Kierkegaard (who had a lot to say on this topic of the self), would have observed that recognizing that it is tricky to reconcile is one very important step. Man is both finite and infinite (or as Ernest Becker put it, half animal, half symbolic) and the entire task of recognizing one's self is dealing with this paradoxical nature.
The suggestion of the top comment to 'accept it' Kierkegaard argues is no solution, it is regression into the finite, vanishing into the crowd. One might be contempt and safe, but still in despair, even without knowing it, which is the worst kind. Getting lost in the infinite, (choice despite being bound by one's finite nature) leads to the paralysis of choice and despair over options not realized.
The actual answer is, according to Kierkegaard, not to remain indifferent, but understand that exactly this struggle is what brings awareness to the self and in his religious reading, God. (which I think does not necessarily have to be taken literally if someone prefers a secular interpretation, he sometimes also spoke of 'creation' or simply, love).
"[...]Ah! So much is spoken about human need and misery and how to overcome it. So much is spoken about wasting our lives. But the only wasted life is the life of one who has so lived it, deceived by life’s pleasures or its sorrows, that that person never became decisively, eternally, conscious of him or herself as spirit, as a self. Or, if I may put it another way, such a person has never become aware — and gained in the deepest sense the impression — that there is a God and that that person, him or herself, is answerable to and exists before this God, and that this God can only be met by way of despair. Alas! so many live their lives in denial, decapitated from eternity. So many are not aware of their true destiny, defrauding themselves of this most blessed of all realities."
> (which I think does not necessarily have to be taken literally if someone prefers a secular interpretation
This would land you on one of the earlier stages on Kierkegaards path to “enlightenment”. It’s extremely hard to follow kierkegaard down the path you want without including faith.
It’s important to note that kierkegaard saw the Christian Church of Denmark as the biggest opponent of Christianity, however, and as such it’s entirely possible to take the lessons and direct your faith wherever you may want. Religion to kierkegaard was two things. It was organised religion and following rituals without ever questioning it. And it was self enlightenment in coming to realise that there is more to the world than you will ever understand and that God is real.
Then again, Kierkegaard also favoured monarchy above democracy, and you can certainly pick and chose, but I really don’t see how you can interpret Kierkegaards stages of life without faith considering the final answer is solely about faith.
> The suggestion of the top comment to 'accept it' Kierkegaard argues is no solution, it is regression into the finite, vanishing into the crowd.
That’s not exactly right is it? Kierkegaard very specifically commented on regret as useless and one of the most famous quotes of his is “hang yourself and you will regret it, don’t hang yourself and you’ll regret that as well. Hang or don’t hang yourself, you will regret your decision either way.”
You’re right as far as not letting regret limit you, but if not shooting for the stars is where your meaning is, then Kierkegaard is not against that as is shown in two other famous quotes. On on the fruitlessness of being busy achieving things that have no deeper meaning to you, and one on the virtue of being idle and unproductive to society but engaged within your own mind.
Yes, Kierkegaard certainly considers regret useless in that sense, but it is very easy to go from a position of not regretting things into a 'the dude' style indifference. He makes very clear that there is a difference between spiritual despair, which can exist even when mind and body are seemingly at rest, and that one need not even be aware of that despair.
It's one thing to consciously reject things that have no deeper meaning, and to engage with one's own mind, but in particular nowadays an attitude of indifference is also common. That is to say rejection of superficial things not because you're truly discovering your mind/spirit/faith etc but simply for safety and contentedness. And I don't think Kierkegaard had the intention to advocate for this kind of withdrawal.
The suggestion of the top comment to 'accept it' Kierkegaard argues is no solution, it is regression into the finite, vanishing into the crowd. One might be contempt and safe, but still in despair, even without knowing it, which is the worst kind. Getting lost in the infinite, (choice despite being bound by one's finite nature) leads to the paralysis of choice and despair over options not realized.
The actual answer is, according to Kierkegaard, not to remain indifferent, but understand that exactly this struggle is what brings awareness to the self and in his religious reading, God. (which I think does not necessarily have to be taken literally if someone prefers a secular interpretation, he sometimes also spoke of 'creation' or simply, love).
"[...]Ah! So much is spoken about human need and misery and how to overcome it. So much is spoken about wasting our lives. But the only wasted life is the life of one who has so lived it, deceived by life’s pleasures or its sorrows, that that person never became decisively, eternally, conscious of him or herself as spirit, as a self. Or, if I may put it another way, such a person has never become aware — and gained in the deepest sense the impression — that there is a God and that that person, him or herself, is answerable to and exists before this God, and that this God can only be met by way of despair. Alas! so many live their lives in denial, decapitated from eternity. So many are not aware of their true destiny, defrauding themselves of this most blessed of all realities."