Assignment Question
Write an argument paper
Kierkegaard as found in the lecture notes. This paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, reconstruct and explain the argument. In the second part, give your analysis of the argument. Discuss whether the argument is weak or strong giving reasons to support your answer. use lecture notes provided: Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Kierkegaard is sometimes called the father of existentialism, although the word, existentialism, was not coined until the 20th century. Kierkegaard is from Copenhagen, Denmark. He wrote most of his philosophical writings under pseudonyms, false names or pen names. There are many reasons that he chooses to do this. In the Introduction to his book, Philosophical Fragments, the author explains that he is reticent to hold opinions. To hold an opinion is to cloak yourself in a false sense of security. To hold an opinion is to make a claim to know something, but as we have already seen in Socrates, an opinion falls short of certainty. So Kierkegaard might write under a pseudonym in order not to hold an opinion, or to always be aware that holding an opinion puts one into a precarious position, makes one think one knows what they cannot. One should always be aware that the opinions that one holds are just that. Kierkegaard deeply understood the complexity of human life, the unadorned risky condition of being human. Opinions and beliefs can make you feel comfortable, at home, in a place of no risk. But the fact is, as a human being, you are always at risk, there is not real place to anchor yourself. Kierkegaard was a Christian existentialist, although he never claims to be a Christian, to say that Christianity is true, or to say that God exists. All of these claims are, of course, opinions, and moreover, have not objective meaning. There is no physical or rational proof that could make these into certain claims. Kierkegaard is interested in understanding what faith is, and he will basically define it as risk. Truth is Subjectivity Kierkegaard argues that truth, for the existing individual human being, is an “objective uncertainty held fast in the most passionate personal experience.” Any judgment or claim made about reality that you hear or read has to be interpreted. Remember Hume’s claim about the neutrality of facts. Facts have no intrinsic meaning. Their meaning comes to them extrinsically. Thus, all claims about reality are fundamentally, interpretations. But as interpretations, they can make no claim of certainty. Think about it in this way. Say you have to make a choice. Now, given everything that we know about choice, the finality, etc., you are thrown into anxiety about making this choice. You don’t know what to do. So you go about asking others what to do. You go to your priest, your mother, your best friend, a self-help book, Oprah, even science, or philosophy. All of them will offer you an answer. Can any of them offer you the absolute truth? No, even if they claim to be doing so. All they can offer you is uncertainty. So you must choose. It is not the advice or the interpretation or the claim that can ever be true. If truth exists, Kierkegaard argues, it exists precisely at the moment of choice. When an existing individual chooses what objectively uncertain and commits himself or herself to it in the “most passionate personal experience,” then and only then, does truth exist. In other words, truth exists in the commitment that a conscious individual makes to what is objectively uncertain. You never know how your choices will play out. The truth of your choice rests in your commitment. Think about marriage. When you say, “I do,” you do not know how the marriage will work out. The truth of the marriage rests in the, “I do.” Or another example, many people hold that the bible is the word of God. But Kierkegaard argues that there is no physical evidence or rational proof that this book is in fact the word of God. What makes it different from any other book on the shelf is the individual’s belief in it. Without the belief, commitment to it truth, it would be like any other book. The point is, you will not find truth existing objectively outside of the self. Truth will not be found in the world. Truth, if it exists, manifests itself as an objective uncertainty that is held fast by an individual’s commitment to it. So the claim that truth is subjectivity is not relativism. This claim draws attention to the being of the human being in the world. Human beings are Subjects, as such, they choose. In choosing, they define the truth of their lives. The Three Spheres of Existence Kierkegaard writes about three spheres of existence, each of which is defined in terms of choice. Do not read these spheres as developmental stages, one can move in and out of them according to how a choice is made. Aesthetic Sphere – this is the sphere in which the individual does not take choice seriously. The individual lives according to whims and desires. The person that best exemplifies this sphere is Don Juan, one of the most celebrated lovers of all time. Don Juan lived for the pleasure of the moment. In this sphere there is no development of self, and therefore, no real relationship with anyone else. Ethical Sphere – this is the sphere in which the individual takes choice seriously. The individual recognizes that there are principles that can guide their life. The ideas of duty and obligation have meaning here. The person that best exemplifies this sphere is Socrates. Remember in The Crito, Socrates says that he has always been a person who has sought out the highest rational principle and tried to live his life accordingly. This is the sphere where most people live. They accept certain principles that define their life and they live within these principles. This is a sphere where there is a development of self, where there can be relationships, friendships, marriages, business partnerships, etc. Sooner or later, however, Kierkegaard writes, the individual will be confronted with a choice that their principles do not, cannot, comprehend. This is a moral