A NOTE ON SOREN KIERKEGAARD
Soren
Kierkegaard’s writings leave a permanent impression on the reader’s
mind. They are extremely original, and, as must be expected, furnish
much material for serious thinking. It may be that we find much room for
disagreement, but there is no question as regards the sincerity of his
convictions. His whole personality, not merely his intellect, seems to
be involved in his writings. He wrote as many as eighteen works, but
only two of them are, very important: Philosophical Fragments and
Concluding Unscientific Postscript .
When we read these we get the impression that we are in contact with a mind of a very fine penetration, and one that is highly sensitive to the meaning of life and its main problems. Evidently, Kierkegaard, was a thinker who was dreadfully in earnest about the purpose of life, and was anxious that his fellowmen should not run after ephemeral things, missing the main aim of life. Thus, his denunciations of the age must be attributed to his zeal and not to cynicism.
Kierkegaard was born and bred up as a pious Christian, but in course of time, he was dissatisfied with the religion of his fathers, as it did not stand the test of reason, and had to be accepted largely as a matter of faith. He therefore broke with Christianity, and was on the look-out for some other safe anchorage. Hegel’s philosophy was then the fashion, and, no wonder, the youngest Ishmaelite sought refuge in it, thinking that it would prove to be a way of life. After deep study, however, he discovered that Hegel’s philosophy was
terribly disappointing. It was a system based on pure thought, which bore no relation to things and in which the individual was nowhere. ‘A philosophy of pure thought’, he writes,’ is for an existing individual a chimera, if the truth that is sought is something to exist in’. He writes elsewhere: ‘The case of most systematizers is as when a man builds a huge castle and lives himself by the side of it, away in a hut. They do not live in the huge systematic building of theirs. This is a decisive objection. Spiritually speaking, a man’s thought should be the building in which he lives.’ Kierkegaard, therefore, rejected Hegel’s philosophy, because it was based on a standpoint that was inaccessible to the individual. Only from a vantage ground outside of human possibility could one survey the totality of existence.
He again sought refuge in Christianity, because it laid the emphasis on the individual and his destiny. The example of Christ was any day more inspiring than all the systems of thought put together. Christ was a historical personality, who claimed to be an incarnation of God. He was a God-Man descended on earth. He was near to us, in as much as he was a human being like anyone of us; and, at the same time, by claiming divinity to him self, he became an ideal for us to follow. One had to place implicit and absolute faith in Christ, if one was to profit by his example. But the conception of God-Man was not free from difficulties. How could God, who is eternally perfect, incarnate Himself as the son of man? It is possible to adduce arguments to prove the existence of God. In regard to a historical human being, there is no difficulty in believing in his existence. But the combination of the two does present logical difficulties which are hard to overcome. It is only by abandoning reason, and taking one’s stand on pure and uncorrupted faith, that one could believe in Christ as God-Man. It is a leap comparable to the leap from the summit of a precipice into abysmal chasm below. The incarnation of God in the person of Christ is a puzzle which can never be rationalized. It is therefore both a limit and a challenge to reason. The true Christian has to lay aside reason and experience and hold fast to this uncertainty. The more passionately he believes in this paradox, the more he proves himself to be an individual. It no doubt entails great risks, but that is the price that the believer has to pay. The man who joins himself to this paradox in the passion of faith is ‘out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water’.
Reason and faith are therefore discontinuous. Various attempts have no doubt been made to reconcile them, but Kierkegaard is definitely of the opinion that the breach cannot be healed. The gulf that separates them is too wide to be bridged. They belong to separate spheres and the only way of avoiding confusion, error, and misdirection of effort is to keep them in their respective spheres. St. Thomas of Acquinas and Hegel made serious attempts to rationalize Christian beliefs, but Kierkegaard does not think highly of them. In his opinion, Christian beliefs are wholly alien to rational thought and incapable of assimilation with the rest of our experience. In taking this view, Kierkegaard is in the very good company of Luther and Pascal.
