Transgression of limits as fundamental to human condition

 Collated by Tusar Nath Mohapatra

Yes, Kierkegaard and Ricoeur can be compared with Berkeley, but primarily as points of philosophical contrast rather than similarity. While Kierkegaard and Ricoeur are associated with existentialism and phenomenology's focus on the individual subject and lived experience, Berkeley's idealism is fundamentally different, asserting that reality is only perceived as ideas in a mind. The comparison hinges on their divergent views of the self, reality, and the relationship between them. 

Kierkegaard vs. Berkeley

• Kierkegaard: An existentialist, he emphasized the individual's subjective experience, freedom, and responsibility in creating meaning, particularly through "leap of faith" and ethical choices.
• Berkeley: An idealist, he argued that objects only exist insofar as they are perceived ("esse est percipi") and are sustained by a divine mind.
• Comparison: The key difference is that Kierkegaard's philosophy is rooted in the lived, often paradoxical, experience of the individual, while Berkeley's is based on the nature of perception and the existence of a divine observer. 

Ricoeur vs. Berkeley

• Ricoeur: A phenomenologist and hermeneutic philosopher, he explored the self through narrative identity and the interpretation of texts and lived experiences. He focused on a "capable self" that develops through interactions with the world and others.
• Berkeley: As noted above, Berkeley's idealism is a theory of perception and existence, not a philosophy of selfhood or interpretation in the same way as Ricoeur's work.
• Comparison: Ricoeur's focus is on the dynamic, narrative construction of the self, while Berkeley's is on the fundamental nature of reality and existence itself. 

How to compare them

• Point of contrast: The most significant point of comparison is that Kierkegaard and Ricoeur focus on the self, identity, and meaning from a subjective, existential, and narrative standpoint, whereas Berkeley's philosophy is concerned with the objective reality of the world and is founded on the idea that it is all "in the mind".
• Metaphysical vs. phenomenological: Berkeley's idealism is a metaphysical position about the nature of reality, while Kierkegaard's existentialism and Ricoeur's phenomenology are primarily concerned with the human experience and understanding of reality.
• The role of the self: For Kierkegaard and Ricoeur, the self is an active agent that creates its own meaning and identity. For Berkeley, the self is a percipient, and the existence of a distinct, individual "self" is secondary to God's perception of ideas. 

- GoogleAI 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Can+Kierkegaard+and+Paul+Ricouer+be+compared+with+Berkeley+&client

Vico, Hamann, and Bataille can be compared by their shared emphasis on the role of

myth and symbol in human understanding, though their ultimate aims differed: Vico and Hamann focused on human creation and history through language, while Bataille explored the transgressive, often violent, aspects of human experience. All three critiqued Enlightenment rationalism by highlighting the limitations of abstract, detached knowledge in favor of the messy, symbolic reality of human existence. 

Shared critiques of Enlightenment rationalism 

• Critique of pure reason: All three philosophers were critical of the Enlightenment emphasis on clear, distinct, and abstract rational knowledge, which they saw as inadequate for understanding the human world.
• Importance of myth and symbol: They all recognized that human understanding is not purely rational but is shaped by language, myth, and symbol.
• Turn to the human and the historical: Vico, Hamann, and Bataille all turned away from the study of nature to focus on the human world of culture, history, and the social, though they approached this in different ways. 

Vico and Hamann: The creation of meaning 

• Vico: Focused on how humans create their own history and social world through what he called "maker's knowledge" (
  

  $\text{verum et factum}$
  ), which is rooted in language and communication. He saw history as the product of shared cultural practices and the evolution of language.
• Hamann: Argued that thought itself is inextricably linked to language and that there are no "pure" or "clear and distinct" ideas that can exist apart from a symbolic medium. He saw language as a creative, not a transparent, medium for understanding the world. 

Bataille: Transgression and excess 

• Bataille: Shared a similar starting point to Vico and Hamann in critiquing rationalism but focused on the human experiences that lie beyond rational control.
• Focus on the "abject": He explored the darker, more transgressive aspects of human experience—such as violence, death, and sacrifice—that are often suppressed by rational systems.
• Critique of utility: Bataille believed that human existence is not solely about production and utility but also involves a "non-productive" expenditure of energy and a "sovereign" experience of excess and loss that defies rational analysis. 

How they differ 

• The purpose of the analysis: Vico and Hamann were focused on building a science of culture based on how humans create meaning, while Bataille was more interested in the breakdown of those systems through the exploration of what lies beyond them.
• Role of violence: While Vico saw violence as a part of the historical cycles of civilization, Bataille saw violence and the transgression of limits as a fundamental part of the human condition itself.
• Ultimate value: Vico and Hamann saw meaning-making as the fundamental human activity, whereas Bataille saw the "non-productive" expenditure of excess as a potentially more fundamental aspect of being human. 

- GoogleAI 

https://www.google.com/search?q=How+Vico+and+Hamann+can+be+compared+to+Bataille&client