lose itself. Anindividual in despair in weakness, wishes that things would changeand turnout in another way this individual does not wish to start andinitiate the change but wishes to change to be someone else whom theydesire. The author explains that individuals in despair due toweakness try to imitate other people that according to theindividual’s judgment are in a better position. In a nut shelldespair in weakness wishes to lose itself. On the contrary, despairin defiance is not moved by what the external is. It is not moved byother people who dress well or have better cars. It is moreinterested in being itself it knows what it is not what it issupposed to be but works or wishes to be itself. In a nutshell, inthe despair in defiance, despair is conscious of its self ideally asa deed. As earlier explained it is existent oblivious of the pressureof circumstances and is therefore not brought about by thesurrounding this form of defiance comes directly from the self. Indefiance despair there must be consciousness of the infinite self,unlike in the despair in weakness (Kierkegaard 65).

Notably,another difference is trying and seeking a solution in both forms ofdespair. In defiant despair, an individual seeks to be oneself andwishes to become a master of himself. In this scenario an individualwould accept any help even from God. Nonetheless, the individualwould want the help under conditions that they would set themselves.They would accept help even from a superior helper but on conditionthat the superior help agrees to offer the help in line with theindividual’s instructions or conditions. Since accepting to workaccording to the helper would mean giving up their freedom to thehelper. On the other hand an individual in Despair in weakness wouldbe satisfied if they acquired the material possessions that they somuch desired. Additionally, the despair in weakness would besatisfied if they were able to change oneself while on the otherhand, Despair in defiance would be satisfied if the get to a positionof becoming oneself a master of their own (Kierkegaard 50).

Conclusion

Asearlier discussed there exists similarities in both the despair inweakness and despair in defiance. The author explains that whenthere occurs an increase in the level of consciousness, in the sameproportion as in the increase of consciousness, the amount of despairalso increases. The higher the level of consciousness then thestronger the level of despair is. In both forms of despair therefore,it is a measure of how conscious or unconscious one is and how thataffects their being. As explained in the despair of weakness, adespaired individual does not want to be himself. Nonetheless heprogresses in one dialectical step further, and the desire and theconscious of the reason as to why the despaired does not want to behimself then the scenario changes where now defiance is present forthen it is indeed because of this that the individual is despondentlydetermined to be himself. Nonetheless, a closer look at the two formsof despair has a lot of differences too. One of the major differencesof between the despair in defiance and despair in weakness is thefact that the despair in weakness is as a result of one’sweaknesses and therefore, a person with despair in weakness and isinterested with the external than the internal is defines theirsatisfaction of life with what they have and do not have while on theother hand, In defiant despair, an individual seeks to be oneself andwishes to become a master of himself. In the despair in weakness, anindividual is motivated by the external to lose itself while on theother hand despair on defiance is as a result of some eternal reasonswanting to be itself and a master of itself. In defiant despair, anindividual seeks to be oneself and wishes to become a master ofhimself while on the contrary despair in weakness seeks to be otherpeople or wishes that the situation would have turned outdifferently. Conclusively, as much as there are similarities betweendespair in weakness and despair in defiance, there also existdifferences between the two.

Reference

SörenKierkegaard. Kierkegaard,Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey &quotThe SicknessUnto Death.&quot&nbspTheSickness Unto Death&nbsp(1941):45-81. Web.

As earlier stated, there exists a lot of similarities in both the despair in weakness and despair in defianc

Asearlier stated, there exists a lot of similarities in both thedespair in weakness and despair in defiance. As explained byKierkegaard (45) when there occurs an increase in the level ofconsciousness, in the same proportion as in the increase ofconsciousness, the amount of despair also increases. The higher thelevel of consciousness then the stronger the level of despair is. Inboth forms of despair therefore, it is a measure of how conscious orunconscious one is and how that affects their being. As explained inthe despair of weakness, a despaired individual does not want to behimself. Nonetheless he progresses in one dialectical step further,and the desire and the conscious of the reason as to why thedespaired does not want to be himself then the scenario changes wherenow defiance is present. Arguably, the Despair in weakness anddespair in Defiance are not different but are just stages of despairbased on the argument presented above (Kierkegaard 64).

