"When the prosperous man on a dark but starlit night drives comfortably in his carriage and has the lanterns lighted, aye, then he is safe, he fears no difficulty, he carries his light with him, and it is not dark close around him. But precisely because he has the lantern lighted, and has a strong light close to him, precisely for this reason, he cannot see the stars. For his light obscures the stars, which the poor peasant, driving without light, can see gloriously in the dark but starry night. So those deceived ones live in the temporal existence: either, occupied with the necessities of life, they are too busy to avail themselves of the view, or in the prosperity and good day they have, as it were, lanterns lighted, and close about them everything is so satisfactory, so pleasant, so comfortable - but the view is lacking, the prospect, the view of the stars." --Soren Kierkegaard
Thinking about ethics and current events (Began 1 April 2008)
Showing posts with label Kierkegaard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kierkegaard. Show all posts
Monday, March 4, 2013
Quote of the Week - Soren Kierkegaard
"When the prosperous man on a dark but starlit night drives comfortably in his carriage and has the lanterns lighted, aye, then he is safe, he fears no difficulty, he carries his light with him, and it is not dark close around him. But precisely because he has the lantern lighted, and has a strong light close to him, precisely for this reason, he cannot see the stars. For his light obscures the stars, which the poor peasant, driving without light, can see gloriously in the dark but starry night. So those deceived ones live in the temporal existence: either, occupied with the necessities of life, they are too busy to avail themselves of the view, or in the prosperity and good day they have, as it were, lanterns lighted, and close about them everything is so satisfactory, so pleasant, so comfortable - but the view is lacking, the prospect, the view of the stars." --Soren Kierkegaard
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Kierkegaard: Witness to the Truth, Knight of Faith
Jenny Adkins
October 2011
Abstract
SØren Aabye Kierkegaard considered himself a poet and a midwife of sorts, “assisting at the birth of individual subjectivity by forcing his contemporaries to think for themselves” (McDonald, 2009, Kierkegaard’s Rhetoric section, para. 3). He is considered by others to be the founder and father of existentialism, though it was never his intention to set up a system of thought (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). Kierkegaard’s writings seek to influence the reader to prove their existence by choice, through facing the crisis of freedom. The ultimate choice is that one chooses to believe, rather than be offended by, the Absurd – defined by Kierkegaard as the incarnation of Christ (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). He has contributed to the fields of philosophy, theology, and psychology and was a thinker ahead of his time. His ideas are especially relevant to our 21st century, culturally Christian society.
Kierkegaard: Witness to the Truth, Knight of Faith
SØren Aabye Kierkegaard was born in 1813 in Copenhagen, Denmark to Mikaël Pederson and Anna SØrensdatter Lund Kierkegaard. He is regarded as the founder of existential philosophy (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). Kierkegaard was an intellectual genius whose life was committed to addressing the common man through his writings. He saw the public as a people who were not authentically living their lives and sought to awaken their consciences. Kierkegaard’s time in history was marked by a societal shift from feudalism to capitalism (McDonald, 2009). Choice was a novel concept which brought with it a crisis of freedom thrust upon a people learning how to survive in a socially horizontal, rather than hierarchical, society. He posited that existence is not merely living and dying, going about ones daily functions of mindlessly eating, sleeping, and reproducing; rather, existence is living a life of responsible choices and freedoms, marked by a spiritual commitment to God. Co-authors George B. and George E. Arbaugh, in their book Kierkegaard’s Authorship (1967), explain that for Kierkegaard existence is “To seek and acquire the essence which God has in once sense already given” (p. 24).
Much of Kierkegaard’s adult life was lived in solitude, having spent most of his time authoring articles, pamphlets, and books. He was betrothed to a woman named Regine Olsen, but he terminated the relationship, due to his “dreadful secret of melancholy” and feeling compelled to live a life of religious solitude (Jolivet, 1946, p. 19). Kierkegaard authored over 35 works, publishing almost half of them under pseudonyms, including Judge Wilhem, “A”, Johannes de Silento, Johannes Climacus, and Anti-Climacus. Kierkegaard would also publish more than one book in the same day in order to present contrasting opinions and paradoxes to the reader (MacIntyre, 1998). According to William McDonald (2009) in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authorship presents a progression through the three existential stages.
Upon his death in 1855, he considered himself a martyr for the Christian faith (Jolivet, 1946). Though it seems that he came dangerously close to leaving Christianity, it shall be revealed that Kierkegaard was a witness to the truth and a knight of faith. Kierkegaard’s prolific writings have influenced modern ethical thought through his contributions to philosophy, theology, and psychology. Ahead of his time, yet fitting perfectly into his 19th century existence, Kierkegaard’s ideas are just as relevant and necessary today.
Philosophy
Kierkegaard’s philosophy centers on what he called the three spheres of existence. When Kierkegaard wrote of these spheres, as ultimately achieved in his writing Postscript, but also explained in his earlier works Either/Or and Stages, he did not intend to have the reader understand these spheres as stages which one progresses through, but rather as three different ways of existing (Jolivet, 1946). These spheres include the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). The first is the aesthetic which concerns itself with what one sees and experiences such as music, art, poetry, and theater. In it one holds a sense of wonder for the natural world, and it is here that our most base passions, such as food and sex, keep us occupied with the present moment. The aesthetic is characterized by desire and spontaneity and holds no to higher moral law or sense of responsibility; it is in a way animalistic.
The second stage is the ethical, where one chooses to lead a life of morality. This would be the sphere of existence where one is concerned with obedience to governing authorities and possesses a sense of duty. Arbaugh and Arbaugh (1967) explain the ethical as “a quasi-religious consciousness of the moral law,” and a “form of godly repentance arising as an acknowledgment of the debacle of the moral endeavor” (p. 28). It is here that one chooses to either remain in a place of self-righteousness marked by morality or realizes the cruel deception of self-righteousness and seeks yet a higher level of being.
Kierkegaard named the ultimate sphere of existence the religious. This is not merely head knowledge of the Absurd, which Kierkegaard would define more precisely as the incarnation of Christ, but a heart knowledge which consisted of devotion to God made through a subjective choice (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). When one is in the religious sphere of existence, the aesthetic and the ethical are realized and “redeemed so that full human existence is found” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967, p. 31). Therefore, it can be understood that living a life of authentic Christianity is the ultimate goal of existence.
However, these spheres should not be understood as necessarily progressive in nature. One does not evolve or grow into the next existential state naturally; rather, they are entered into through a cognizant choice to do so. Some remain forever in the aesthetic, concerned only with the here and now, the fleeting pleasures of today. Still, others live their whole lives in the ethical sphere as good upstanding citizens and moral saints. It is only those who choose to believe in the absurdity of the Christian faith that Kierkegaard regards as fulfilling their existence and living essentially for that which they were ultimately created (Jolivet, 1946).
Theology
Understanding Kierkegaard’s three spheres, it is then understood that one can only be authentically Christian when one passes to the religious sphere by means of what he called a ‘leap’ of faith (Jolivet, 1946). To Kierkegaard, Christ was the essential paradox where one chooses “either to be offended or to believe” (Jolivet, 1946, p. 54). When one makes the decision to believe, one is living in authentic faith. While Kierkegaard believed that faith is not merited, the decision to believe is authenticated and must be marked by “works of love” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967, p. 400). A true Christian existence is not merely concerned with the eternal, nor is it characterized by being too focused on the temporal. To put it simply, our earthly life is the place where the stuff of eternal faith is lived out; in this we fulfill our essence.
Kierkegaard challenged the notion of being a Christian-by-proxy, that by being born into Christendom one has a complete, authentic Christian faith. He confronted a cultural Christianity which relied upon knowledge of faith, as opposed to a true, subjective experience of it (Tomkins, 2005). “To find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die” is this subjectivism as defined by Kierkegaard (Tomkins, 2005, p. 212). Rather than finding Christ only by means of the state church, Christianity depends on the individual. One cannot be reasoned into Christianity, by philosophy or science; rather, faith is a gift of God, a supernatural, irrational thing (Jolivet, 1946, p. 55).