Kierkegaard is not, however, unaware of the place of reason and thinking in life. He did not mean to contest the traditional claim of reason to guide the day-to-day affairs of life and even to make the right choice as between good and evil. Various finite aims, like seeking wealth, pleasure, and happiness, present themselves before us, and we have to examine them carefully. Reason will show that they are not finally satisfactory and hence have to be renounced as not worth our while. From these finite aims, we may make the transitions to what is Infinite, viz. God, but since God is a purely intellectual conception, it is bound to leave us cold. It will not appeal to our will and emotions, and hence it will be one-sided. We have therefore to give up belief even in God, and proceed to something higher which will call into play our deepest emotions and all the strength of our will-power. Such a conception is that of God-Man exemplified in Christ. It is thus by the rigorous exercise of reason that Kierkegaard formulates the final end which will be worthy of a human being as an existing individual.
Reason can take us thus far and no further. Its role is mainly negative. Its function is to expose the worthlessness of the aims that we ordinarily pursue in life. With the aid of abstract reason, Kant tried to reveal the nature of reality, but failed. The thing-in-itself eluded the grasp of reason. Hegel fared no better. He built a colossal system by the process of reconciling seeming contraries in a higher synthesis, but it did not do justice to the reality of the individual self, nor did it bear any relation to things. No method of reasoning can throw light on the nature of the self. Thought finds its limit here. Existence is not a category of reason. Since it precedes essence, it cannot be defined, It therefore falls outside the scope of thought. A system of thought may be ever so comprehensive, but if it leaves out the individual self, it must be treated as pure fantasy. Hegel maintained that the real was the rational, and that it was therefore possible to render intelligible the whole of reality, including the self, but his claim is untenable.
The existing individual is therefore one who wills absolutely. There should be nothing to act as a check on the absoluteness of his ethical decisions. Kant’s categorical imperative does not go far enough. It lays down the condition that what an individual wills must be capable of universal application. Kierkegaard recognizes no such limit. A man can will without let or hindrance only in an original choice. It must be made with one’s eyes open, with the highest sense of responsibility, and in utter solitude. One should not think of following in the footsteps of others, nor expect others to walk along the path laid by one. There is no question of looking to others for guidance, for no two human beings are ever found in identical situations. Each individual must take the decision by himself, throwing the full weight of his personality into it.
The tension between reason and faith will always be there. Even after taking the final decision, the tension will not slacken in the least, for nothing has happened in the meanwhile to change the situation. The absurd does not become probable, merely because one decides to build one’s life upon it. This total decision has to be renewed from time to time that its tension may not weaken. ‘The truth of inwardness is a function of uncertainty’. As uncertainty increases, inwardness also grows. ‘To depend for one’s life upon the object of a supreme choice and to lay hold on to its objective uncertainty and hang suspended between the two, that is the meaning of faith’. Repeated renewal of the decision makes for growth in inwardness, but there is no development of experience which would remove the tension.
Hegel believed that in history there was the unfoldment of a divine purpose, and that an individual might realize the best in him by identifying himself with it. But Kierkegaard does not agree with this view. He thinks that it is absurd to go to history for one’s life without first having a life of one’s own. It is to abdicate the responsibility of living an authentic life and become colorless and inauthentic. It is feeble and ridiculous limitation to call oneself a member of an association, or to identify oneself with the age, or the public good, or the redemption of humanity. By relying on these external factors, the individual ceases to be an individual and becomes a pale and insignificant nonentity.
When all safe ground has thus been taken away from under our feet, we are in a state of despair. It is a state of utter loneliness and isolation. It is then that the individual will awaken to a true knowledge of his nature. A new and unsuspected dimension of his being will then be revealed to him. This is any day more valuable than collecting a mass of irrelevant information and working it up into a system. The only worth-while knowledge is self-knowledge. The self is not a static entity, but a dynamic, functional unit. It exists only in making and constantly renewing total and irrevocable decisions. The manner in which it lays itself open to be impressed by a critical ethical situation is more important than its assimilating a fund of useless knowledge. ‘It is the how of appropriation and not the what of approximation that is important in knowledge ‘. ‘An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation process of the most passionate inwardness is the highest truth attainable by an individual’. Only such a truth has an intimate bearing on our most cherished interests.
Such is the chart of life that Kierkegaard has mapped out for the individual. The essence of the self is ethical. To live on the ethical plane means to be making absolute decisions. The decisions must relate to an apparently absurd belief. Between faith and reason, there is no possibility of reconciliation. The two are discontinuous. It is no use therefore trying to rationalize the object of Christian faith. Knowing full well that it is most improbable, one must still cling to it with the most passionate inwardness. A man deserves to be called an individual only so long as he takes total decisions in absolute solitariness and experiences the tension arising from reason and faith pulling in opposite directions. Kierkegaard’s journey through his thoughts is unending.
