Reply
Sat 26 Jul, 2008 09:18 pm
S?ren Aaybe Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was discovered by me in 2003 while I was studying Plato and Aristotle. While I was trying to write my graduating thesis on Plato, one of my undergraduate professors suggested I read Kierkegaard. So I did read his Either/Or; what followed in me was an explosion of philosophical insight, literary talent, and an immediate connection with this fellow; for his life, his work, and his suffering. I read a few more books with interest: Philosophical Fragments, Works of Love, and Fear and Trembling, of course. I also picked up Michael Watts' exemplary introduction "Kierkegaard"; which I wholly recommend as a starting point. I finished my paper on Plato with references to Kierkegaard; and got my B.A. (Hons.) in Philosophy. Even after starting work and leaving the university behind, Kierkegaard haunts me still.
A little slant I like to put on Kierkegaard is the agnostic Christian. He is Christian, as he tries to live the Christian life. An agnostic by definition is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. This is one of the beliefs he professes both in pseudonymous works and non-pseudonymous works. He's not a religious nut as some make him out to be. He is a quite rational fellow, who realizes rationality has limits. But never does he discard rationality.
Leap of Faith
===================
Easily and by far the most maligned concept from Kierkegaard's oevure, this does not mean that one should be an idiot and believe in irrational things. It does not tell you that I should jump in front a speeding train and expect God to save me or that I can suddenly fly if I jump from the First Canadian Place skyscraper.
A "leap" is a term to denote a sudden change from qualitative states. Kierkegaard's concern was that many Danish and German scholars attempted to reason to the knowledge that the historical Jesus was the eternal God. That a historical Jesus existed, therfore there is a necessary being, God the Father. The vital assumption to this line of reasoning is that it supposes one can reason from contingent truths to necessary truths. Using contingent truths to prove necessary truths is impossible.
A leap, therefore, is required in order to believe necessary truths from contingent truths. Kierkegaard does not encourage or discourage this leap; he only says that it is required to enable believe in something that goes beyond experience and historical truths. It cannot be reasoned to, one must passionately say, based on historical truths, I believe there is God.
The three stages of life
===================
The aesthetic, ethical, and the religious; I'm pretty sure you can look it up on D. Anthony Storm's site or even on *shudder* Wikipedia; but one of the misconceptions of the stages, is that the ethical precludes aesthetic enjoyment, and that the religious precludes both. That is not the case in Kierkegaard's conception; an ethical person is quite capable of aesthetic enjoyment, but he does not make it his guiding principle, like the aesthetic does.
Another misconception is that people think Kierkegaard's either/or means either a or b; and counter with "what about c or d or e, etc.", and they dismiss it as a excluding the third (or fourth or fifth, etc option). Either/or in Kierkegaard's (and Aristotle's) terminology, either (p v ~p) which is a logical truth called the law of excluded middle.
Followers, not Admirers
===================
"It is well known that Christ consistently used the expression 'follower'. He never asks for admirers, worshippers, or adherents. No, he calls for disciples. It is not adherents of a teaching but followers of a life Christ is looking for. ... What then, is the difference between an admirer and a follower? A follower is or strives to be what he admires. An admirer, however, keeps himself personally detached. He fails to see that what is admired involves a claim upon him, and thus he fails to be or strive to be what he admires." - Soren Kierkegaard
The life of Jesus Christ is admired by literally billions, but very few are followers of Christ. Kierkegaard accused admirers (including himself!) of not following Christ. "Christians" paid lip service to Christianity, but they live their lives as atheists!
Kierkegaard re-issued a challenge that was made by Christ: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. ... Assuredly, I can say to you that is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:21-24). If one extracts the religious elements from this, one gets the 20th century existentialism notion of authenticity, which is whole new can of worms.
There is much more to Kierkegaard's thought; but for now, I'll end the post with a collection of quotes, aphorisms and parables.
-----------------------------------------
Most people are really only sample copies. Of them it may be said: They derive benefit out of living, but the world has no benefit out of their having lived.
It happened that a fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to inform the public. They thought it was just a jest and applauded. He repeated his warning, they shouted even louder. So I think the world will come to an end amid general applause from all the wits, who believe that it is a joke.
The majority of people are not only afraid of holding a wrong opinion, they are afraid of holding an opinion alone. In the physical world water puts out fire. So too in the spiritual world. The "many", the mass of people, put out the inner fire --- beware of men!