Kierkegaard also pointed a stern finger at the state-church, Lutheranism. In Walter Lowrie’s translation of Attack upon “Christendom” (1855/1968), a compilation of Kierkegaard’s writings directed toward the church, his distaste of the relationship between state and church is evident. He warns of “the danger of letting thyself be caught, or that thou are caught, in the monstrous illusion the State and the priest brought about, making men believe that this is Christianity” (Kierkegaard, 1855/1968, p. 60). It is important to note that Kierkegaard was critical of the Lutheran church as an institution, but he was “undoubtedly on Luther’s side” regarding Luther’s theological convictions concerning the nature of sin, justification by faith alone through grace, and the importance of personal communion with God (Jolivet, 1946, p. 207).
A major theme for Kierkegaard was that faith cannot be defined rationally, argued logically, or proved scientifically. This challenged the reigning Hegelian view of rationalism. The incarnation of Jesus Christ is the paradox of the Absurd, that “in the Instant the eternal God entered into time” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, p. 136). Regis Jolivet (1946) explains in Introduction to Kierkegaard that apologetics was viewed as Kierkegaard as antithetical to faith: “The man who wishes to prove belief has something further to learn, namely that he does not believe” (p. 52).
In Kierkegaard’s famous book Fear and Trembling (1843/1954), written under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, the ‘knight of faith’ is introduced. As the familiar story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son Isaac is retold, Kierkegaard invites the reader to consider “that God demand[ed] a suspension of the ethical,” that is, Abraham’s duty to God was more pressing than his ethical duty to man (McDonald, 2009, Kierkegaard’s Ethics section, para. 6). In this way, Abraham was a ‘knight of faith’ because he was able to suspend ethics, no matter how absurd, in obedience to a Higher Law, that is, God. With Abraham, Kierkegaard also considered the Virgin Mary to be a ‘knight of faith.’ He explained this in Fear and Trembling (1843/1954):
She has no need of worldly admiration, any more than Abraham has need of tears, for she was not a heroine, and he was not a hero, but both of them became greater than such, not at all because they were exempted from distress and torment and paradox, but they became great through these.
Psychology
Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism, though it was not his wish to found a new school of thought (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). He witnessed a society that was changing from feudalism to capitalism and thus required people to become individuals, to make their own choices (McDonald, 2009). The hierarchical system was abolished and social mobility was more fluid and horizontal. This gave Kierkegaard the perfect setting to challenge the public, pushing them toward a kind of existential crisis. His goal in writing was not to give the public definitive answers, but to persuade them to make a choice that would prove their individualism (Jolivet, 1946).
Rollo May, the founder of existential psychotherapy was heavily influenced by the Kierkegaardian themes of freedom, death, and isolation (Hoffman, 2009). Kierkegaard’s dialectic of freedom of choice states that “to exist is to choose” and that we have both the liberty to choose and the necessity to do so (Jolivet, 1946, p. 101). Anxiety arises out of this freedom. Arbaugh and Arbaugh’s (1967) commentary on Kierkegaard’s essay “The Concept of Dread” explains to the reader that to experience dread is “to be anxious over the possibilities of the future” (p. 160). This is a foundational theme in modern existential therapy. Death was also a very important thing to reflect on, in Kierkegaard’s mind, in that it is something that should disturb us (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). Within modern existential therapy, death is a theme used to encourage people to face the reality of life and to move toward an embracing of the freedom of choice (Hoffman, 2009). Isolation as an existential theme well known to Kierkegaard, as quoted in Jolivet’s (1946) Introduction to Kierkegaard: “The need of solitude is a sign that there is spirit in a man after all, and it is a measure for what spirit there is” (p. 24). Kierkegaard himself illuminates this concept in his book Either/Or (1843/1944):
When around one everything has become silent, solemn as a clear, starlit night, when the soul comes to be alone in the whole world, then before one there appears, not an extraordinary human being, but the eternal power itself, then the heavens open, and the I chooses itself or, more correctly, receives itself.
Another key to understanding Kierkegaard’s psychological influence is his promotion of individuality, or becoming the true self. To become “authentic”, one must differentiate himself from the “public,” or the masses of people who are “enslaved by the ideologies and fashions of the age” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967, p. 410). Understanding the three stages of existence, it becomes clear that those who are enraptured in the aesthetic stage are among those described as the ‘public,’ being caught up in the temporal and popular. Then it must follow that to reach authenticity, to progress to another stage, one must face the anxiety that accompanies freedom of choice and simply choose. This would be proof to Kierkegaard of authentic existence.
Conclusion
Kierkegaard’s life was lived in a metaphysical solitude; however his ideas and philosophy of being are embraced by a multitude today. Being the father of existentialism, Kierkegaard is one of the most influential authors of the 19th century. His contributions to philosophy, theology, and psychology are abundant, important, and relevant. He was indeed a ‘witness to the truth’ and a ‘knight of faith.’
Jolivet (1946) quotes the man’s own definition of a ‘witness to the truth’ as one who “bears witness to the truth in poverty, in humiliation and contempt, misunderstood, hated, mocked at, despised, ridiculed. A witness to the truth is a martyr” (p. 34). Kierkegaard most certainly fits this definition. In his local paper, The Corsair, Kierkegaard was attacked, made fun of, and endured “suffering for the cause of righteousness” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967, p. 228). Kierkegaard defines a ‘knight of faith’ in Fear and Trembling and points to Abraham and Mary (Jolivet, 1946). It is evident that he fits this description as well, though he probably did not give himself the title. For he too sought a Higher Law, like Abraham, that was over and above ethics. He sacrificed his love for Regine Olsen and his even own life, at least in his mind, to a relentless pursuit of truth, in order to spurn us on toward the upward call of God (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967).
Kierkegaard knew that he would not be understood by his contemporaries or the ‘professors’ to come. In The Point of View (1848/1940) he wrote:
So it is I represent myself. Should it prove that the present age will not understand me—very well then, I belong to history, knowing assuredly that I shall find a place there and what place it will be. Humble as I am before God, I also know this—and at the same time I know it is my duty definitely not to suppress this in silence (pg. 98).
Arbaugh and Arbaugh (1967) posit, “The twentieth century is marked by anxiety and even by anguish, and perhaps no voice speaks to these more pertinently and provocatively than Kierkegaard” (p. 17). As we deal with the crises of life, the meaning of freedom, the plethora of choices that rise before our generation, the philosophy of Kierkegaard is still relevant. God created us for a purpose, this is our essence; to exist is to live that for which we were created. This is the ultimate choice – to exist in acceptance of God’s purpose for us.
References
Arbaugh, G.A., & Arbaugh G. B. (1967). Kierkegaard’s authorship. Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana
College Library Publications.
Hoffman,L. (2009). Existential therapy. Retrieved from http://www.existential-therapy.com/Index.htm.
Jolivet, Regis. (1946). Introduction to Kierkegaard. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc.
Kierkegaard, S. (1951). Attack upon “Christendom.” (W. Lowrie, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press. (Original work published 1855).
Kierkegaard, S. (1944). Either/or. (D. Swenson, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(Original work published in 1843).
Kierkegaard, S. (1954). Fear and trembling. (W. Lowrie, Trans.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor
Books. (Original work published in 1843).
Kierkegaard, S. (1940). The point of view. (W. Lowrie, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. (Original work published 1848).
