This state has no attributions. An extreme idea ought to be there, which is neither consequential, nor egoistic. That is faultless in own-self.
In the case of not being believer, you are in a very complicated situation. You know what to do, you know truth, you like to follow, you like to be active in the way, you like, but you can't. Finally you will find yourself in unsolvable situation. And for being alive as soon as you felt, you have to emigrate to isolating level. But there is fundamental difference between you and first type of person. Difference will not be solved at all, except by chance and this is because of the conditions which are necessary for converting level 1 to level 2. Those conditions are not similar and must not be, as they have difference in origin.
Who gave strength to Abraham's arm, who kept his right arm raised so that it did not fall helplessly down! Anyone who saw this would be paralyzed.
Who gave strength to Abraham's soul, so that his eye did not become too clouded to see either Isaac or the ram! Anyone who saw this would become blind.
And yet rare enough through they may be, those who are both paralyzed and blind, still more rare is he who can tell the story and give it its due.
We know it, all of us - it was only trial.
Soren Kierkegaard - Fear and Trembling
The fundamental subject of “The Myth of Sisyphus” is this: it is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face. The answer, underlying and appearing through the paradoxes which cover it, is this: even if one does not believe in God, suicide is not legitimate.
The Myth Of Sisyphus And Other Essays
Translated from the French by Justin O’Brien
This I do sec: that the privilege or primacy which I ascribe to my mental equipment, and to what belongs to it, is conceived or imagined by analogy with the fundamental and unthinkable privilege which distinguishes my body in so far as it is mine. In this privilege my ideas, in so far as they are mine, have an indirect share.
Would it make sense to say that having and being are, as it were, essential concentrations of space and time? I am not sure.
Being and Having 1949 - Gabriel Marcel
Chapter I [A Metaphysical Diary] - Page 86
A translation by: Katharine Farrer
of Eire et Avoir
One of the most important points, for Gabriel Marcel - as an existentialist - is "being and having".
According to him, " when we hope, we do not have hope. We are hope. Similarly, we do not have a belief. We are belief."
" My body insofar as it is my body, is both something that I have and something that I am, and can not be adequately accounted for using either of those descriptions alone."
So consequently, an individual never can be completely connected to h/imself in one direction.
*h/is = her/his
*s/he = she/he