The deep fault of the human race is that there are no individuals any more. We have become split in two. When a book has become old and
shabby, the binding separates and the pages fall out. Similarly, in our time we are disintegrated. Our understanding, our imaginations do not bind us in character. We are spineless wimps who only flirt with the highest.
The more a body is organically developed, the more dreadful is the decay. When grass rots, there is a fragrance. When an animal rots, it stinks. A man's perdition is dreadful, more dreadful even than a woman's. Is this a proof that man is superior to woman?
Truth is not something you can appropriate easily and quickly. You certainly cannot sleep or dream yourself into the truth. No, you must be tried, do battle, and suffer if you are to acquire truth for yourself. It is a sheer illusion to think that in relation to truth there is an abridgment, a short cut that dispenses with the necessity of struggling for it. With respect to acquiring truth to live by, every generation and every individual essentially begin from the beginning.
In order to swim you must take off all your clothes. In order to aspire to the truth you must undress in a far more inward sense, divest yourself of all your inward clothes, of thoughts, conceptions, selfishness. Only then are you sufficiently naked.
The subjective thinker is continually striving, is always in the process of becoming. How far the subjective thinker might be along that road, whether a long way or a short, makes no essential difference (it is, after all, just a finitely relative comparison); as long as he is existing, he is in the process of becoming.
The method of beginning with doubt in order to philosophize seems as appropriate as having a soldier slouch in order to get him to stand erect.
God cannot be an object of study, since God is subject. For this very reason, when you deny God, you do not harm God but destroy yourself.
When you mock God, you mock yourself.
Fixed ideas are like a cramp in your foot: the best remedy is to stomp on them.
A dogmatic system ought not be erected in order to comprehend faith, but in order to comprehend that faith cannot be comprehended.
To treat Christianity as a science is to change it into something of the past and to admit that it is no longer something present.
Nothing is more certain. Coming close to God brings catastrophe.
Everyone whose life does not bring relative catastrophe has never even once turned as a single individual to God; it is just as impossible as it is to touch the conductors of a generator without getting a shock.
Not until a person has become so wretched that his only wish, his only consolation, is to die --- not until then does Christianity truly begin.
Must consider reading
---------------------
The works of Soren Kierkegaard
Michael Watts' Kierkegaard.
D. Anthony Storm on Kierkegaard.
@Victor Eremita,
I do not know the work of Kierkegaard, so I must admit I was curios reading this. It has intrigued me to look further into his work. I did miss an elaboration on what Kierkegaard did mean though. I usually take an angle that provides an insight into the thoughts of the writer, instead of only mention them.
I thank you for the effort you made in writing this piece. It As said, it has inspired me to see what I can dig up on him.
Arjen
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:S?ren Aaybe Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was discovered by me in 2003 while I was studying Plato and Aristotle. While I was trying to write my graduating thesis on Plato, one of my undergraduate professors suggested I read Kierkegaard. So I did read his Either/Or; what followed in me was an explosion of philosophical insight, literary talent, and an immediate connection with this fellow; for his life, his work, and his suffering. I read a few more books with interest: Philosophical Fragments, Works of Love, and Fear and Trembling, of course. I also picked up Michael Watts' exemplary introduction "Kierkegaard"; which I wholly recommend as a starting point. I finished my paper on Plato with references to Kierkegaard; and got my B.A. (Hons.) in Philosophy. Even after starting work and leaving the university behind, Kierkegaard haunts me still.
D. Anthony Storm on Kierkegaard.
I agree with you that Kierkegaard is very interesting. He has been greatly underestimated by analytic philosophers, who have thought of him as a logical light-weight. In fact, although his arguments do have to be dredged up, they exist, and many of them are good arguments.
I don't, however, agree with you that Kierkegaard should be called an agnostic. It is true that an agnostic believes that no one can know that God exists (not that it is impossible to know, for an agnostic may well admit that someday, some of us, at least, can know). But, Kierkegaard certainly
believed in God, although this belief (he thought) could not be supported with proof of God. But agnostics are (at least in common usage) thought not to believe in God, and not merely to hold that the existence of God cannot be known. Furthermore, I don't think that Kierkegaard held that he did not know that God existed. He held only that he could not prove that God existed, but he did not think that religious knowledge had to be backed up with proof.