MacIntyre, A. (1998). A short history of ethics: A history of moral philosophy from the Homeric Age to the
twentieth century. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
McDonald, W. (2009). SØren Kierkegaard. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September
5, 2011, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
Tomkins, S. (2005). A short history of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company
October 2011
Abstract
SØren Aabye Kierkegaard considered himself a poet and a midwife of sorts, “assisting at the birth of individual subjectivity by forcing his contemporaries to think for themselves” (McDonald, 2009, Kierkegaard’s Rhetoric section, para. 3). He is considered by others to be the founder and father of existentialism, though it was never his intention to set up a system of thought (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). Kierkegaard’s writings seek to influence the reader to prove their existence by choice, through facing the crisis of freedom. The ultimate choice is that one chooses to believe, rather than be offended by, the Absurd – defined by Kierkegaard as the incarnation of Christ (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). He has contributed to the fields of philosophy, theology, and psychology and was a thinker ahead of his time. His ideas are especially relevant to our 21st century, culturally Christian society.
Kierkegaard: Witness to the Truth, Knight of Faith
SØren Aabye Kierkegaard was born in 1813 in Copenhagen, Denmark to Mikaël Pederson and Anna SØrensdatter Lund Kierkegaard. He is regarded as the founder of existential philosophy (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). Kierkegaard was an intellectual genius whose life was committed to addressing the common man through his writings. He saw the public as a people who were not authentically living their lives and sought to awaken their consciences. Kierkegaard’s time in history was marked by a societal shift from feudalism to capitalism (McDonald, 2009). Choice was a novel concept which brought with it a crisis of freedom thrust upon a people learning how to survive in a socially horizontal, rather than hierarchical, society. He posited that existence is not merely living and dying, going about ones daily functions of mindlessly eating, sleeping, and reproducing; rather, existence is living a life of responsible choices and freedoms, marked by a spiritual commitment to God. Co-authors George B. and George E. Arbaugh, in their book Kierkegaard’s Authorship (1967), explain that for Kierkegaard existence is “To seek and acquire the essence which God has in once sense already given” (p. 24).
Much of Kierkegaard’s adult life was lived in solitude, having spent most of his time authoring articles, pamphlets, and books. He was betrothed to a woman named Regine Olsen, but he terminated the relationship, due to his “dreadful secret of melancholy” and feeling compelled to live a life of religious solitude (Jolivet, 1946, p. 19). Kierkegaard authored over 35 works, publishing almost half of them under pseudonyms, including Judge Wilhem, “A”, Johannes de Silento, Johannes Climacus, and Anti-Climacus. Kierkegaard would also publish more than one book in the same day in order to present contrasting opinions and paradoxes to the reader (MacIntyre, 1998). According to William McDonald (2009) in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authorship presents a progression through the three existential stages.
Upon his death in 1855, he considered himself a martyr for the Christian faith (Jolivet, 1946). Though it seems that he came dangerously close to leaving Christianity, it shall be revealed that Kierkegaard was a witness to the truth and a knight of faith. Kierkegaard’s prolific writings have influenced modern ethical thought through his contributions to philosophy, theology, and psychology. Ahead of his time, yet fitting perfectly into his 19th century existence, Kierkegaard’s ideas are just as relevant and necessary today.
Philosophy
Kierkegaard’s philosophy centers on what he called the three spheres of existence. When Kierkegaard wrote of these spheres, as ultimately achieved in his writing Postscript, but also explained in his earlier works Either/Or and Stages, he did not intend to have the reader understand these spheres as stages which one progresses through, but rather as three different ways of existing (Jolivet, 1946). These spheres include the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). The first is the aesthetic which concerns itself with what one sees and experiences such as music, art, poetry, and theater. In it one holds a sense of wonder for the natural world, and it is here that our most base passions, such as food and sex, keep us occupied with the present moment. The aesthetic is characterized by desire and spontaneity and holds no to higher moral law or sense of responsibility; it is in a way animalistic.
The second stage is the ethical, where one chooses to lead a life of morality. This would be the sphere of existence where one is concerned with obedience to governing authorities and possesses a sense of duty. Arbaugh and Arbaugh (1967) explain the ethical as “a quasi-religious consciousness of the moral law,” and a “form of godly repentance arising as an acknowledgment of the debacle of the moral endeavor” (p. 28). It is here that one chooses to either remain in a place of self-righteousness marked by morality or realizes the cruel deception of self-righteousness and seeks yet a higher level of being.
Kierkegaard named the ultimate sphere of existence the religious. This is not merely head knowledge of the Absurd, which Kierkegaard would define more precisely as the incarnation of Christ, but a heart knowledge which consisted of devotion to God made through a subjective choice (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). When one is in the religious sphere of existence, the aesthetic and the ethical are realized and “redeemed so that full human existence is found” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967, p. 31). Therefore, it can be understood that living a life of authentic Christianity is the ultimate goal of existence.
However, these spheres should not be understood as necessarily progressive in nature. One does not evolve or grow into the next existential state naturally; rather, they are entered into through a cognizant choice to do so. Some remain forever in the aesthetic, concerned only with the here and now, the fleeting pleasures of today. Still, others live their whole lives in the ethical sphere as good upstanding citizens and moral saints. It is only those who choose to believe in the absurdity of the Christian faith that Kierkegaard regards as fulfilling their existence and living essentially for that which they were ultimately created (Jolivet, 1946).
Theology
Understanding Kierkegaard’s three spheres, it is then understood that one can only be authentically Christian when one passes to the religious sphere by means of what he called a ‘leap’ of faith (Jolivet, 1946). To Kierkegaard, Christ was the essential paradox where one chooses “either to be offended or to believe” (Jolivet, 1946, p. 54). When one makes the decision to believe, one is living in authentic faith. While Kierkegaard believed that faith is not merited, the decision to believe is authenticated and must be marked by “works of love” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967, p. 400). A true Christian existence is not merely concerned with the eternal, nor is it characterized by being too focused on the temporal. To put it simply, our earthly life is the place where the stuff of eternal faith is lived out; in this we fulfill our essence.
Kierkegaard challenged the notion of being a Christian-by-proxy, that by being born into Christendom one has a complete, authentic Christian faith. He confronted a cultural Christianity which relied upon knowledge of faith, as opposed to a true, subjective experience of it (Tomkins, 2005). “To find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die” is this subjectivism as defined by Kierkegaard (Tomkins, 2005, p. 212). Rather than finding Christ only by means of the state church, Christianity depends on the individual. One cannot be reasoned into Christianity, by philosophy or science; rather, faith is a gift of God, a supernatural, irrational thing (Jolivet, 1946, p. 55).
Kierkegaard also pointed a stern finger at the state-church, Lutheranism. In Walter Lowrie’s translation of Attack upon “Christendom” (1855/1968), a compilation of Kierkegaard’s writings directed toward the church, his distaste of the relationship between state and church is evident. He warns of “the danger of letting thyself be caught, or that thou are caught, in the monstrous illusion the State and the priest brought about, making men believe that this is Christianity” (Kierkegaard, 1855/1968, p. 60). It is important to note that Kierkegaard was critical of the Lutheran church as an institution, but he was “undoubtedly on Luther’s side” regarding Luther’s theological convictions concerning the nature of sin, justification by faith alone through grace, and the importance of personal communion with God (Jolivet, 1946, p. 207).
A major theme for Kierkegaard was that faith cannot be defined rationally, argued logically, or proved scientifically. This challenged the reigning Hegelian view of rationalism. The incarnation of Jesus Christ is the paradox of the Absurd, that “in the Instant the eternal God entered into time” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, p. 136). Regis Jolivet (1946) explains in Introduction to Kierkegaard that apologetics was viewed as Kierkegaard as antithetical to faith: “The man who wishes to prove belief has something further to learn, namely that he does not believe” (p. 52).
