Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Kierkegaard, as we all know, is the father of existentialism. His philosophy probes man's existential condition and the dilemma of "becoming a true self". His works discuss obstacles towards becoming this true or authentic self: anxiety, despair, boredom, death, choice... but is he an existentialist himself?

An important difference between Kierkegaard and the 20th century existentialists is that Kierkegaard grounds subjectivity with objectivity; the 20th century existentialists only use physical limits or Faciticity.

For example, the existentialists say, that aside from historical and physical limitations (like being born in the 70s and inability to walk to Neptune without gravity and an oxygen tank), there are no limits to the subjective values you create. And because there are no external values, these subjective values are groundless. As Sartre says, we self-create the values and there are no objective values on which to base them on.

For Kierkegaard, as he writes that one must find a truth that is true for me, the idea for which I can live or die; he still grounds the truth that is true for him on objectivity. Because Kierkegaard argues that if values are groundless and not grounded on objectivity, how can one distinguish a value from madness?

In the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard as Johannes Climacus writes, "the objective way deems itself to have a security which the subjective way does not have (and, of course, existence and existing cannot be thought in combination with objective security); it thinks to escape a danger which threatens the subjective way and this danger is at its maximum: madness. In a merely subjective determination of the truth, madness and truth become in the last analysis indistinguishable."

For Kierkegaard and the existentialists, choice and value appropration for the individual is paramount. However, for the existentialists, an individual creates values and ground them on nothing. For Kiekregaard, the values an individual possess must be measured against objectivity, otherwise madness and truth are "indistinguishable". Is it better that there are some objective limits to our subjectivity or is the existentialist's unconditional freedom better?

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

Is it better that there are some objective limits to our subjectivity or is the existentialist's unconditional freedom better?

First of all, I wanted to thank you for the post. I'm fascinated by Kierkegaard but still rather new to him and often perplexed...part of the reason I love his work, I'm sure. This post illuminated a few things.

With that said, I think the above quoted question is a truly thought-provoking one, and your article was a great way to arrive at it. I'm going to let it percolate in my mind over the next few days. Thanks again.

@Victor Eremita,

Hi Victor, I enjoy reading your contributions to the forum, thanks.

Regarding value: I find the madness is mankind's blind faith in the uncertain measure of nature and the destructive divisions of inequity it has created. Uncertain as science has proven nature can be only measured probable at best. Thus QM.

Life without the flaw of measure is simply the true Oneness of All.
Equal is the absolute that makes it so.
Try it and you'll see.
E = mc2
Removing the uncertain values in Einstein's equation leaves only the absolute true foundation of an equation, and = is that single certainty or truth.

Freedom: Only the truth of equality will set us free.

=
MJA

@MJA,

Thanks Victor for all your thought provoking posts.
With this one though, I am having a problem squaring it with what I think SK is trying to point to in his writings, but I am still learning. Maybe you could help me sort this out.
(From the book "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" the chapter on ""Truth Is Subjectivity").

Victor wrote: grounds subjectivity with objectivitygrounds the truth that is true for him on objectivity."

"For Kierkegaard the values an individual possess must be measured against objectivity

Are you concluding then that SK is saying:

1) Truth is objectivity?
2) or, Truth is a synthesis of the objective and the subjective?
3) or, how would you put it in your own words?

I first want to make sure that I am not misunderstanding you.

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

Thanks Victor for all your thought provoking posts.
With this one though, I am having a problem squaring it with what I think SK is trying to point to in his writings, but I am still learning. Maybe you could help me sort this out.
(From the book "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" the chapter on ""Truth Is Subjectivity").

Victor wrote:
grounds the truth that is true for him on objectivity."

"For Kierkegaard the values an individual possess must be measured against objectivity

Are you concluding then that SK is saying:

1) Truth is objectivity?
2) or, Truth is a synthesis of the objective and the subjective?
3) or, how would you put it in your own words?

I first want to make sure that I am not misunderstanding you.

I took it to mean #2, but then again I'm a diehard Kantian prankster so who knows.

@Victor Eremita,

It is roughly number 2. The common English translation of "Truth is Subjectivity" loses meaning that was in the original Danish and had previously condemned SK as a subjectivist totally unconcerned with objectivity in the English speaking world, when that is definitely not the case.

Aristotle, for example, believed that everyone values happiness the most. And the best way to get happiness is through contemplation. People ought to contemplate because it's the most rational (heavenly/divine) activity. Aristotle's argument is thus rationally discussed. But what's missing is the relationship between subject (You) and object (Aristotle's Argument). How do you relate to his argument?

