I recently took an online course on Kierkegaard and his philosophy and realized just how much I have missed learning from this "existential" genius all these years.
A Socratic Task
To understand Kierkegaard and his philosophy you need to understand the life and philosophy of another great philosopher of all times--Socrates, the man who claimed "all I know is I know nothing" while pestering others to vet what they say they know, a practice that irritated the Athens city state so much they finally put him on trial and sentenced him to death for the crime of seducing the youth of the day with dangerous thoughts.
Kierkegaard took to heart many elements of Socrates' philosophy and modeled his life and work after them that he called his lifetime work essentially a "Socratic task".
Irony & Negation
Socrates usually started a dialogue pretending he knew nothing while his discussion partner had full grasp on the subject matter, and through step by step questioning stripped down the false understanding his partner had until they realized they didn't really know what they thought they knew before. Kierkegaard was fascinated by such approach since he saw many in his own 19th Century Danish society claimed to know things about which they were in fact ignorant. Also, to Kierkegaard Christianity is at its core an enigma and by means of his writing he wanted others to arrive at their own conception instead of him giving a concrete description of it, which was in line with Socrates' approach of not giving positive definitions to things in question.
Midwifery & Appropriation
The Socrates approach did not mean to make mockery of the person answering the questions but to lead them into deeper thinking, reflecting on the conceptions they hold and finding the truth within themselves. Kierkegaard compared such form of conversing and discussion with the Christian sermon and said, "To preach is really the most difficult of all art... the art of being able to converse." Instead of preaching some external fact or bit of knowledge, the pastor, speaking as one individual to another, should encourage the members of the congregation to find the truth of Christianity in themselves, each in their own way. Every follower of Christ must appropriate the Christian message for him or herself, then.
Absolute Paradox
One view of the popular Hegelian philosophy of Kierkegaard's time asserted there are no absolute distinctions or contradictions between things of opposite nature and everything can be mediated. For example, there is no absolute difference between human and divine, finite and infinite, temporal and eternal; each of these terms are organically related to the other and they jointly form a higher conceptual structure that can then be mediated. The Christian doctrine of Incarnation and Revelation of Christ can thus be given a philosophical explanation with no need of contradiction element. Kierkegaard objected to such explanation and insisted the Revelation is an example of an absolutely fixed, irreducible dichotomy, an either/or that cannot be mediated. He used Socrates as a model, as someone who accepted that there are some things that must be regarded as paradoxes, as he had found at the conclusions of many of his inquisitions into the essence of true knowledge.
Subjective Truth
In Kierkegaard's mind, Christianity should not be a collection of doctrines and dogmas or a systematic theology that tries to explain away the absurdity, contradiction, and paradoxes at the core of its faith, but a passionate embracing of them from the very depth of each individual's own heart. He called such jump from objective knowledge to religious faith a "leap of faith" since it means subjectively accepting statements which cannot be rationally justified, and is outside of, rather than in conflict with, objective truth.
For Socrates, the good is something absolute and universal, but with a subjective element involved in it as well. The revolutionary thought he introduced "reflective morality" involves the individuals consciously considering for themselves what is good, instead of merely accepting it uncritically from their parents, ancestors, or society.
It's All In The Delivery
Because Kierkegaard believed there can be no comprehensible result at the end of mankind's search for the ultimate truth, he dismissed objective reasoning that claims such (pseudo) results while extolled subjective effort: "While objective thought translates everything into results, and helps all mankind to cheat, by copying these off and reciting them by rote, subjective thought puts everything in process and omits the result." Further, "the truth exists only in the process of becoming, in the process of appropriation."
Hence, to his hero truth seeker Socrates, he paid his highest compliment by saying "True, Socrates was no Christian, that I know... I also definitely remain convinced, that he has become one."
*******************************************************************************
Is Kierkegaard and his philosophy relevant today?
The church is no longer a dominant force as in Kierkegaard's time; people are free to pursue their own spiritual journey through various venues. Even within the church itself the teaching stresses less on doctrines and dogmas but more on the importance of "personal relationship" between God and the individual.