In Kierkegaard’s famous book Fear and Trembling (1843/1954), written under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, the ‘knight of faith’ is introduced. As the familiar story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son Isaac is retold, Kierkegaard invites the reader to consider “that God demand[ed] a suspension of the ethical,” that is, Abraham’s duty to God was more pressing than his ethical duty to man (McDonald, 2009, Kierkegaard’s Ethics section, para. 6). In this way, Abraham was a ‘knight of faith’ because he was able to suspend ethics, no matter how absurd, in obedience to a Higher Law, that is, God. With Abraham, Kierkegaard also considered the Virgin Mary to be a ‘knight of faith.’ He explained this in Fear and Trembling (1843/1954):
She has no need of worldly admiration, any more than Abraham has need of tears, for she was not a heroine, and he was not a hero, but both of them became greater than such, not at all because they were exempted from distress and torment and paradox, but they became great through these.
Psychology
Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism, though it was not his wish to found a new school of thought (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). He witnessed a society that was changing from feudalism to capitalism and thus required people to become individuals, to make their own choices (McDonald, 2009). The hierarchical system was abolished and social mobility was more fluid and horizontal. This gave Kierkegaard the perfect setting to challenge the public, pushing them toward a kind of existential crisis. His goal in writing was not to give the public definitive answers, but to persuade them to make a choice that would prove their individualism (Jolivet, 1946).
Rollo May, the founder of existential psychotherapy was heavily influenced by the Kierkegaardian themes of freedom, death, and isolation (Hoffman, 2009). Kierkegaard’s dialectic of freedom of choice states that “to exist is to choose” and that we have both the liberty to choose and the necessity to do so (Jolivet, 1946, p. 101). Anxiety arises out of this freedom. Arbaugh and Arbaugh’s (1967) commentary on Kierkegaard’s essay “The Concept of Dread” explains to the reader that to experience dread is “to be anxious over the possibilities of the future” (p. 160). This is a foundational theme in modern existential therapy. Death was also a very important thing to reflect on, in Kierkegaard’s mind, in that it is something that should disturb us (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967). Within modern existential therapy, death is a theme used to encourage people to face the reality of life and to move toward an embracing of the freedom of choice (Hoffman, 2009). Isolation as an existential theme well known to Kierkegaard, as quoted in Jolivet’s (1946) Introduction to Kierkegaard: “The need of solitude is a sign that there is spirit in a man after all, and it is a measure for what spirit there is” (p. 24). Kierkegaard himself illuminates this concept in his book Either/Or (1843/1944):
When around one everything has become silent, solemn as a clear, starlit night, when the soul comes to be alone in the whole world, then before one there appears, not an extraordinary human being, but the eternal power itself, then the heavens open, and the I chooses itself or, more correctly, receives itself.
Another key to understanding Kierkegaard’s psychological influence is his promotion of individuality, or becoming the true self. To become “authentic”, one must differentiate himself from the “public,” or the masses of people who are “enslaved by the ideologies and fashions of the age” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967, p. 410). Understanding the three stages of existence, it becomes clear that those who are enraptured in the aesthetic stage are among those described as the ‘public,’ being caught up in the temporal and popular. Then it must follow that to reach authenticity, to progress to another stage, one must face the anxiety that accompanies freedom of choice and simply choose. This would be proof to Kierkegaard of authentic existence.
Conclusion
Kierkegaard’s life was lived in a metaphysical solitude; however his ideas and philosophy of being are embraced by a multitude today. Being the father of existentialism, Kierkegaard is one of the most influential authors of the 19th century. His contributions to philosophy, theology, and psychology are abundant, important, and relevant. He was indeed a ‘witness to the truth’ and a ‘knight of faith.’
Jolivet (1946) quotes the man’s own definition of a ‘witness to the truth’ as one who “bears witness to the truth in poverty, in humiliation and contempt, misunderstood, hated, mocked at, despised, ridiculed. A witness to the truth is a martyr” (p. 34). Kierkegaard most certainly fits this definition. In his local paper, The Corsair, Kierkegaard was attacked, made fun of, and endured “suffering for the cause of righteousness” (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967, p. 228). Kierkegaard defines a ‘knight of faith’ in Fear and Trembling and points to Abraham and Mary (Jolivet, 1946). It is evident that he fits this description as well, though he probably did not give himself the title. For he too sought a Higher Law, like Abraham, that was over and above ethics. He sacrificed his love for Regine Olsen and his even own life, at least in his mind, to a relentless pursuit of truth, in order to spurn us on toward the upward call of God (Arbaugh & Arbaugh, 1967).
Kierkegaard knew that he would not be understood by his contemporaries or the ‘professors’ to come. In The Point of View (1848/1940) he wrote:
So it is I represent myself. Should it prove that the present age will not understand me—very well then, I belong to history, knowing assuredly that I shall find a place there and what place it will be. Humble as I am before God, I also know this—and at the same time I know it is my duty definitely not to suppress this in silence (pg. 98).
Arbaugh and Arbaugh (1967) posit, “The twentieth century is marked by anxiety and even by anguish, and perhaps no voice speaks to these more pertinently and provocatively than Kierkegaard” (p. 17). As we deal with the crises of life, the meaning of freedom, the plethora of choices that rise before our generation, the philosophy of Kierkegaard is still relevant. God created us for a purpose, this is our essence; to exist is to live that for which we were created. This is the ultimate choice – to exist in acceptance of God’s purpose for us.
References
Arbaugh, G.A., & Arbaugh G. B. (1967). Kierkegaard’s authorship. Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana
College Library Publications.
Hoffman,L. (2009). Existential therapy. Retrieved from http://www.existential-therapy.com/Index.htm.
Jolivet, Regis. (1946). Introduction to Kierkegaard. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc.
Kierkegaard, S. (1951). Attack upon “Christendom.” (W. Lowrie, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press. (Original work published 1855).
Kierkegaard, S. (1944). Either/or. (D. Swenson, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(Original work published in 1843).
Kierkegaard, S. (1954). Fear and trembling. (W. Lowrie, Trans.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor
Books. (Original work published in 1843).
Kierkegaard, S. (1940). The point of view. (W. Lowrie, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. (Original work published 1848).
MacIntyre, A. (1998). A short history of ethics: A history of moral philosophy from the Homeric Age to the
twentieth century. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
McDonald, W. (2009). SØren Kierkegaard. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September
5, 2011, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
Tomkins, S. (2005). A short history of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company
Friday, December 31, 2010
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951)
Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian-British philosopher, was one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century. His work contributed to various movements in analytic and linguistic philosophy. He studied at Trinity College, Cambridge with Bertrand Russell. As colleagues, Russell and Wittgenstein developed their view called “logical atomism.”
Russell inspired Wittgenstein to consider the nature of thought itself. Russell was famous for statements like these:
According to Wittgenstein’s picture theory, meaning requires that there be “atomic” facts. This means that meaning is arrived at through analysis of only propositions that picture facts, or propositions of science. By this reasoning, metaphysical and ethical statements are not meaningful assertions. Words such as good, evil and beauty don’t represent simple propositions, so a statement such as “Murder is evil” is impossible to verify factually.
Wittgenstein’s most famous work is Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1921), a volume of only 75 pages, but which he believed provided the “final solution” to philosophical problems. In the Tractatus, he held that “philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts”and philosophy is “not a body of propositions, but to make propositions clear.”
Logical positivists were greatly influenced by Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. They soundly rejected all truth claims that could not be reduced to atomic facts and pushed ethics aside, viewing it largely as a waste of intellectual energy. Logical Positivism was a highly academic approach that had little appeal to the average person who struggled with day to day matters of moral choice. It also didn’t represent the religious sentiments of Wittgenstein, who called Kierkegaard “a saint.”
In the lesson on Kierkegaard, we found that he believed that knowledge is miraculous or supernaturally provided. He would have agreed with the Socratic-Platonic view that there is no learning, since one can’t learn what one already knows intuitively or a priori. Drawing of John Climacus’ understanding of spiritual enlightenment, Kierkegaard further argued that learning involves a mysterious change that takes place in the learner at a specific moment of his existence - a moment of enlightenment. In this moment, the learner is absolutely certain that he/she has grasped eternal knowledge. He maintains that this is miraculous because it only can be initiated by God, who is beyond time and space, through a series of events in time and space This learning or enlightenment is highly individual and subjective, and it is unique for every learner. Such knowledge produces an existential change though this change may be very difficult to explain or even to articulate, given the limitations of human language.
Kierkegaard died 34 years before Wittgenstein was born and though Wittenstein was familiar with Kieregaard's writings, the two philosophers approached the question of knowledge differently. For Wittgenstein language can only approximate reality. It can never be other than a picture of reality. In other words, a statement or expression describes an experience by creating a structure isomorphic with the structure of that experience.
In the Philosophical Investigations (1953), Wittgenstein moves in a different direction from his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. In Tractatus, he argued that philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts”and is “not a body of propositions, but to make propositions clear.” Language is useful but approximates reality. In Philosophical Investigations, he insisted that "philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Here language gets in the way. These writings divide Wittgenstein’s work into two distinct phases. The two are not oppositional, however. Wittgenstein never set aside his picture theory of a thought as a logical picture of facts. In the Tractatus, he develops his thought about the logic of propositions, whereas in the Philosophical Investigations he is concerned about other forms of language.
According to Wittgenstein’s picture theory, meaning requires that there be “atomic” facts. This means that meaning is arrived at through analysis of only propositions that picture facts, or propositions of science. By this reasoning, metaphysical and ethical statements are not meaningful assertions. Words such as good, evil and beauty don’t represent simple propositions, so a statement such as “Murder is evil” is impossible to verify factually. Logical positivists were greatly influenced by Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. They soundly rejected all truth claims that could not be reduced to atomic facts and pushed ethics aside, viewing it largely as a waste of intellectual energy.
Although only a few explicit references to Kierkegaard exist in Wittgenstein’s works, it is clear that Wittgenstein shared Kierkegaard’s religious inclinations. In conversation with his friend Maurice O'Connor Drury, Wittgenstein made the following remark: “Bach wrote on the title page of his Orgelbuchlein, ‘To the glory of the most high God, and that my neighbor may be benefited thereby.’ That is what I would have liked to say about my work.”
A much as he may have wanted to be remembered for giving glory to God, Wittgenstein’s religious thought had little influence on 20th century ethics. His Tractatus on the other hand, influenced the development of Logical Positivism with its strong element of atheism, and works published after his death influenced German Idealism. Rarely is Wittgenstein's thought considered alongside that of Søren Kierkegaard, though clearly Kierkegaard was a significant source of inspiration for him. The philosopher who best understood this was Wittgenstein's student, friend and translator, Elizabeth Anscombe, to whom we will turn in the next lesson.
Related reading: Elizabeth Anscombe on Justice
Russell inspired Wittgenstein to consider the nature of thought itself. Russell was famous for statements like these:
- “Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible. Thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought is great and swift and free.”
- “Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”
According to Wittgenstein’s picture theory, meaning requires that there be “atomic” facts. This means that meaning is arrived at through analysis of only propositions that picture facts, or propositions of science. By this reasoning, metaphysical and ethical statements are not meaningful assertions. Words such as good, evil and beauty don’t represent simple propositions, so a statement such as “Murder is evil” is impossible to verify factually.
Wittgenstein’s most famous work is Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1921), a volume of only 75 pages, but which he believed provided the “final solution” to philosophical problems. In the Tractatus, he held that “philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts”and philosophy is “not a body of propositions, but to make propositions clear.”
Logical positivists were greatly influenced by Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. They soundly rejected all truth claims that could not be reduced to atomic facts and pushed ethics aside, viewing it largely as a waste of intellectual energy. Logical Positivism was a highly academic approach that had little appeal to the average person who struggled with day to day matters of moral choice. It also didn’t represent the religious sentiments of Wittgenstein, who called Kierkegaard “a saint.”
In the lesson on Kierkegaard, we found that he believed that knowledge is miraculous or supernaturally provided. He would have agreed with the Socratic-Platonic view that there is no learning, since one can’t learn what one already knows intuitively or a priori. Drawing of John Climacus’ understanding of spiritual enlightenment, Kierkegaard further argued that learning involves a mysterious change that takes place in the learner at a specific moment of his existence - a moment of enlightenment. In this moment, the learner is absolutely certain that he/she has grasped eternal knowledge. He maintains that this is miraculous because it only can be initiated by God, who is beyond time and space, through a series of events in time and space This learning or enlightenment is highly individual and subjective, and it is unique for every learner. Such knowledge produces an existential change though this change may be very difficult to explain or even to articulate, given the limitations of human language.
Kierkegaard died 34 years before Wittgenstein was born and though Wittenstein was familiar with Kieregaard's writings, the two philosophers approached the question of knowledge differently. For Wittgenstein language can only approximate reality. It can never be other than a picture of reality. In other words, a statement or expression describes an experience by creating a structure isomorphic with the structure of that experience.
In the Philosophical Investigations (1953), Wittgenstein moves in a different direction from his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. In Tractatus, he argued that philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts”and is “not a body of propositions, but to make propositions clear.” Language is useful but approximates reality. In Philosophical Investigations, he insisted that "philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Here language gets in the way. These writings divide Wittgenstein’s work into two distinct phases. The two are not oppositional, however. Wittgenstein never set aside his picture theory of a thought as a logical picture of facts. In the Tractatus, he develops his thought about the logic of propositions, whereas in the Philosophical Investigations he is concerned about other forms of language.
According to Wittgenstein’s picture theory, meaning requires that there be “atomic” facts. This means that meaning is arrived at through analysis of only propositions that picture facts, or propositions of science. By this reasoning, metaphysical and ethical statements are not meaningful assertions. Words such as good, evil and beauty don’t represent simple propositions, so a statement such as “Murder is evil” is impossible to verify factually. Logical positivists were greatly influenced by Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. They soundly rejected all truth claims that could not be reduced to atomic facts and pushed ethics aside, viewing it largely as a waste of intellectual energy.
Although only a few explicit references to Kierkegaard exist in Wittgenstein’s works, it is clear that Wittgenstein shared Kierkegaard’s religious inclinations. In conversation with his friend Maurice O'Connor Drury, Wittgenstein made the following remark: “Bach wrote on the title page of his Orgelbuchlein, ‘To the glory of the most high God, and that my neighbor may be benefited thereby.’ That is what I would have liked to say about my work.”
A much as he may have wanted to be remembered for giving glory to God, Wittgenstein’s religious thought had little influence on 20th century ethics. His Tractatus on the other hand, influenced the development of Logical Positivism with its strong element of atheism, and works published after his death influenced German Idealism. Rarely is Wittgenstein's thought considered alongside that of Søren Kierkegaard, though clearly Kierkegaard was a significant source of inspiration for him. The philosopher who best understood this was Wittgenstein's student, friend and translator, Elizabeth Anscombe, to whom we will turn in the next lesson.
Related reading: Elizabeth Anscombe on Justice
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Alice C. Linsley
Kierkegaard was a brilliant philosopher who was critical of 18th century Romanticism’s emphasis on naturalism. He was also critical of Empiricism’s claim that moral judgment must be based on reason and verifiable data. Kierkegaard believed that the basis for forming moral judgment is always subjective and that the purpose of Philosophy should be to enhance the individual’s quality of life and freedom.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche shared an overarching realization that anything decided to be meaningful or important must come from within the individual. It is the human race itself that attributes meaning. They both regarded the objective truth of the Enlightenment as a concept that ultimately leads to frustration, despair and anxiety. In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and in Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, each philosopher sets out to discover the importance of subjective human emotion, and the role of human freedom in the universe.
In his personal life Kierkegaard suffered from depression. Before age 21, he lost his mother and five of his family members. He never married because he regarded marriage as “the deepest form of revelation” and he doubted that he could so thoroughly self-reveal as to fulfill his ideal of marriage. Evidently his struggle with depression didn’t hinder him from expressing his ideas, as he was an extraordinarily prolific writer, contributing in the areas of philosophy, theology, psychology and social criticism.