@kennethamy,
well Kierkegaard stated that faith cannot exist without doubt, because you cannot have faith in things that actually you can see like computer, refrigerator, etc, because you have no doubt that it exist. and you cannot see god therefore you will be always having some doubt. who that believes in god not have some doubt about god?
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:I don't, however, agree with you that Kierkegaard should be called an agnostic. It is true that an agnostic believes that no one can know that God exists (not that it is impossible to know, for an agnostic may well admit that someday, some of us, at least, can know). But, Kierkegaard certainly believed in God, although this belief (he thought) could not be supported with proof of God.
That's right, Kierkegaard says he does not KNOW God exists, he BELIEVES God exists. Kierkegaard's an agnostic theist, in the sense that even if that deity is unknowable, he tends to believe that there may be a deity despite the proof.
Quote:But agnostics are (at least in common usage) thought not to believe in God, and not merely to hold that the existence of God cannot be known.
That's a variation of agnosticism called (of course), agnostic atheism. Which is contrasted with just atheism where the latter thinks it is provable that there is no God.
Quote:Furthermore, I don't think that Kierkegaard held that he did not know that God existed. He held only that he could not prove that God existed, but he did not think that religious knowledge had to be backed up with proof.
Kierkegaard did not know God existed. He had faith. (And this is where the charge of fideism is made, but that's another story I'll try to defend SK from another day)
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:A little slant I like to put on Kierkegaard is the agnostic Christian. He is Christian, as he tries to live the Christian life. An agnostic by definition is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. This is one of the beliefs he professes both in pseudonymous works and non-pseudonymous works.
It's been a couple years since I sat down with Kierkegaard. So I will try my best to keep up with you. I also thuroughly enjoy Kierkegaard, although I found his writing extremely difficult to discern. His ironic bent leaves the reader alot of freedom in interpreting his true meaning (if he even had one that is).
One thing that I thought should be noted when talking about Kierkegaard is his "plan" regarding his writings. He outlines this plan in 'The Point of View for my Work as an Author'.
I had a whole post that outlined this, but the damn thing didn't submit right. And trying to retype it is just pissing me off. (sorry, I'm letting my anger show)
Maybe I'll get back to it someday. Victor, good to see that there is another who is as passionate about Kierkegaard as I am. I love his prose, his aim as an author, and what he did for Philosophy and Religion.
I look forward to further conversations regarding his philosophies.
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:It's been a couple years since I sat down with Kierkegaard. So I will try my best to keep up with you. I also thuroughly enjoy Kierkegaard, although I found his writing extremely difficult to discern. His ironic bent leaves the reader alot of freedom in interpreting his true meaning (if he even had one that is).
One thing that I thought should be noted when talking about Kierkegaard is his "plan" regarding his writings. He outlines this plan in 'The Point of View for my Work as an Author'.
I had a whole post that outlined this, but the damn thing didn't submit right. And trying to retype it is just pissing me off. (sorry, I'm letting my anger show)
Maybe I'll get back to it someday. Victor, good to see that there is another who is as passionate about Kierkegaard as I am. I love his prose, his aim as an author, and what he did for Philosophy and Religion.
I look forward to further conversations regarding his philosophies.
Ah yes losing posts in net transmission. Sucks. What I do is when I finish writing, I copy and paste the post onto notepad, and then see if it will submit. Got a backup copy in notepad just in case.
Yeah, I'm keenly aware of his authorship, that his non-pseudonymous works like the Discourses are written in Kierkegaard's name. I've read some of his discourses; I especially like his work Purity of Heart. Hope to read what you have to say about the Point of View.
@Victor Eremita,
Once you label me ... blah blah blah?
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;19866 wrote:I don't, however, agree with you that Kierkegaard should be called an agnostic.
You are absolutely correct. Kierkegaard was about the farthest from "agnostic" as one could get. I am reminded of his classic work, The Sickness Unto Death, where he writes of God as being the God of possibility in such a manner that one could not completely escape the thought that he was writing of himself as much as anyone else. On a personal note, it seemed as if his thought on possibility being potentially fulfilled by God as relating to his own relationship with Regine, which impacted him profoundly, but I digress.
@Victor Eremita,
so is the opposite of agnostic, gnostic? And could Kierkegaard be described as one?
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;154800 wrote:so is the opposite of agnostic, gnostic? And could Kierkegaard be described as one?