The "leap of faith" seems to have lost its dramatic sting when many scientists and rational thinking men and women recognize the different realms science and religion cover and calmly choose to belong to a faith that they know is empirically unprovable.
Kierkegaard's emphasis on the inwardness and subjectivity of individuals and each should seek his/her own truth without imposing it onto others has become such an inviolable norm or common courtesy like saying thank-you and excuse-me in society that breaking it would be considered uncivil.
In all these you might call Kierkegaard and his philosophy irrelevant, or at best the progenitor of many thoughts and spiritual practices we have in our modern and post-modern society.
** On what constitutes objective truth and subjective truth and the relation between them, here's one interesting piece that I think explains it pretty well:
To understand Kierkegaard and his philosophy you need to understand the life and philosophy of another great philosopher of all times--Socrates, the man who claimed "all I know is I know nothing" while pestering others to vet what they say they know, a practice that irritated the Athens city state so much they finally put him on trial and sentenced him to death for the crime of seducing the youth of the day with dangerous thoughts.
Kierkegaard took to heart many elements of Socrates' philosophy and modeled his life and work after them that he called his lifetime work essentially a "Socratic task".
Irony & Negation
Socrates usually started a dialogue pretending he knew nothing while his discussion partner had full grasp on the subject matter, and through step by step questioning stripped down the false understanding his partner had until they realized they didn't really know what they thought they knew before. Kierkegaard was fascinated by such approach since he saw many in his own 19th Century Danish society claimed to know things about which they were in fact ignorant. Also, to Kierkegaard Christianity is at its core an enigma and by means of his writing he wanted others to arrive at their own conception instead of him giving a concrete description of it, which was in line with Socrates' approach of not giving positive definitions to things in question.
Midwifery & Appropriation
The Socrates approach did not mean to make mockery of the person answering the questions but to lead them into deeper thinking, reflecting on the conceptions they hold and finding the truth within themselves. Kierkegaard compared such form of conversing and discussion with the Christian sermon and said, "To preach is really the most difficult of all art... the art of being able to converse." Instead of preaching some external fact or bit of knowledge, the pastor, speaking as one individual to another, should encourage the members of the congregation to find the truth of Christianity in themselves, each in their own way. Every follower of Christ must appropriate the Christian message for him or herself, then.
Absolute Paradox
One view of the popular Hegelian philosophy of Kierkegaard's time asserted there are no absolute distinctions or contradictions between things of opposite nature and everything can be mediated. For example, there is no absolute difference between human and divine, finite and infinite, temporal and eternal; each of these terms are organically related to the other and they jointly form a higher conceptual structure that can then be mediated. The Christian doctrine of Incarnation and Revelation of Christ can thus be given a philosophical explanation with no need of contradiction element. Kierkegaard objected to such explanation and insisted the Revelation is an example of an absolutely fixed, irreducible dichotomy, an either/or that cannot be mediated. He used Socrates as a model, as someone who accepted that there are some things that must be regarded as paradoxes, as he had found at the conclusions of many of his inquisitions into the essence of true knowledge.
Subjective Truth
In Kierkegaard's mind, Christianity should not be a collection of doctrines and dogmas or a systematic theology that tries to explain away the absurdity, contradiction, and paradoxes at the core of its faith, but a passionate embracing of them from the very depth of each individual's own heart. He called such jump from objective knowledge to religious faith a "leap of faith" since it means subjectively accepting statements which cannot be rationally justified, and is outside of, rather than in conflict with, objective truth.
For Socrates, the good is something absolute and universal, but with a subjective element involved in it as well. The revolutionary thought he introduced "reflective morality" involves the individuals consciously considering for themselves what is good, instead of merely accepting it uncritically from their parents, ancestors, or society.
It's All In The Delivery
Because Kierkegaard believed there can be no comprehensible result at the end of mankind's search for the ultimate truth, he dismissed objective reasoning that claims such (pseudo) results while extolled subjective effort: "While objective thought translates everything into results, and helps all mankind to cheat, by copying these off and reciting them by rote, subjective thought puts everything in process and omits the result." Further, "the truth exists only in the process of becoming, in the process of appropriation."
Hence, to his hero truth seeker Socrates, he paid his highest compliment by saying "True, Socrates was no Christian, that I know... I also definitely remain convinced, that he has become one."
*******************************************************************************
Is Kierkegaard and his philosophy relevant today?
The church is no longer a dominant force as in Kierkegaard's time; people are free to pursue their own spiritual journey through various venues. Even within the church itself the teaching stresses less on doctrines and dogmas but more on the importance of "personal relationship" between God and the individual.
The "leap of faith" seems to have lost its dramatic sting when many scientists and rational thinking men and women recognize the different realms science and religion cover and calmly choose to belong to a faith that they know is empirically unprovable.
Kierkegaard's emphasis on the inwardness and subjectivity of individuals and each should seek his/her own truth without imposing it onto others has become such an inviolable norm or common courtesy like saying thank-you and excuse-me in society that breaking it would be considered uncivil.
In all these you might call Kierkegaard and his philosophy irrelevant, or at best the progenitor of many thoughts and spiritual practices we have in our modern and post-modern society.
But the idea that truth is not an understandable object but exists in the process of seeking it, as Socrates and Kierkegaard had spent their lifetimes doing, is universal and relevant for all ages and times, that I do agree and embrace with my own subjective heart and mind!
* Kierkegaard's funeral was an awkward situation for the Danish Church for the apparent reason that Kierkegaard had been attacking them violently up until his death. Still they sent out the presiding pastor of the archdiocese and proceeded to conduct an official service for Kierkegaard.
* Kierkegaard's funeral was an awkward situation for the Danish Church for the apparent reason that Kierkegaard had been attacking them violently up until his death. Still they sent out the presiding pastor of the archdiocese and proceeded to conduct an official service for Kierkegaard.
During the burial, however, Kierkegaard's nephew, a young medical student named Henrik Lund who was doing his residency at the hospital where Kierkegaard's health declined and eventually died, rose up and made a long, agitating speech to the crowd. He explained that he was not only Kierkegaard's relative but also his friend that agreed with his views and felt obligated to speak out for Kierkegaard since everyone in the funeral seemed to have been talking around the point and avoided mentioning Kierkegaard's actual opinions and writings.
He pointed out the fact that the Danish Church is conducting the funeral for Kierkegaard is vindication of the correctness of Kierkegaard's attack on it. The Church, according to Kierkegaard, has forfeited making difficult demands of its followers and made becoming a Christian a simple matter of course, thus distorting and even destroying the actual content of Christianity. Kierkegaard has done everything possible to distance himself from such "official church" during the last years of his life, yet the Danish state church still accords him such rites of funeral and burial as if he were a loyal member, which demonstrates the Danish Church has no meaningful conception of Christianity, as Kierkegaard himself had argued. What does Danish church represent then, "the political powers, financial concerns, and so forth," Lund denounced!
At the end of his speech he enjoined people to leave the official church lest they should become a sinful accomplice to it. (Got an inkling why the ancient Athenians had to put that dangerous Socrates to death for fear of him influencing young people and subverting existing social orders☺) The crowd cheered and jeered while the presiding pastor tried to stop him.
The whole event was considered a scandal and added ripples to Kierkegaard's already controversial articles that took years to recede.
** On what constitutes objective truth and subjective truth and the relation between them, here's one interesting piece that I think explains it pretty well:
Three umpires go to a bar for a drink after a baseball game. They are talking about the nature of balls and strikes.
One says, "There are balls and strikes and I call balls and strikes."
The next one says, "No, no. There are only balls and strikes once I call them balls and strikes."
The third downs the rest of his beer and humbly explains, "You are both wrong. There are balls and strikes, and we call them as we see them."
No comments:
Post a Comment