Kierkegaard refers to biblical Abraham as a “knight of faith” and sees him as the embodiment of his existentialist philosophy. For Kierkegaard, true individuality comes through surrendering one’s individuality. Abraham discovers his meaning in the cosmos through losing himself in God, but when one tries to explain this to another person, the explanation seems absurd.
Kierkegaard wrote, “If a human being did not have an eternal consciousness, if underlying everything there were only a wild, fermenting power that writhing in dark passions produced everything, be it significant or insignificant, if a vast, never appeased emptiness hid beneath everything, what would life be then but despair?” In this statement, Kierkegaard expresses “existential anxiety” or “angst.” Existential angst is not the same as normal fear. It is not caused by outside events that signal danger, it never leaves, it touches every area of our lives, and it does not respond to counseling.
Although Kierkegaard never used the term "existentialism" in his writings, he is regarded as the founder of Christian existentialism. Kierkegaard believed that the value of a philosopher's ideas should be judged by the person's life. (He would have judged Nietzsche's ideas as lacking moral and intellectual value, which Nietzsche would have applauded!) According to Kierkegaard, the individual’s life is the basis upon which he is judged by God. A writer's work is an important part of his existence, but his life as a whole is what ultimately matters to God.
This is why he was attracted to the lives of the saints, especially John Climacus, a 6th century monk who spent much of his time in solitude, prayer and fasting.
While at the monastery on Mount Sinai, Abbot John wrote “The Ladder of Divine Ascent,” a work arranged into thirty chapters or “steps.” Each step details the vices that the individual must conquer and the virtues that the individual must perfect in order to ascend the spiritual “ladder” to the Kingdom of Heaven. Here are some of John Climacus’ famous sayings:
Step 1: A Christian is one who imitated Christ in thought, word and deed. A lover of God is one who lives in communion with all that is natural and sinless.
Step 5: Repentance is a contract with God for a second life. A penitent inflicts his own punishment upon himself.
Step 9: If you forgive quickly, you, too, will be quickly forgiven.
Step 15: Purity is putting on the nature of angels. It is the longed-for house of Christ and the earthly heaven of the heart.
Step 17: He who has tasted the things on high easily despises what is below. He who has not, only finds joy in possessions.
Step 25: Humility is a divine shelter which prevents us from seeing our achievements.
Step 50: There remain three virtues that bind and secure the union of all: Faith, Hope and Love--- and the greatest of these is Love.
Kierkegaard published Philosophical Fragments under the name of John Climacus. In this work, Kierkegaard poses three important questions:
• What is the relationship between history (temporal existence) and human consciousness (eternal existence)?
• Is there any purpose or meaning to events in our temporal existence other than historical interest?
• Is it possible to base eternal happiness upon historical knowledge?
Kierkegaard’s solution was to find a link between the historical/temporal and the eternal/nontemporal. He does so by explaining knowledge as miraculous or supernatural. He agrees with the Socratic-Platonic view that there is no learning, since one can’t learn what one already knows. Drawing of John Climacus’ understanding of spiritual enlightenment, Kierkegaard argues that learning involves a mysterious change that takes place in the learner at a specific moment of his existence - a moment of enlightenment. In this moment, the learner is absolutely certain that he/she has grasped eternal knowledge. He maintains that this is miraculous and supernatural because it only can be initiated by God through a series of historical/temporal events. This learning (or enlightenment) is highly individual and subjective, and it is unique for every learner.
Kierkegaard argues further that individuals are unable to know anything that is certain except through this supernatural intervention in history. In this sense, Kierkegaard is a Skeptic. He doubts that humans are able of our own faculties to learn or know anything.
So what makes this learning or enlightenment possible? Kierkegaard recognizes that human existence involves suffering, anguish, pain, sickness and death. That being our plight, we naturally desire an escape. This desire is very powerful. It is a yearning for the eternal that leads us to “leap into absurdity.”
What is the absurdity? For Kierkegaard, it is the supernatural intervention of the divine Person Jesus Christ entering history, making it possible for us to know that God exists. The existence of God can’t be proved by reason, by experimentation, by logic or through observation. Only by faith in this divine intervention can one hope to escape the suffering of this life and move from ignorance to enlightenment. This is the “supernaturalism” of Kierkegaard’s philosophy and it is clearly the opposite of the naturalism of Nietzsche and the Romantics.
Whereas Nietzsche rejected the prevailing morality in favor of his “immoralism,” Kierkegaard presents social norms as the universal measure of service to the community. Even human sacrifice is justified in terms of how it serves the community, so when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia he is performing a tragic sacrifice in order that the Greek expedition to Troy may succeed. Were Abraham’s intention in sacrificing Isaac to gain worldly success, he would simply be another tragic hero like Agamemnon. But as Kierkegaard understands the story of Mount Moriah, it is Abraham’s absolute surrender to God that makes possible his receiving back his offering and much more. Kierkegaard explains, “Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith …for only in infinite resignation do I become conscious of my external validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith.”
Kierkegaard recognizes an existential duty to a creator God as more authoritative than human social norms. Ultimately God's definition of the distinction between good and evil outranks any human definition. He holds up biblical Abraham's near sacrifice of his son, not as an example of obedience to social norms, but as the consequence of a "teleological suspension of the ethical.”
That is, Abraham recognizes a duty to obey something higher than both his social duty not to kill an innocent and his fatherly commitment to his son. (Fear and Trembling)
From Kierkegaard's perspective, the distinction between good and evil is dependent not on social norms but on God. Therefore it is possible for Abraham to live and act beyond the prescribed norms of his day to fulfill a spiritual destiny that he alone can fulfill. This renders ethical cases such as Abraham's problematic, since we have no public policy to guide our decision about whether Abraham is obeying God's command or is a deluded would-be murderer.
In the end, Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy can’t be used to formulate specific ethical guidelines for society. It is simply too personal and too subjective. While existentialism would become a popular philosophy in the 20th century, ethics in the post-modern world would be influenced more by analytic and linguistic philosophy, and especially the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, to which we turn next.
Kierkegaard was a brilliant philosopher who was critical of 18th century Romanticism’s emphasis on naturalism. He was also critical of Empiricism’s claim that moral judgment must be based on reason and verifiable data. Kierkegaard believed that the basis for forming moral judgment is always subjective and that the purpose of Philosophy should be to enhance the individual’s quality of life and freedom.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche shared an overarching realization that anything decided to be meaningful or important must come from within the individual. It is the human race itself that attributes meaning. They both regarded the objective truth of the Enlightenment as a concept that ultimately leads to frustration, despair and anxiety. In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and in Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, each philosopher sets out to discover the importance of subjective human emotion, and the role of human freedom in the universe.
In his personal life Kierkegaard suffered from depression. Before age 21, he lost his mother and five of his family members. He never married because he regarded marriage as “the deepest form of revelation” and he doubted that he could so thoroughly self-reveal as to fulfill his ideal of marriage. Evidently his struggle with depression didn’t hinder him from expressing his ideas, as he was an extraordinarily prolific writer, contributing in the areas of philosophy, theology, psychology and social criticism.
Kierkegaard refers to biblical Abraham as a “knight of faith” and sees him as the embodiment of his existentialist philosophy. For Kierkegaard, true individuality comes through surrendering one’s individuality. Abraham discovers his meaning in the cosmos through losing himself in God, but when one tries to explain this to another person, the explanation seems absurd.
Kierkegaard wrote, “If a human being did not have an eternal consciousness, if underlying everything there were only a wild, fermenting power that writhing in dark passions produced everything, be it significant or insignificant, if a vast, never appeased emptiness hid beneath everything, what would life be then but despair?” In this statement, Kierkegaard expresses “existential anxiety” or “angst.” Existential angst is not the same as normal fear. It is not caused by outside events that signal danger, it never leaves, it touches every area of our lives, and it does not respond to counseling.