As far as the area of knowledge is concerned, yes. Kierkegaard possessed knowledge of God's existence as a consequence of his faith, which is only as valuable as the one on which the faith is placed. All of this should be qualified by stating that he was not Gnostic as the particular religious way of salvation through knowledge not unlike the mystery cults of the first two or three centuries AD.
@CharmingPhlsphr,
In terms of philosophy, Kierkegaard was an agnostic in the sense that God cannot be proved externally as the Pythagorian Theorem could be. But as I said, Kierkegaard was an "agnostic Christian", in the sense that a person's "knowledge" of God comes from the inwardness of the self, and not from any objective proof. As SK writes:
"Anselm prays to God in all sincerity that he may succeed in proving God's existence. He thinks that he has succeeded and throws himself down to thank God; curious, he does not notice that this prayer and thanksgiving are infinitely more proof of God's existence than-the proof." (This says more about SK than Anselm btw)
For SK, Anselm's external "proof" is inconsequential in the face of Anselm's faith.
I once brought this up to Anthony Rudd and he agreed that Kierkegaard was philosophically agnostic, but then the question remains: what do you do about it? SK's answer is to believe.
@Victor Eremita,
I really don't see Kierkegaard adding anything that is useful. It just seems to bury the argument further into a vague notion.
If the purpose of life is to just find god and once the discovery is made then life is over. It means that the whole point of life was a waste of time. People say that finding god gives purpose but from Kiekegaard's perspective it says that life has no purpose other than to find god. That is not a purpose at all.
It's like the only reason you wake up in the morning is so that you can get ready for bed.
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita;19771 wrote:... A leap, therefore, is required in order to believe necessary truths from contingent truths. Kierkegaard does not encourage or discourage this leap; he only says that it is required to enable believe in something that goes beyond experience and historical truths. It cannot be reasoned to, one must passionately say, based on historical truths, I believe there is God.
Kierkegaard's thoughts were among my first inspirations and I've always particularly liked the thought quoted above. It doesn't diminish belief one iota, but frames it in - what I believe to be - the most accurate, honest and true context possible. Taken to heart, it deflates the arguments of absolute knowledge and irrelevant minutiae while giving a plainly spoken, easily assimilated foundation for the concepts of belief, knowledge and where they
appear to conflict.
Thanks
@jeeprs,
I also enjoy K for the reason in your title. I have a deep and abiding faith in a God and act as best I can accordingly, however I do understand in a haunting way that I can never know with assurity. I enjoyed the rest of the post as well.
Cheers,
Russ
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita;155983 wrote:In terms of philosophy, Kierkegaard was an agnostic in the sense that God cannot be proved externally as the Pythagorian Theorem could be. But as I said, Kierkegaard was an "agnostic Christian", in the sense that a person's "knowledge" of God comes from the inwardness of the self, and not from any objective proof. As SK writes:
"Anselm prays to God in all sincerity that he may succeed in proving God's existence. He thinks that he has succeeded and throws himself down to thank God; curious, he does not notice that this prayer and thanksgiving are infinitely more proof of God's existence than-the proof." (This says more about SK than Anselm btw)
For SK, Anselm's external "proof" is inconsequential in the face of Anselm's faith.
I once brought this up to Anthony Rudd and he agreed that Kierkegaard was philosophically agnostic, but then the question remains: what do you do about it? SK's answer is to believe.
I am still put off by the term "agnostic," for, by "agnostic," it generates the thought that he possessed no knowledge of this particular belief, when it is actually quite the opposite. "External proof," which I am taking as verifiable truth to others, is not the sole foundation of knowledge and, in the Christian faith, is fairly irrelevant, for it is Christ who calls out and is revealed to us, upon which we either believe or become offended in Him (taken from
Practice/Training in Christianity).
His upbringing shows us that he would have been quite knowledgeable of the Scripture and, arguably, would have recalled Hebrews 11:1-3, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." This is the context of large portions of the incredible writing I mentioned before. Kierkegaard lashed out against the apologists who would compose volumes of "proofs" of the divinity of Jesus and God's existence because it is solely faith, which Christ Jesus demands from man; this was his assurance, knowledge, and hope (the concept of hope was written quite a bit in
The Sickness Unto Death). Even if his knowledge was
not founded on reasonable answers on the basis of human rationality, he possessed knowledge of God's existence and the necessity of Jesus to the fallen heart of man through faith in said revelation. Again, though, on this, I argue the term being used, for he was certainly not agnostic of God's existence, even in the least.