When we read these we get the impression that we are in contact with a mind of a very fine penetration, and one that is highly sensitive to the meaning of life and its main problems. Evidently, Kierkegaard, was a thinker who was dreadfully in earnest about the purpose of life, and was anxious that his fellowmen should not run after ephemeral things, missing the main aim of life. Thus, his denunciations of the age must be attributed to his zeal and not to cynicism.
Kierkegaard was born and bred up as a pious Christian, but in course of time, he was dissatisfied with the religion of his fathers, as it did not stand the test of reason, and had to be accepted largely as a matter of faith. He therefore broke with Christianity, and was on the look-out for some other safe anchorage. Hegel’s philosophy was then the fashion, and, no wonder, the youngest Ishmaelite sought refuge in it, thinking that it would prove to be a way of life. After deep study, however, he discovered that Hegel’s philosophy was
terribly disappointing. It was a system based on pure thought, which bore no relation to things and in which the individual was nowhere. ‘A philosophy of pure thought’, he writes,’ is for an existing individual a chimera, if the truth that is sought is something to exist in’. He writes elsewhere: ‘The case of most systematizers is as when a man builds a huge castle and lives himself by the side of it, away in a hut. They do not live in the huge systematic building of theirs. This is a decisive objection. Spiritually speaking, a man’s thought should be the building in which he lives.’ Kierkegaard, therefore, rejected Hegel’s philosophy, because it was based on a standpoint that was inaccessible to the individual. Only from a vantage ground outside of human possibility could one survey the totality of existence.
He again sought refuge in Christianity, because it laid the emphasis on the individual and his destiny. The example of Christ was any day more inspiring than all the systems of thought put together. Christ was a historical personality, who claimed to be an incarnation of God. He was a God-Man descended on earth. He was near to us, in as much as he was a human being like anyone of us; and, at the same time, by claiming divinity to him self, he became an ideal for us to follow. One had to place implicit and absolute faith in Christ, if one was to profit by his example. But the conception of God-Man was not free from difficulties. How could God, who is eternally perfect, incarnate Himself as the son of man? It is possible to adduce arguments to prove the existence of God. In regard to a historical human being, there is no difficulty in believing in his existence. But the combination of the two does present logical difficulties which are hard to overcome. It is only by abandoning reason, and taking one’s stand on pure and uncorrupted faith, that one could believe in Christ as God-Man. It is a leap comparable to the leap from the summit of a precipice into abysmal chasm below. The incarnation of God in the person of Christ is a puzzle which can never be rationalized. It is therefore both a limit and a challenge to reason. The true Christian has to lay aside reason and experience and hold fast to this uncertainty. The more passionately he believes in this paradox, the more he proves himself to be an individual. It no doubt entails great risks, but that is the price that the believer has to pay. The man who joins himself to this paradox in the passion of faith is ‘out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water’.
Reason and faith are therefore discontinuous. Various attempts have no doubt been made to reconcile them, but Kierkegaard is definitely of the opinion that the breach cannot be healed. The gulf that separates them is too wide to be bridged. They belong to separate spheres and the only way of avoiding confusion, error, and misdirection of effort is to keep them in their respective spheres. St. Thomas of Acquinas and Hegel made serious attempts to rationalize Christian beliefs, but Kierkegaard does not think highly of them. In his opinion, Christian beliefs are wholly alien to rational thought and incapable of assimilation with the rest of our experience. In taking this view, Kierkegaard is in the very good company of Luther and Pascal.
Kierkegaard is not, however, unaware of the place of reason and thinking in life. He did not mean to contest the traditional claim of reason to guide the day-to-day affairs of life and even to make the right choice as between good and evil. Various finite aims, like seeking wealth, pleasure, and happiness, present themselves before us, and we have to examine them carefully. Reason will show that they are not finally satisfactory and hence have to be renounced as not worth our while. From these finite aims, we may make the transitions to what is Infinite, viz. God, but since God is a purely intellectual conception, it is bound to leave us cold. It will not appeal to our will and emotions, and hence it will be one-sided. We have therefore to give up belief even in God, and proceed to something higher which will call into play our deepest emotions and all the strength of our will-power. Such a conception is that of God-Man exemplified in Christ. It is thus by the rigorous exercise of reason that Kierkegaard formulates the final end which will be worthy of a human being as an existing individual.