Although Kierkegaard never used the term "existentialism" in his writings, he is regarded as the founder of Christian existentialism. Kierkegaard believed that the value of a philosopher's ideas should be judged by the person's life. (He would have judged Nietzsche's ideas as lacking moral and intellectual value, which Nietzsche would have applauded!) According to Kierkegaard, the individual’s life is the basis upon which he is judged by God. A writer's work is an important part of his existence, but his life as a whole is what ultimately matters to God.
This is why he was attracted to the lives of the saints, especially John Climacus, a 6th century monk who spent much of his time in solitude, prayer and fasting.
While at the monastery on Mount Sinai, Abbot John wrote “The Ladder of Divine Ascent,” a work arranged into thirty chapters or “steps.” Each step details the vices that the individual must conquer and the virtues that the individual must perfect in order to ascend the spiritual “ladder” to the Kingdom of Heaven. Here are some of John Climacus’ famous sayings:
Step 1: A Christian is one who imitated Christ in thought, word and deed. A lover of God is one who lives in communion with all that is natural and sinless.
Step 5: Repentance is a contract with God for a second life. A penitent inflicts his own punishment upon himself.
Step 9: If you forgive quickly, you, too, will be quickly forgiven.
Step 15: Purity is putting on the nature of angels. It is the longed-for house of Christ and the earthly heaven of the heart.
Step 17: He who has tasted the things on high easily despises what is below. He who has not, only finds joy in possessions.
Step 25: Humility is a divine shelter which prevents us from seeing our achievements.
Step 50: There remain three virtues that bind and secure the union of all: Faith, Hope and Love--- and the greatest of these is Love.
Kierkegaard published Philosophical Fragments under the name of John Climacus. In this work, Kierkegaard poses three important questions:
• What is the relationship between history (temporal existence) and human consciousness (eternal existence)?
• Is there any purpose or meaning to events in our temporal existence other than historical interest?
• Is it possible to base eternal happiness upon historical knowledge?
Kierkegaard’s solution was to find a link between the historical/temporal and the eternal/nontemporal. He does so by explaining knowledge as miraculous or supernatural. He agrees with the Socratic-Platonic view that there is no learning, since one can’t learn what one already knows. Drawing of John Climacus’ understanding of spiritual enlightenment, Kierkegaard argues that learning involves a mysterious change that takes place in the learner at a specific moment of his existence - a moment of enlightenment. In this moment, the learner is absolutely certain that he/she has grasped eternal knowledge. He maintains that this is miraculous and supernatural because it only can be initiated by God through a series of historical/temporal events. This learning (or enlightenment) is highly individual and subjective, and it is unique for every learner.
Kierkegaard argues further that individuals are unable to know anything that is certain except through this supernatural intervention in history. In this sense, Kierkegaard is a Skeptic. He doubts that humans are able of our own faculties to learn or know anything.
So what makes this learning or enlightenment possible? Kierkegaard recognizes that human existence involves suffering, anguish, pain, sickness and death. That being our plight, we naturally desire an escape. This desire is very powerful. It is a yearning for the eternal that leads us to “leap into absurdity.”
What is the absurdity? For Kierkegaard, it is the supernatural intervention of the divine Person Jesus Christ entering history, making it possible for us to know that God exists. The existence of God can’t be proved by reason, by experimentation, by logic or through observation. Only by faith in this divine intervention can one hope to escape the suffering of this life and move from ignorance to enlightenment. This is the “supernaturalism” of Kierkegaard’s philosophy and it is clearly the opposite of the naturalism of Nietzsche and the Romantics.
Whereas Nietzsche rejected the prevailing morality in favor of his “immoralism,” Kierkegaard presents social norms as the universal measure of service to the community. Even human sacrifice is justified in terms of how it serves the community, so when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia he is performing a tragic sacrifice in order that the Greek expedition to Troy may succeed. Were Abraham’s intention in sacrificing Isaac to gain worldly success, he would simply be another tragic hero like Agamemnon. But as Kierkegaard understands the story of Mount Moriah, it is Abraham’s absolute surrender to God that makes possible his receiving back his offering and much more. Kierkegaard explains, “Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith …for only in infinite resignation do I become conscious of my external validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith.”
Kierkegaard recognizes an existential duty to a creator God as more authoritative than human social norms. Ultimately God's definition of the distinction between good and evil outranks any human definition. He holds up biblical Abraham's near sacrifice of his son, not as an example of obedience to social norms, but as the consequence of a "teleological suspension of the ethical.”
That is, Abraham recognizes a duty to obey something higher than both his social duty not to kill an innocent and his fatherly commitment to his son. (Fear and Trembling)
From Kierkegaard's perspective, the distinction between good and evil is dependent not on social norms but on God. Therefore it is possible for Abraham to live and act beyond the prescribed norms of his day to fulfill a spiritual destiny that he alone can fulfill. This renders ethical cases such as Abraham's problematic, since we have no public policy to guide our decision about whether Abraham is obeying God's command or is a deluded would-be murderer.
In the end, Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy can’t be used to formulate specific ethical guidelines for society. It is simply too personal and too subjective. While existentialism would become a popular philosophy in the 20th century, ethics in the post-modern world would be influenced more by analytic and linguistic philosophy, and especially the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, to which we turn next.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Alice C. Linsley
Nietzsche called himself an “immoralist” and criticized almost all the moral philosophers. He wrote:
“Whether it be hedonism or pessimism or utilitarianism or eudaemonism: all these modes of thought which assess the value of things according to pleasure and suffering, that is to say according to attendant and secondary phenomena, are foreground modes of thought and naïvetés which anyone conscious of creative powers and an artist’s conscience will look down on with derision” (Peoples and Fatherlands, 7:225).
Nietzsche’s moral framework is his own peculiar interpretation of history. Nietzsche says that history reveals two kinds of morality, the morality of the masters and the morality of the slaves. The master morality ascribes to itself noble qualities such as bravery, daring, truthfulness and blondness, but regards inferiors as swarthy cowards, given to lies and vulgarity. According to Nietzsche, the poor and weak resented this and therefore constructed a different system of values and morals which stressed humility, sympathy and cooperation among themselves as the underdog. Nietzsche called this “a transvaluation of values” and he blamed it on the Jews.
He wrote, “It was the Jews who, reversing the aristocratic equation (good = noble = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a frightening consistency to suggest the contrary equation, and to hold on to it with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless)” (On the Genealogy of Morals 19)
Nietzsche held that the revolt of the slaves reached it peak in first-century Christianity. He blamed Christianity for the downfall of ancient Rome, the fatherland of aristocratic virtues embodied in the Caesars. Rome was destroyed, in Nietzsche’s mind, because people began to honor four Jews: Jesus, Mary, Peter and Paul (GM 36). He argues that the success of Christianity meant the degeneration of the virtuous ideals of power in favor of compassion for the lowly.
He believed that immoral rulers and those who sought world domination embody the highest morality. He praised Napoleon as one who showed the world what it means to be noble. He wrote:
“But there are cases where a leader or bell-wether is felt to be indispensable; in such cases people keep trying to set up an aggregation of clever herd-men in place of real commanders: that is the origin, for instance, of all parliamentary constitutions. But what a blessing, in spite of everything, what a release from an increasingly unbearable burden is the appearance of an absolute commander of these herd-Europeans! This was demonstrated most recently by the effect of Napoleon when he appeared on the scene. The history of the impact of Napoleon can be said to be the history of the highest happiness this entire century has achieved…” (Beyond Good and Evil 86)
To achieve Nietzsche’s ideal of a master race, Christianity would have to be overturned. Nietzsche claimed that modern man no longer had need of the idea of God. He declared that “God is dead” and that the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of every universal perspective. Once this happens, there can no longer be any coherent sense of objective truth. Instead we would be guided in our moral decisions by only our own perspectives.