Kierkegaard differs from this in the sense that, no one can dictate to you how you must live your life. Kierkegaard wants to bring attention to the relationship between subject and object. If you choose to value happiness and love and whatever, that's because you choose it, not because Aristotle or Kierkegaard say so. An individual is the sum of his subjective experiences, and the values that he has appropriated inwardly into his life is his truth. But, however, you still have to objectively rationalize your values. Subjectivity is truth, but without objectivity, it is equally likely that subjectivity is untruth (CUP p. 211-214 in Hong translation).

Existentialists say a person invents his own values and that these values exist only for you. Ok, so they exist, but without objectivity, this inevitably leads to irrationalism: if a value is adopted and that value is anything goes, then the value cannot be determined whether it's objectively right or wrong. You don't have to rationalize it at all.

@Victor Eremita,

Is it really possible to say that they exist without objectivity, atleast to a certain extent? If this is the case then it is indeed irrational. However I've never met anyone that just woke up one morning and created a value set out of the blue with no rationale behind it. Typically there is something that has happened, some experience in your life that has caused you to want said value set.

For example if you value love, not because your parents/friends/religious officials told you its good to value love, but because you have personal experience with good things coming from those you "love." This can give you rationale to a degree for choosing to value love. It's subjective yes, but based to a certian degree on the objective.

Most all values are highly subjective my nature, but why you choose to value and how you value it isn't solely subjective.

@tehdoc809,

tehdoc809 wrote:

Is it really possible to say that they exist without objectivity, atleast to a certain extent? If this is the case then it is indeed irrational.

This is indeed Sartre as he writes in the Existentialism is a Humanism article. He takes Dostoevsky's (Raskolinikov's) statement seriously:

Dostoevsky once wrote: "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted"; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one's action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism - man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. - We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.

No justification, no excuse, not grounded in God or rationality or objectivity.

For the existentialists, we create ourselves, and we are responsible for that creation, but there is no rationale for this creation.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor wrote:
"

If the English translation from the Danish is as far off as you seem to know it is and we non-speaking Danish readers are at that much of a disadvantage to offer an accurate interpretation to SK's quote because of it, I would be grateful if you could pass along the correct translation. Maybe this new correct translation of the quote could clear up the difference in interpretation.

Victor wrote:
Existentialism
"We create the meaning and the essence of our lives! This is a philosophy of belief in creation of self rather than a deity defined by philosophical or theological doctrines. Two major branches are Atheistic Existentialism and Theistic Existentialism."

This is a good definition of atheistic Existentialism but it is 180 degrees out when it comes to the definition of theistic Existentialism. You seem to be lumping the two schools together under the one banner of atheistic Existentialism. Why do you do this?

Also, Kierkegaard was first and foremost a religious writer (A theistic existentialist) I am not sure why you continually lump him in to the same atheistic Existential category?

@Victor Eremita,

Well there's a lot of English translation gaffes along the way in Postscript. Here's one for example.

Swenson and Lowrie translated this passage as:

Objectively the interest is focused merely on the thought-content, subjectively on the inwardness. At its maximum this inward "how" is the passion of the infinite, and the passion of the infinite is the truth. But the passion of the infinite is precisely subjectivity, and thus subjectivity becomes the truth. Objectively, there is no infinite decisiveness, and hence it is objectively in order to annul the difference between good and evil, together with the principle of contradiction, and therewith also the infinite difference between the true and false. Only in subjectivity is there decisiveness, to see objectivity is to be in error. It is the passion of the infinite that is the decisive factor and not its content, for its content is precisely itself. In his manner, subjectivity and the subjective "How" constitute the truth.

In this passage Kierkegaard emphasizes the importance of subjectivity over objectivity. However, this translation seems to make Kierkegaard say that objectivity is a mere incidental; subjectivity is all that matters and to be "objective" is to "be in error".

It is SK's view that objectivity provides no biases (good and evil); it merely expresses what is true and false. It doesn't make any decisions and that's right; it merely presents. You are the one to make decisions. But "to see objectivity is to be in error" is badly translated. Objectivity, although insufficient, is necessary for truth because it still provides the content that grounds subjective decisiveness!

Quote:

Victor wrote:
Existentialism
"We create the meaning and the essence of our lives! This is a philosophy of belief in creation of self rather than a deity defined by philosophical or theological doctrines. Two major branches are Atheistic Existentialism and Theistic Existentialism."