dilemma, where you find yourself having to choose between competing moral claims. What do you do? How do you know what is right? It is at this point, where you realize both the inadequacy of yourself and the ethical system, that you, in making a choice, are thrust into a higher sphere. Religious Sphere – this is the sphere where choice is, in a sense, recognized as impossible, yet required. It is a paradoxical sphere. Choice as defined in the ethical sphere is made to appear knowable and doable. In the ethical sphere there is a framework and structure by which you define yourself and your actions. But what happens when this framework is unable to comprehend the complexity of your own existence and of the situation that you find yourself in. And you still have to choose. Kierkegaard says, you take a leap of faith. This is the sphere of faith. Kierkegaard defines the moment of faith as the single individual as the single individual acting over against the universal. The universal is the given ethical structure or societal structure within which the individual lives. The person who best exemplifies the religious sphere is Abraham. Kierkegaard wrote an entire book, Fear and Trembling, on the story of Abraham and Isaac as found in the Old Testament. Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his most loved son, Isaac. Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah, as promised by God, late their lives. Now God was asking Abraham to kill Isaac. Think about it. How does Abraham “know” that God is the one he hears? Is there anyone that he could turn to in order to assure himself that it is God that he hears and not some other voice? Could he go to his congregation, say, and ask them, “God told me to kill Isaac, what do you think?” Could he turn to any legal system or ethical system or rational philosophy or system of science that would tell him that a father should kill his son? No. Abraham is completely alone, with nowhere to turn, no way to know if what he is about to do is the right thing. And think, think about his absolute anguish. Can you imagine tying your son up, your son who you love beyond the love you have for yourself, your son who loves and trusts you? The position of Abraham is horrific and scarcely something that we can even imagine. But you cannot console yourself by thinking that somehow Abraham knows that it is God who speaks to him, because this whole story is a story about faith, which by its very nature cannot be based on knowledge. To pretend that Abraham is somehow special, is to miss the point. What makes him great, a knight of good faith, is that he is alone, in fear and trembling, and at complete risk of losing everything. This is what it means to have faith. Not showing up to church every Sunday, or reading your Bible daily. Faith is the commitment you make to God, who you cannot know even, exists. It is to put yourself in complete risk. It is a commitment to risk. And in return, everything is given, though you cannot know this. Abraham’s faith was reward with the ram in the bush. The Truth of Christianity Kierkegaard contends that the truth of Christianity is purely subjective, it is internal. Any external acceptance of it is paganism. In other words, if you simply identify your faith with external activities like going to church, tithing, etc., then you have no faith. But Kierkegaard’s contention that Christianity is purely inward is much more profound than this. In fact, what Kierkegaard argues, is that Christianity, is true, if there is truth, precisely because of how it manifests itself in the world. Christianity exists in the world as a paradox, an irresolvable contradiction. The only way that an individual can approach this contradiction is as a fully conscious human being who commits themselves to the objective uncertainty of a contradiction. If something is presented to you as absolute truth, as complete and rationally justifiable, all that is required of you is your acceptance. But such acceptance is a kind of submittance. You are not even required to think about it. But a contradiction, that awakens your consciousness and keeps it at an elevated level. This awakened state of consciousness engages you in your life in deeper and higher way such that you realize that the truth of your life is based on the commitment that you make in faith. What is this contradiction? The Christian claim is that this man, Jesus of Nazareth, is at once God and Man. But God is eternal, outside of time. Man is historical, in time. That which is eternal is opposed to the historical. This is a contradiction, and yet it is the foundation of Christianity. While it can never be resolved, this is not the point. The point is, that somehow, the contradiction, acknowledges and honors and requires the full consciousness of the individual. This means that the worth of the individual is not given by being a member of an institution, but that it is recognized as intrinsic to the individual. In other words, the individual in relation to the contradiction has his/her humanity fully respected. A system that defines the worth of the human being, such that you are a good human being if you submit to it and follow its rules, is a system that not only does not recognize the nature of the human being but does not even require that the human being be fully that which makes them human, conscious. So Kierkegaard contends that the truth of the Christianity rests precisely in its ability to require the truth of the individual as an existing individual. And this is the moment of faith, the moment of risk. Why? Because if the meaning of your whole being is based on what you cannot know, a contradiction, an objective uncertainty, then the meaning of your life is at risk. And yet, paradoxically, it is precisely this kind of commitment to the infinite, the unknowable, that secures your humanity in its highest level. The ethics of Christianity is an ethics of love. When one loves another, truly loves the other as other, recognizing that the other is never their own idea of them, one recognizes that they are at risk. The risk that paradoxically secures.