Oneof the major differences between the despair in defiance and despairin weakness is the fact that the despair in weakness is actually as aresult of one’s weaknesses and therefore, a person with despair inweakness is interested with the external than the internal. Theexternal environment defines their satisfaction of life what theyhave and do not have. A change in their external would create asatisfaction and according to their judgment they would not despair.The author gives an example of a poor man who gets money and proceedsto buy the material things that he so much wanted to acquire but didnot have the ability to acquire. Firstly, this is a despair definedby weakness of not have money to purchase material possession andtherefore, money would create some state of satisfaction and theindividual would think they are not in that state of despair anymore.Nonetheless, even with the change in the external, the poor man stilldoes not change the definition of himself since after he got drunkand fell asleep by the road side, and being told that to put asidehis legs not to be run over he does not recognize his legs with shoesand stockings. He thinks of telling the man to run them over they arenot his legs. That is an indication that the despair in materialpossession is more internal than external. On the other hand, fordespair in defiance material possession cannot alter the person’sview of himself he does not wish to have something in order to be outof despair as viewed in the despair in weakness a major difference inthe two forms of despair (Kierkegaard 58).

Despairin weakness is motivated by the environment to lose itself. Anindividual in despair in weakness, wishes that things would changeand turnout in another way this individual does not wish to start andinitiate the change but wishes to change to be someone else whom theydesire. The author explains that individuals in despair due toweakness try to imitate other people that according to theindividual’s judgment are in a better position. In a nut shelldespair in weakness wishes to lose itself. On the contrary, despairin defiance is not moved by what the external is. It is not moved byother people who dress well or have better cars. It is moreinterested in being itself it knows what it is not what it issupposed to be but works or wishes to be itself. In a nutshell, inthe despair in defiance, despair is conscious of its self ideally asa deed. As earlier explained it is existent oblivious of the pressureof circumstances and is therefore not brought about by thesurrounding this form of defiance comes directly from the self. Indefiance despair there must be consciousness of the infinite self,unlike in the despair in weakness (Kierkegaard 65).

Notably,another difference is trying and seeking a solution in both forms ofdespair. In defiant despair, an individual seeks to be oneself andwishes to become a master of himself. In this scenario an individualwould accept any help even from God. Nonetheless, the individualwould want the help under conditions that they would set themselves.They would accept help even from a superior helper but on conditionthat the superior help agrees to offer the help in line with theindividual’s instructions or conditions. Since accepting to workaccording to the helper would mean giving up their freedom to thehelper. On the other hand an individual in Despair in weakness wouldbe satisfied if they acquired the material possessions that they somuch desired. Additionally, the despair in weakness would besatisfied if they were able to change oneself while on the otherhand, Despair in defiance would be satisfied if the get to a positionof becoming oneself a master of their own (Kierkegaard 50).

Conclusion

Asearlier discussed there exists similarities in both the despair inweakness and despair in defiance. The author explains that whenthere occurs an increase in the level of consciousness, in the sameproportion as in the increase of consciousness, the amount of despairalso increases. The higher the level of consciousness then thestronger the level of despair is. In both forms of despair therefore,it is a measure of how conscious or unconscious one is and how thataffects their being. As explained in the despair of weakness, adespaired individual does not want to be himself. Nonetheless heprogresses in one dialectical step further, and the desire and theconscious of the reason as to why the despaired does not want to behimself then the scenario changes where now defiance is present forthen it is indeed because of this that the individual is despondentlydetermined to be himself. Nonetheless, a closer look at the two formsof despair has a lot of differences too. One of the major differencesof between the despair in defiance and despair in weakness is thefact that the despair in weakness is as a result of one’sweaknesses and therefore, a person with despair in weakness and isinterested with the external than the internal is defines theirsatisfaction of life with what they have and do not have while on theother hand, In defiant despair, an individual seeks to be oneself andwishes to become a master of himself. In the despair in weakness, anindividual is motivated by the external to lose itself while on theother hand despair on defiance is as a result of some eternal reasonswanting to be itself and a master of itself. In defiant despair, anindividual seeks to be oneself and wishes to become a master ofhimself while on the contrary despair in weakness seeks to be otherpeople or wishes that the situation would have turned outdifferently. Conclusively, as much as there are similarities betweendespair in weakness and despair in defiance, there also existdifferences between the two.

Reference

SörenKierkegaard. Kierkegaard,Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey &quotThe SicknessUnto Death.&quot&nbspTheSickness Unto Death&nbsp(1941):45-81. Web.