This is a good definition of atheistic Existentialism but it is 180 degrees out when it comes to the definition of theistic Existentialism. You seem to be lumping the two schools together under the one banner of atheistic Existentialism. Why do you do this?

Also, Kierkegaard was first and foremost a religious writer (A theistic existentialist) I am not sure why you continually lump him in to the same atheistic Existential category?

I did not write that at all. When the forum was created, it was there to describe the forum. Personally, I'm unsatisifed with that blurb myself.

I would write,

Existentialism is a philosophy and worldview that focuses on the primacy of the individual self and its journey to attain authentic selfhood. Theist existentialists undertake that journey with God while atheist existentialists undertake that journey alone.

@Victor Eremita,

When the Subjective infinite inner truth equals the objective infinite universal truth, Oneself becomes Infinitely and truly One or All.
Equal is the Way to Oneness.
God is One = All is One

=
MJA

@MJA,

I just asked for the translation to "Truth is subjectivity" (because you state that the English translation "loses meaning"). So, in response to this question you give me:

Victor Eremita wrote:

Well there's a lot of English translation gaffes along the way in Postscript. Here's one for example.

Swenson and Lowrie translated this passage as:

Objectively the interest is focused merely on the thought-content, subjectively on the inwardness. At its maximum this inward "how" is the passion of the infinite, and the passion of the infinite is the truth. But the passion of the infinite is precisely subjectivity, and thus subjectivity becomes the truth. Objectively, there is no infinite decisiveness, and hence it is objectively in order to annul the difference between good and evil, together with the principle of contradiction, and therewith also the infinite difference between the true and false. Only in subjectivity is there decisiveness, to see objectivity is to be in error. It is the passion of the infinite that is the decisive factor and not its content, for its content is precisely itself. In his manner, subjectivity and the subjective "How" constitute the truth.

In this passage Kierkegaard emphasizes the importance of subjectivity over objectivity. However, this translation seems to make Kierkegaard say that objectivity is a mere incidental; subjectivity is all that matters and to be "objective" is to "be in error".

It is SK's view that objectivity provides no biases (good and evil); it merely expresses what is true and false. It doesn't make any decisions and that's right; it merely presents. You are the one to make decisions. But "to see objectivity is to be in error" is badly translated. Objectivity, although insufficient, is necessary for truth because it still provides the content that grounds subjective decisiveness!

Thanks.

@Victor Eremita,

Sorry about that, you know how I get when it comes to Kierkegaard.

Truth is Subjectivity is properly translated Personal truth is subjective. Not very catchy, but it's more accurate given the context of the surrounding text.

@Victor Eremita,

.
Thanks for your reply with your retranslation from "Truth is subjectivity" to "Personal truth is subjective". I want to look in to this further before I comment on it. I find this extremely important because I think this statement is the heart and soul of Kierkegaard writings. I just mail ordered a copy of Howard Hong's translation of CUP. I should get it later this week. I want to compare it to Lowrie's translation; I will be looking closely for your retranslation of "Truth is subjectivity", among other comparisons. You do indorse Howard Hong's translation?

I will start a new thread, and I will make the rest of my comments in the:
Nineteenth Century Philosophers -> . Also, sorry about assigning the forum heading description to you, I do not think Kierkegaard would have like being associated with that description.

@Victor Eremita,

Hong does suffer from some mistranslation as he bases his readings of SK in pre-80s milieu. It's better in some places than Lowrie's though. What I'm looking forward for is Alastair Hannay's CUP translation.

Kierkegaard: Concluding Unscientific Postscript - Cambridge University Press

@Victor Eremita,

If so you should write St. Olaf College and set them straight.

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

If so you should write St. Olaf College and set them straight.

Plus, if Hannay's CUP translation is anything like C. Stephen Evans and Sylvia Walsh's Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard might actually have a fighting chance until SKRC has the complete English translations.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

the values an individual possess must be measured against objectivity, otherwise madness and truth are "indistinguishable". Is it better that there are some objective limits to our subjectivity or is the existentialist's unconditional freedom better?

Objectivity? Seems like the same as "equality" was to communism, just that it always ended with some being more "equal" than others.

..in short, a farfetched ideal that can never be achived because of the human factor with its many flaws.

@Victor Eremita,

What indeed is objectivity in our times? Perhaps that's one reason the existentialists unconditionality was more attractive than Kierkegaard's objective-subjective synthesis.

MJA wrote:

Never say never HH.
I achieved it, why can't you?

Hehe, if you really achived such thing, you should easily prove it to me.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know