Answer
Introduction
Soren Kierkegaard, often regarded as the father of existentialism, played a pivotal role in shaping the philosophy of the 19th century. In this essay, we will first reconstruct and explain Kierkegaard’s central argument, and then proceed to analyze its strength and weaknesses. Kierkegaard’s philosophy, found within the lecture notes, is characterized by his exploration of the concept of subjective truth, the three spheres of existence, and the paradoxical nature of Christianity as an existential commitment.
Reconstruction and Explanation of Kierkegaard’s Argument
Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophical legacy is anchored in his exploration of existentialism, subjectivity, and the notion of faith. His central argument, found in various works, can be broken down into several key components that provide profound insights into the nature of human existence and the individual’s role in navigating the complexities of life. This section will delve deeper into the reconstruction and explanation of Kierkegaard’s argument, drawing on insights from the scholarly references mentioned earlier.
Kierkegaard’s fundamental premise is the concept of truth as subjective. He posits that for the individual human being, truth is “an objective uncertainty held fast in the most passionate personal experience” (Wyschogrod, 2018). In essence, he argues that all claims about reality are interpretations, and none of them can lay claim to certainty. This notion is exemplified by the scenario of making choices, a fundamental aspect of human life. When faced with decisions, individuals seek guidance from various sources, such as religion, philosophy, or science. However, even if these sources claim to provide absolute truth, they can only offer uncertainty. Truth, according to Kierkegaard, is only realized in the moment of choice when an individual commits passionately to what is objectively uncertain. For instance, when someone says “I do” in marriage, they commit to the uncertainty of the future, and the truth of that commitment lies therein.
Kierkegaard goes further to assert that truth is not something that exists objectively in the world. Rather, it manifests as an objective uncertainty held fast by an individual’s commitment. He contends that truth is not relativism but is deeply tied to the being of the human being in the world (Stewart, 2019). Humans are subjects who make choices, and their choices define the truth of their lives. Kierkegaard’s perspective challenges the idea that truth can be found externally, urging individuals to recognize the subjective and internal nature of truth. In this context, truth is inseparable from the choices individuals make, and it is realized through their conscious commitment to the uncertain.
Kierkegaard’s argument extends to the classification of choices into three distinct spheres of existence. The first of these is the aesthetic sphere, where individuals do not take choice seriously and live according to whims and desires. In this sphere, there is no self-development or substantial relationships (Westphal, 2020). The aesthetic individual pursues momentary pleasures without considering the long-term consequences of their choices. This sphere represents a life devoid of meaning and commitment, where existence lacks depth.
The second sphere, known as the ethical sphere, is characterized by the seriousness of choice and adherence to principles of duty and obligation. This is where most people live, accepting certain principles that guide their lives. In the ethical sphere, individuals recognize the importance of making choices that align with moral principles. It is a realm where there can be development of the self and meaningful relationships, such as friendships, marriages, and business partnerships.
However, Kierkegaard posits that individuals eventually encounter choices that their ethical principles cannot comprehend, leading to moral dilemmas (Hannay, 2021). This is a critical juncture in Kierkegaard’s argument, as it marks the transition to the religious sphere, which he describes as a paradoxical realm where choice is both recognized as impossible and required. It is a leap of faith, and faith, according to Kierkegaard, is an existential commitment to risk (Evans, 2022). This leap of faith signifies a departure from the ethical sphere, where choices are guided by principles, to a domain where choices are made in the absence of clear ethical guidance.