Some argue that Nietzsche’s view renders all truth so subjective that the very idea of truth becomes meaningless. However, this is not Nietzsche’s intention. He places a high value on truth as blunt honesty, especially among those who would be masters. What Nietzsche calls honesty is the opposite of compassion and sympathy. Nietzsche’s highest virtue is cruelty justified by power. Nietzsche calls for the strong in the world to break their self-imposed chains and assert their power and vitality upon the world. Nietzsche admits that “a philosophy that dares to do this has already placed itself beyond good and evil” (BGE 7).
Nietzsche wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra about how the Übermensch (Superman) must create the noble values of power, enthusiasm for war, and world domination to bring human existence to a new level. “Renouncing war,” Nietzsche wrote, “means renouncing the great life” (TI 23).
For Nietzsche the “will to power” is the secret of life and the destiny of humanity. He believes that a historical figure will arise who will bring perfection to the world. He describes this figure as a “Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ.” His methods will include predation and biological engineering (eugenics) of human populations. Perhaps his entire grotesque philosophy is summarized in this statement:
The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape, and torture with the same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in some student's rag.... When a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of what importance are treaties to him?... To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species.
Nietzsche has been the subject of numerous psychological studies. Some believe that his paranoia, lack of coherence, and grandiosity were products of a mind affected by advanced stage syphilis, which he was known to have. According to the memoirs of his sister, who cared for him, the signs of third-stage syphilis became acute in the last years of Nietzsche’s life. This may explain the grandiosity of his ideas.
It may also explain his irrational hatred of the Church and of women. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche maintained that higher forms of civilization require stricter controls on women. Nietzsche seemed to gain pleasure from insulting women. He was known for his statements such as these, "Women are less than shallow" and "Are you going to women? Do not forget the whip!" Perhaps his view of women is best summed in this statement: “And finally, woman! One-half of mankind is weak, chronically sick, changeable, shifty - woman requires . . . a religion of the weak which glorifies weakness, love and modesty as divine: or better still, she makes the strong weak - she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with decadent types - the priests, for instance - against the "mighty," against the "strong," against men. Women avail themselves of children for the cult of piety. . .”
Nietzsche devoted much of his writings to demonstrating that Christianity is irrational and degrading. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard agreed with the first part of Nietzsche’s evaluation of Christianity, but not the second part. Kierkegaard believed that the validity of Christianity was not dependent on its reasonableness and that the individual’s unique identity in the universe is derived from taking possession of his nature as a creature of God. Far from being degrading, Kierkegaard saw Christianity as essential to realize both one’s despair and one’s existence.
We will consider Kierkegaard in tomorrow's post.
Nietzsche called himself an “immoralist” and criticized almost all the moral philosophers. He wrote:
“Whether it be hedonism or pessimism or utilitarianism or eudaemonism: all these modes of thought which assess the value of things according to pleasure and suffering, that is to say according to attendant and secondary phenomena, are foreground modes of thought and naïvetés which anyone conscious of creative powers and an artist’s conscience will look down on with derision” (Peoples and Fatherlands, 7:225).
Nietzsche’s moral framework is his own peculiar interpretation of history. Nietzsche says that history reveals two kinds of morality, the morality of the masters and the morality of the slaves. The master morality ascribes to itself noble qualities such as bravery, daring, truthfulness and blondness, but regards inferiors as swarthy cowards, given to lies and vulgarity. According to Nietzsche, the poor and weak resented this and therefore constructed a different system of values and morals which stressed humility, sympathy and cooperation among themselves as the underdog. Nietzsche called this “a transvaluation of values” and he blamed it on the Jews.
He wrote, “It was the Jews who, reversing the aristocratic equation (good = noble = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a frightening consistency to suggest the contrary equation, and to hold on to it with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless)” (On the Genealogy of Morals 19)
Nietzsche held that the revolt of the slaves reached it peak in first-century Christianity. He blamed Christianity for the downfall of ancient Rome, the fatherland of aristocratic virtues embodied in the Caesars. Rome was destroyed, in Nietzsche’s mind, because people began to honor four Jews: Jesus, Mary, Peter and Paul (GM 36). He argues that the success of Christianity meant the degeneration of the virtuous ideals of power in favor of compassion for the lowly.
He believed that immoral rulers and those who sought world domination embody the highest morality. He praised Napoleon as one who showed the world what it means to be noble. He wrote:
“But there are cases where a leader or bell-wether is felt to be indispensable; in such cases people keep trying to set up an aggregation of clever herd-men in place of real commanders: that is the origin, for instance, of all parliamentary constitutions. But what a blessing, in spite of everything, what a release from an increasingly unbearable burden is the appearance of an absolute commander of these herd-Europeans! This was demonstrated most recently by the effect of Napoleon when he appeared on the scene. The history of the impact of Napoleon can be said to be the history of the highest happiness this entire century has achieved…” (Beyond Good and Evil 86)
To achieve Nietzsche’s ideal of a master race, Christianity would have to be overturned. Nietzsche claimed that modern man no longer had need of the idea of God. He declared that “God is dead” and that the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of every universal perspective. Once this happens, there can no longer be any coherent sense of objective truth. Instead we would be guided in our moral decisions by only our own perspectives.
Some argue that Nietzsche’s view renders all truth so subjective that the very idea of truth becomes meaningless. However, this is not Nietzsche’s intention. He places a high value on truth as blunt honesty, especially among those who would be masters. What Nietzsche calls honesty is the opposite of compassion and sympathy. Nietzsche’s highest virtue is cruelty justified by power. Nietzsche calls for the strong in the world to break their self-imposed chains and assert their power and vitality upon the world. Nietzsche admits that “a philosophy that dares to do this has already placed itself beyond good and evil” (BGE 7).
Nietzsche wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra about how the Übermensch (Superman) must create the noble values of power, enthusiasm for war, and world domination to bring human existence to a new level. “Renouncing war,” Nietzsche wrote, “means renouncing the great life” (TI 23).
For Nietzsche the “will to power” is the secret of life and the destiny of humanity. He believes that a historical figure will arise who will bring perfection to the world. He describes this figure as a “Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ.” His methods will include predation and biological engineering (eugenics) of human populations. Perhaps his entire grotesque philosophy is summarized in this statement:
The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape, and torture with the same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in some student's rag.... When a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of what importance are treaties to him?... To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species.
Nietzsche has been the subject of numerous psychological studies. Some believe that his paranoia, lack of coherence, and grandiosity were products of a mind affected by advanced stage syphilis, which he was known to have. According to the memoirs of his sister, who cared for him, the signs of third-stage syphilis became acute in the last years of Nietzsche’s life. This may explain the grandiosity of his ideas.
It may also explain his irrational hatred of the Church and of women. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche maintained that higher forms of civilization require stricter controls on women. Nietzsche seemed to gain pleasure from insulting women. He was known for his statements such as these, "Women are less than shallow" and "Are you going to women? Do not forget the whip!" Perhaps his view of women is best summed in this statement: “And finally, woman! One-half of mankind is weak, chronically sick, changeable, shifty - woman requires . . . a religion of the weak which glorifies weakness, love and modesty as divine: or better still, she makes the strong weak - she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with decadent types - the priests, for instance - against the "mighty," against the "strong," against men. Women avail themselves of children for the cult of piety. . .”
Nietzsche devoted much of his writings to demonstrating that Christianity is irrational and degrading. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard agreed with the first part of Nietzsche’s evaluation of Christianity, but not the second part. Kierkegaard believed that the validity of Christianity was not dependent on its reasonableness and that the individual’s unique identity in the universe is derived from taking possession of his nature as a creature of God. Far from being degrading, Kierkegaard saw Christianity as essential to realize both one’s despair and one’s existence.
We will consider Kierkegaard in tomorrow's post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)