Hong and Edna H. As I said a little while ago, it is the scrapings and shavings of argument, cut up into little bits. The issue was the difficulty. Without wanting to affront anyone, I am of the opinion that not every young graduate in theology would have been capable of presenting the issue with even the same dialectical rhythm with which it is done in the pamphlet. I am also of the opinion that not every young graduate in theology, after reading the pamphlet would be able to set it aside and then on his own to present the issue with just the same dialectical clarity with which it is elucidated in the pamphlet. What has been intimated here has been emphasized in Fragments frequently enough, namely, that there is no direct and immediate transition to Christianity, and therefore all those who in that way want to give a rhetorical push in order to bring one into Christianity or even help one into it by a thrashing-they are all deceivers-no, they know not what they do.
|Published (Last):||15 January 2007|
|PDF File Size:||15.6 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.11 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Hong and Edna H. As I said a little while ago, it is the scrapings and shavings of argument, cut up into little bits. The issue was the difficulty. Without wanting to affront anyone, I am of the opinion that not every young graduate in theology would have been capable of presenting the issue with even the same dialectical rhythm with which it is done in the pamphlet.
I am also of the opinion that not every young graduate in theology, after reading the pamphlet would be able to set it aside and then on his own to present the issue with just the same dialectical clarity with which it is elucidated in the pamphlet. What has been intimated here has been emphasized in Fragments frequently enough, namely, that there is no direct and immediate transition to Christianity, and therefore all those who in that way want to give a rhetorical push in order to bring one into Christianity or even help one into it by a thrashing-they are all deceivers-no, they know not what they do.
However, God can never become a third party when he is part of the religious. The more objective the world and individual subjectivities become, the more difficult it becomes with the religious categories, which are precisely in the sphere of subjectivity.
That is why it is almost an irreligious exaggeration to want to be world-historical, scholarly-scientific, and objective with regard to the religious. Therefor his has another kind of reflection, specifically, that of inwardness, of possession, whereby it belongs to the subject and no one else. The subjective existing thinker is aware of the dialectic of communication.
The other replies: Nothing. Let us suppose that one of them has a little more of an idea of inwardness. He describes Socrates action as a religious expression and says: He is absorbed in the divine; he is praying. No Socrates understood his God-relationship in such a way that he did not dare to say anything at all for fear of talking a lot of nonsense and for fear of having a wrong desire fulfilled.
It is subjectivity that Christianity is concerned with, and it is only in subjectivity that its truth exists, if it exists at all; objectively, Christianity has no existence. The basis of the paradox of Christianity is that it continually uses time and the historical in relation to the eternal.
Consequently, a a logical system can be given; b but a system of existence cannot be given. Well, it is he who himself is outside existence and yet in existence, who in his eternity is forever concluded and yet includes existence within himself-it is God. Yet I shall with the utmost strenuousness will the ethical; this is the earnestness. The ethical is the highest task assigned to every human being. Admission to this theater is not open to any existing spirit. If he fancies himself a spectator there, he is simply forgetting that he himself is supposed to be the actor in that little theater and is to leave it to that royal spectator and poet how he wants to use him in that royal drama, The Drama or Dramas.
To pray is an action. What does it mean to be immortal? What does it mean to marry? The Earth is round! But is the earth not round? At the point where the road swings off and where that is cannot be stated objectively, since it is precisely subjectivity , objective knowledge is suspended. Objectively he then has only uncertainty, but this is precisely what intensifies the infinite passion of inwardness, and truth is precisely the daring venture of choosing the objective uncertainty with the passion of the infinite.
I observe nature in order to find God, and I do indeed see omnipotence and wisdom, but I also see much that troubles and disturbs. The sum total of this is an objective uncertainty, but the inwardness is so very great, precisely because it grasps this objective uncertainty with all the passion of the infinite. In a mathematical proposition, for example, the objectivity is given, but therefore its truth is also an indifferent truth.
In a Christian sense, what he finds to know is hardly anything good. The book is an indirect polemic against speculative thought, which is indifferent to existence.
That there is no conclusion and no final decision is an indirect expression for truth as inwardness and in this way perhaps a polemic against truth as knowledge. If they do have worth, the criterion will not be didactic paragraph-pomposity.