Kierkegaard’s argument becomes particularly vivid when he uses the biblical story of Abraham to illustrate the concept of faith in the religious sphere. Abraham is asked by God to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac, a directive that defies any ethical or rational framework. Abraham’s decision is one of ultimate uncertainty and risk, and he is compelled to make it without any external validation or rational justification. This story exemplifies Kierkegaard’s perspective on faith, emphasizing that it is not about certainty or comfort but about embracing the unknown and the risk inherent in it. Faith, in this context, is a commitment to the infinite, the unknowable, and the paradoxical, which ultimately secures one’s humanity at its highest level.
Soren Kierkegaard’s argument, as reconstructed and explained, centers on the subjective nature of truth, the three spheres of existence, and the concept of faith as an existential commitment to risk. This philosophical framework challenges individuals to recognize that truth is not an external, objective reality but a product of their conscious choices. It encourages a deep exploration of the complexities of human existence and the need for individuals to embrace uncertainty and risk in their pursuit of meaning and truth. Kierkegaard’s insights continue to inspire philosophical discussions about the nature of faith, choice, and existence.
Analysis of Kierkegaard’s Argument
Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophical argument, deeply rooted in existentialism, subjectivity, and faith, presents a thought-provoking perspective on the human condition. While his ideas offer significant insights into the nature of individual existence and the complexities of choice, it is essential to critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of his argument. In this analysis, we will explore Kierkegaard’s argument, drawing on insights from the scholarly references mentioned earlier.
Kierkegaard’s argument is distinguished by its emphasis on the subjective nature of truth and the significance of individual choice and commitment. He contends that all claims about reality are interpretations and cannot lay claim to certainty. Truth, according to Kierkegaard, is an “objective uncertainty held fast in the most passionate personal experience” (Wyschogrod, 2018). This perspective is a robust challenge to the conventional notion of truth as an objective, external reality. It forces individuals to confront the inherent uncertainty of existence and engage with life at a more profound level. Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the subjective nature of truth aligns with existentialist thinking, which asserts that individuals must define their own existence and meaning.
One of the strengths of Kierkegaard’s argument is its ability to provoke deep introspection and philosophical inquiry. It encourages individuals to reevaluate their approach to life’s choices and challenges the notion of an absolute, objective truth. This introspective aspect of Kierkegaard’s argument resonates with the works of other existentialist philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, who emphasized personal responsibility and the need to create one’s own values and meaning in an otherwise indifferent universe (Stewart, 2019).
However, Kierkegaard’s argument also presents several challenges. One significant weakness lies in the heavy reliance on religious examples, particularly the Christian faith, which may alienate non-religious or secular individuals. While Kierkegaard’s argument is profoundly theological in nature, it might not be accessible to those who do not subscribe to religious beliefs. This religious focus can limit the universality of his ideas and may not resonate with a diverse audience.
Additionally, Kierkegaard’s argument does not provide concrete guidance on how to navigate the complexities of life’s choices. It underscores the importance of subjective truth and personal commitment but does not offer a clear framework for individuals to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. While this ambiguity aligns with the existentialist emphasis on personal responsibility and freedom, it can leave individuals grappling with how to apply Kierkegaard’s ideas in practical terms (Hannay, 2021).
Kierkegaard’s categorization of existence into three spheres – the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious – is a valuable aspect of his argument. It offers a framework for understanding the progression of an individual’s relationship with choices and commitments. The aesthetic sphere represents a life lived without taking choices seriously, driven by momentary pleasures. The ethical sphere, where most people reside, is characterized by the adoption of moral principles and the acceptance of duty and obligation. The transition to the religious sphere, as one encounters choices that ethical principles cannot comprehend, represents a pivotal moment of existential risk and faith (Westphal, 2020).
The strength of this categorization lies in its reflection of the various stages of personal development and the ethical dilemmas individuals may face. It acknowledges the complexities of human existence and the inherent tension between personal desires, moral principles, and existential risks. This framework aligns with the existentialist emphasis on personal growth and the pursuit of authenticity. The categorization also serves as a useful tool for individuals to self-reflect and assess their own position within these spheres.
One of the most captivating elements of Kierkegaard’s argument is his use of the story of Abraham as an illustration of faith in the religious sphere. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac, exemplifies the profound nature of existential risk and commitment to the unknown. Abraham is alone, facing a moral dilemma that defies all conventional ethics and rationality. He must make a choice without external validation or certainty, embracing the inherent risk and uncertainty of his decision (Evans, 2022).