Reason can take us thus far and no further. Its role is mainly negative. Its function is to expose the worthlessness of the aims that we ordinarily pursue in life. With the aid of abstract reason, Kant tried to reveal the nature of reality, but failed. The thing-in-itself eluded the grasp of reason. Hegel fared no better. He built a colossal system by the process of reconciling seeming contraries in a higher synthesis, but it did not do justice to the reality of the individual self, nor did it bear any relation to things. No method of reasoning can throw light on the nature of the self. Thought finds its limit here. Existence is not a category of reason. Since it precedes essence, it cannot be defined, It therefore falls outside the scope of thought. A system of thought may be ever so comprehensive, but if it leaves out the individual self, it must be treated as pure fantasy. Hegel maintained that the real was the rational, and that it was therefore possible to render intelligible the whole of reality, including the self, but his claim is untenable.
The existing individual is therefore one who wills absolutely. There should be nothing to act as a check on the absoluteness of his ethical decisions. Kant’s categorical imperative does not go far enough. It lays down the condition that what an individual wills must be capable of universal application. Kierkegaard recognizes no such limit. A man can will without let or hindrance only in an original choice. It must be made with one’s eyes open, with the highest sense of responsibility, and in utter solitude. One should not think of following in the footsteps of others, nor expect others to walk along the path laid by one. There is no question of looking to others for guidance, for no two human beings are ever found in identical situations. Each individual must take the decision by himself, throwing the full weight of his personality into it.
The tension between reason and faith will always be there. Even after taking the final decision, the tension will not slacken in the least, for nothing has happened in the meanwhile to change the situation. The absurd does not become probable, merely because one decides to build one’s life upon it. This total decision has to be renewed from time to time that its tension may not weaken. ‘The truth of inwardness is a function of uncertainty’. As uncertainty increases, inwardness also grows. ‘To depend for one’s life upon the object of a supreme choice and to lay hold on to its objective uncertainty and hang suspended between the two, that is the meaning of faith’. Repeated renewal of the decision makes for growth in inwardness, but there is no development of experience which would remove the tension.
Hegel believed that in history there was the unfoldment of a divine purpose, and that an individual might realize the best in him by identifying himself with it. But Kierkegaard does not agree with this view. He thinks that it is absurd to go to history for one’s life without first having a life of one’s own. It is to abdicate the responsibility of living an authentic life and become colorless and inauthentic. It is feeble and ridiculous limitation to call oneself a member of an association, or to identify oneself with the age, or the public good, or the redemption of humanity. By relying on these external factors, the individual ceases to be an individual and becomes a pale and insignificant nonentity.
When all safe ground has thus been taken away from under our feet, we are in a state of despair. It is a state of utter loneliness and isolation. It is then that the individual will awaken to a true knowledge of his nature. A new and unsuspected dimension of his being will then be revealed to him. This is any day more valuable than collecting a mass of irrelevant information and working it up into a system. The only worth-while knowledge is self-knowledge. The self is not a static entity, but a dynamic, functional unit. It exists only in making and constantly renewing total and irrevocable decisions. The manner in which it lays itself open to be impressed by a critical ethical situation is more important than its assimilating a fund of useless knowledge. ‘It is the how of appropriation and not the what of approximation that is important in knowledge ‘. ‘An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation process of the most passionate inwardness is the highest truth attainable by an individual’. Only such a truth has an intimate bearing on our most cherished interests.
Such is the chart of life that Kierkegaard has mapped out for the individual. The essence of the self is ethical. To live on the ethical plane means to be making absolute decisions. The decisions must relate to an apparently absurd belief. Between faith and reason, there is no possibility of reconciliation. The two are discontinuous. It is no use therefore trying to rationalize the object of Christian faith. Knowing full well that it is most improbable, one must still cling to it with the most passionate inwardness. A man deserves to be called an individual only so long as he takes total decisions in absolute solitariness and experiences the tension arising from reason and faith pulling in opposite directions. Kierkegaard’s journey through his thoughts is unending.
No comments:
Post a Comment