The production must continually have passion. When truth is subjectivity, the inwardness of sin as anxiety in the existing individual is the greatest possible distance and the most painful distance from the truth. By now, existence-inwardness was defined to the extent that the Christian-religious could be brought up without being immediately confused with all sorts of things. What is arrived at in immanence presumably ends in the same way.
But suffering is precisely inwardness and is separated from esthetics and ethical existence-inwardness. With this, Hegel has finished. Note p. If the I in cogito is understood to be an individual human being, then the statement demonstrates nothing: I am thinking ergo I am, but if I am thinking, no wonder, then, that I am; after all, it has already been said, and the first consequently says even more than the last.
If, then, by the I in cogito, one understands a single individual existing human being, philosophy shouts: Foolishness, foolishness, here it is not a matter of my I or you I but of the pure I. But surely this pure I can have no other existence than thought-existence. This is due to the fact that the individual is so in the power of habit that by frequently having made the transition from thinking to acting he has finally lost the power for it in the bondage of habit, which at his expense makes it faster and faster.
To exist is an art. The subjective thinker is esthetic enough for his life to have esthetic content, ethical enough to regulate it, dialectical enough in thinking to master it. That we become Christians as children has promptly given rise to the assumption that one is what has been anticipated potentially.
But if the task is to renounce everything, what if one began by renouncing something? Notes p. The lowliest human being can also make his decision before God.
Neither does he know that he is the only person who has truly been in love, because if he knew that, he would not be absolutely in love-and yet he knows that a third party cannot understand him, because a third party will understand him generally in relation to an object of passion but not in relation to the absoluteness of passion.
I had a fear and trembling such as perhaps no one else had. Not that I therefore wanted to relinquish Christianity. No, I had another interpretation of it. For one thing I had in fact learned very early that there are men who seem to be selected for suffering, and, for another thing, I was conscious of having sinned much and therefore supposed that Christianity had to appear to me in the form of this terror.
But how cruel and false of you, I thought, if you use it to terrify others, perhaps upset every so many happy, loving lives that may very well be truly Christian.
It was as alien as it could possibly be to my nature to want to terrify others, and therefore I both sadly and perhaps also a bit proudly found my joy in comforting others and in being gentleness itself to them-hiding the terror in my own interior being.
So my idea was to give my contemporaries whether or not they themselves would want to understand a hint in humorous form in order to achieve a lighter tone that a much greater pressure was needed-but then no more; I aimed to keep my heavy burden to myself, as my cross. I have often taken exception to anyone who was a sinner in the strictest sense and then promptly got busy terrifying others.
Here is where Concluding Postscript comes in.
Concluding Unscientific Postscript
Contrasts in Concluding Unscientific Postscript[ edit ] Objectivity Subjectivity Objective truth is that which relates to propositions, that which has no relation to the existence of the knower. History, science, and speculative philosophy all deal with objective knowledge. According to Climacus, all objective knowledge is subject to doubt. Focuses on what is asserted. Subjective truth is essential or ethico-religious truth. Direct communication consists of statements that can be communicated and understood without appropriation, that is, without experiencing personally what is being communicated.
Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard
Shelves: ascension Before formally beginning my thoroughly subjective! It is merely inspired by the wealth of wisdom this work of art had to offer. Just like I think it would be pointless to attempt to summarise Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments. The rationale for this is that it was the joint enterprise of Mssrs. Kierkegaard and Lehtinen that earned this book its place in my "Ascension" shelf. It may be asinine, nonsensical, flabbergasting and all that rot which I strongly believe to be the case , but it is not intended to impress anyone in any way. Nor does it attempt to show myself in any other light than the one that occasionally lands on me during my daily constitutionals.
Learn how and when to remove this template message Is despair a merit or a defect? Purely dialectically it is both. If one were to think of despair only in the abstract, without reference to some particular despairer, one would have to say it is an enormous merit. That tension between two aspects of the "self" that must be brought into balance. When the self is out of balance, i. Notably, Anti-Climacus says one can be in despair even if one feels perfectly happy. Despair is not just an emotion, in a deeper sense it is the loss of self, i.