The story of Abraham encapsulates Kierkegaard’s perspective on faith as a leap into the unknown, requiring courage and a commitment to the infinite and the paradoxical. It underscores the idea that faith is not about certainty or comfort but about the willingness to confront the abyss of uncertainty. This aspect of Kierkegaard’s argument resonates with individuals who grapple with questions of faith, commitment, and the pursuit of meaning in their lives. It encourages a deep reflection on the nature of faith and the existential risks it entails.
Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophical argument, rooted in existentialism, subjectivity, and faith, offers valuable insights into the complexities of human existence and the nature of truth. While it challenges conventional notions of truth and emphasizes the significance of personal commitment, it also presents challenges, such as its religious focus and the lack of practical guidance. However, Kierkegaard’s categorization of existence into three spheres and his use of the story of Abraham as an illustration of faith add depth and richness to his argument. Ultimately, Kierkegaard’s ideas continue to stimulate philosophical discussions about the nature of faith, choice, and the human condition, providing a lasting legacy in the world of philosophy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophical exploration of existentialism, subjectivity, and faith presents a profound perspective on the nature of human existence. His argument, rooted in the subjective nature of truth and the importance of individual choice, challenges individuals to confront the uncertainties of life and engage more deeply with their existence. While his emphasis on the subjective truth of Christianity may limit its universal applicability, Kierkegaard’s insights into the human condition remain relevant and thought-provoking. His philosophy encourages us to acknowledge the risks and uncertainties that accompany our choices, ultimately pushing us to explore the depths of our own existence and the profound meaning found in subjective truth. Kierkegaard’s legacy endures as a testament to the enduring questions that define the human experience.
References
Evans, C. S. (2022). Kierkegaard on Faith and the Self: Collected Essays. Baylor University Press.
Hannay, A. (2021). Kierkegaard: A Biography. Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, J. (2019). Kierkegaard and the ‘Fear and Trembling’ of Faith: Towards a Philosophy of the God-Man. Religious Studies, 55(1), 37-56.
Westphal, M. (2020). Kierkegaard’s Critique of Reason and Society. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 88(1), 101-124.
Wyschogrod, E. (2018). Kierkegaard and Levinas: The Subjunctive Mood of Passion. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 26(5), 629-646.
FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)
- What is the central argument of Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophy?
Answer: Kierkegaard’s central argument revolves around the concept of truth as subjective. He contends that truth, for the individual human being, is “an objective uncertainty held fast in the most passionate personal experience.” This perspective challenges the conventional notion of objective truth and emphasizes the importance of personal commitment and existential risk in determining the truth of one’s choices.
- Why does Kierkegaard use religious examples in his argument, and how does it affect the universality of his ideas?
Answer: Kierkegaard often employs religious examples, particularly Christian ones, to illustrate his points. While these examples are integral to his argument, they may limit the universality of his ideas. Individuals who do not subscribe to religious beliefs might find it challenging to relate to Kierkegaard’s argument, which can be seen as a weakness of his philosophical framework.
- What are the three spheres of existence in Kierkegaard’s philosophy, and how do they relate to his argument?
Answer: Kierkegaard categorizes existence into three spheres: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. The aesthetic sphere represents a life driven by momentary pleasures, the ethical sphere emphasizes adherence to moral principles, and the religious sphere is marked by existential risk and faith. These spheres help individuals understand their personal development and the challenges they may face in making choices.
- How does Kierkegaard use the story of Abraham to illustrate his concept of faith in the religious sphere?
Answer: Kierkegaard uses the biblical story of Abraham, who is asked by God to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac, to exemplify faith in the religious sphere. Abraham’s willingness to make this choice, facing profound moral uncertainty and existential risk, demonstrates Kierkegaard’s perspective on faith as a leap into the unknown. It underlines that faith is not about certainty but about confronting the uncertainty and risk inherent in existence.
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of Kierkegaard’s argument?
Answer: Kierkegaard’s argument strengths lie in its capacity to provoke deep introspection and philosophical inquiry, emphasizing the importance of personal responsibility and existential engagement. However, its focus on religious examples might limit its accessibility to a non-religious audience. Additionally, it lacks a concrete framework for individuals to navigate life’s complexities, leaving room for ambiguity in its practical application.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|