---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 09:31 PM ----------
Krumple;156016 wrote:I really don't see Kierkegaard adding anything that is useful. It just seems to bury the argument further into a vague notion.
If the purpose of life is to just find god and once the discovery is made then life is over. It means that the whole point of life was a waste of time. People say that finding god gives purpose but from Kiekegaard's perspective it says that life has no purpose other than to find god. That is not a purpose at all.
It's like the only reason you wake up in the morning is so that you can get ready for bed.
Kierkegaard wrote of the issue of the self and the problem of one's identity without the self's relation to its Creator, for this, in great part, leads man to despair or, that is, the sickness unto death. The "purpose" in life is the companion to having a sound and secure identity, which will not pass or fade away; this is not to say, however, that the purpose is lesser than identity in any way for the purpose and the identity follow hand-in-hand. One's purpose in life is most often dictated by their particular identity, for the way in which one identifies themselves consciously or subconsciously is similarly the way said individual will act out their life.
The particular conclusion in this case is that one's identity, being found in God, directs man's purpose (to do God's will).
@Krumple,
Krumple;156016 wrote:If the purpose of life is to just find god and once the discovery is made then life is over. I
If you intend to get married, and you find the suitable partner, and the marriage takes place, does this mean that your life is over.
I suppose there are some who will answer 'undoubtedly'. But for those who are happily married, it is not the end of life, but only the beginning.
Christians talk of the marriage of the soul to Christ. It is similar to the idea of marriage. In fact, marriage is understood to be an analogy to this relationship. But in any case, it is not the end of life, only the end of living for solely self-centred reasons.
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;154800 wrote:so is the opposite of agnostic, gnostic? And could Kierkegaard be described as one?
How about, just believer? The term "gnostic" has already been preempted.
Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Agnosticism" was coined by (I believe) one of the Huxleys. Aldous, unless I am mistaken.
@Victor Eremita,
Agnosticism was indeed coined by a Huxley, but a much earlier one than Alduous. I think it was biologist Julian Huxley...in any case, people use the term 'agnostic' without much awareness that it is the negation (a-) of a positive description (gnostic). You are right in saying that the term 'gnostic' usually applies to a distinctive spiritual movement within Christianity, but there is also a more general use of the terms to signify direct knowledge of God or gods or of a spiritual principle, in the sense of mystical cognition. The term 'gnosis' is represented in Indian religious philosophy as 'jnana' which is clearly derived from the same Indo-european root 'gn-'. This is also the root of the word 'knowledge' itself, although gnosis and jnana are understood as different to empirical knowledge in the usual sense of the word.
There is a book on Eastern Orthodox monasticism,
A Different Christianity, by Robin Amis, that distinguishes 'gnosis' in the context of Eastern orthodoxy from 'gnosticism' as a Christian heresy. I think such a distinction is sometimes understood in some of the Catholic monastic writers as well. But it is a distinction not generally understood or accepted in Protestant thought, as far as I am aware.
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;156201 wrote:Agnosticism was indeed coined by a Huxley, but a much earlier one than Alduous. I think it was biologist Julian Huxley...in any case, people use the term 'agnostic' without much awareness that it is the negation (a-) of a positive description (gnostic). You are right in saying that the term 'gnostic' usually applies to a distinctive spiritual movement within Christianity, but there is also a more general use of the terms to signify direct knowledge of God or gods or of a spiritual principle, in the sense of mystical cognition. The term 'gnosis' is represented in Indian religious philosophy as 'jnana' which is clearly derived from the same Indo-european root 'gn-'. This is also the root of the word 'knowledge' itself, although gnosis and jnana are understood as different to empirical knowledge in the usual sense of the word.
There is a book on Eastern Orthodox monasticism, A Different Christianity, by Robin Amis, that distinguishes 'gnosis' in the context of Eastern orthodoxy from 'gnosticism' as a Christian heresy. I think such a distinction is sometimes understood in some of the Catholic monastic writers as well. But it is a distinction not generally understood or accepted in Protestant thought, as far as I am aware.
We were both wrong:
Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1860. Wiki. Aldous was older than Julian. Thomas was known as, "Darwin's bulldog".
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace