Reminder: Jarrod is presenting tomorrow.
Reading: Kierkegaard, "Truth is Subjectivity", pp. 111-114
Reading Guide: This is a short reading, but it is by no means easy. Don't worry if some of it escapes your grasp. Just do the best you can.
In addition to this reading guide, please read the editors' abstract (on the first page of the article).
There are multiple Latin phrases in this selection; if you don't know what they mean, I suggest that you Google them.
Kierkegaard distinguishes between a subject's (i.e., an individual person) being in the truth objectively and his being in the truth objectively. Objectively, I am in the truth so long as my belief accurately reflects facts about the world. Subjectively, I am in the truth if I am related in the proper way to something. Kierkegaard uses the example of God here: "Objectively, reflection is directed to the problem of whether this object is the true God; subjectively, reflection is directed to the question whether the individual is related to a something in such a manner that his relationship is in truth a God relationship"
(112). One and the same person cannot simultaneously be in the truth objectively and in the truth subjectively. On pp. 112 & 113, Kierkegaard uses examples to contrast being in the truth objectively with being in the truth subjectively. The position taken by Climacus (the character in this reading) is that there are advantages to being in the truth subjectively. See Climacus' brief discussion of the man "who goes up to the house of God .. with the true conception of God in his knowledge, ... but prays in a false spirit" (112). The example of Socrates' attitude toward immortality may also be helpful. Climacus suggests that being in the truth subjectively is marked by a passionate embrace of "objective uncertainty" (p. 113); he claims that this is "the highest truth attainable for an existing individual" (113). Climacus concludes with these comments: "Without risk, there is no faith. ... If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this, I must believe." (114)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I really didn't like this article by Kierkegaard and found his style of writing extremely hard to follow. It appeared that one of his claims was simply to give up trying to understand or gain any knowledge of God. For if you are to approach such knowledge objectively, you are only wasting your time because to know God objectively is in all eternity impossible. However, then if you are to know God subjectively, since he is a subject, every moment spent in finding God is wasted because he does not have God. Therefore it would appear that one is simply to give up because the ends of seeking God either objectively or subjectively will render you fruitless.
I agree with Matt. Kierkegaard's writing is difficult to get a grasp on. From additional readings that I did on Fideism, I gathered that it is a movement in which faith and reason are seperate. I'm not a big fan of Aquinas, but I'm more inclined to accept his argument that reason can be used to validate religion. If religion is to be subject purely to faith as a judgment on the legitimacy of a particular religion, then how can I know what religion to adhere to, and how can I know if changes need to be made to either dogma, rituals, or other details of a faith?
Most of Kierkegaard's writing is hard for me to follow, but I do like his question about where there is more truth on the right side of p. 112: when "one prays in truth to God though he worships an idol" or when one "prays falsely to the true God, and hence worships in fact an idol?" I can't really seem to follow where he goes from here exactly though...
I am not a fan of this article. First of all, I have always found passion to be a hinder to truth. It skews the thoughts and gives false truths, for the most part. Yes, we can have passion and subjectivity when it comes to religion and God, but I only see it as a road block to an ultimate truth and a cop out to the fact that there is no real evidence for or against the existence of God. I also do not like his portrayal of Socrates. If anyone reads Plato's dialog of Socrates on his death bed it is easy to read that while he ends his life with the belief in the immortal soul it is not due to passion. He basically chooses to believe because it would be far worse not to believe and to be wrong... kind of like "The Gamble".
This writing either showed that I have a very low rate of comprehension or Kierkegaard is being way to wordy. My guess is that back in the early 1800's I might have understood this a bit more. I can get the basic objective vs. subjective claim, but past that I felt the article was full of smoke and mirrors to confuse or distract me.
First off, I agree with Matt, Ed, and Dan in that Kierkegaard is quite difficult to unravel. I get the feeling that a large portion of the difficulty in understanding might be the translation. In any event, the biggest thing which annoyed me about this article is that Kierkegaard assumes that God exists in the first place and then goes on to explain his philosophical ideas. I do like how he separates objectivity from subjectivity, but his conclusion from there is rather nauseating. Objectively, I cannot prove or disprove God. Subjectively one can determine for themselves what they accept. What kills me, is that religions affirm as true something which is governed solely by passions, while agnostics simply refrain from affirming something which they have no compelling evidence for.
Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard uses elevated diction as a smokescreen to cover the obvious weakness of his argument. He claims that to every delay of religious faith is a "deadly peril" and therefore urges everyone to adopt a faith wholeheartedly. Such decisive and passionate belief constitutes the greatest "truth." The mere idea of pure fideism blows my mind. Why would any sentient being willingly decide to give up their faculty for rational thought? Such intellectual laziness has been the direct cause of numerous wars throughout human history and only prevents further advancement of thought.
Evans
The article explains two opposing sides (neutrality and fideism) before proposing a third option - a middle of the road approach called critical dialog. Neutrality relies solely on reason, whereas fideism relies solely on faith. Evans concludes that critical dialog is the best approach to truth. In critical dialog, one must begin with certain belief assumptions that are open to change through critical thought and comparative dialog. All students of comparative religion should approach the subject from this perspective. If everyone in the world would adopt this paradigm, religious wars would cease to exist. Traditionalist are simply too afraid of the possibility of fault in their systems of belief.
I do not like the way that Kirk defines meditation. He says that meditation is, "To be in a state of meditation is to be finished." This makes no logical sense. Usually one meditates to try and find a conclusion about something. To meditate on something is to ponder an idea. Obviously if you are seriously thinging about something, in your mind it is not finsihed.
I did not understand this argument in the least bit. I do not like the idea of fideism because I believe that faith and reason can be related. If this is what he is talking about, then I would not agree with this argument, however I don't really understand what his claim is.
I find the last sentence of this article intriguing. "If i wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preerving my faith."
Kierkegaard suggests that even if there were some objective proof available in the world that confirms one's own subjective beliefs about the existence of God, that individual must ignore it in order to preserve his faith. In this case, why would a faithful person place any hope in God's answering his prayers. Seemingly, one would pray in order to see some tangible result in his own life. So if he recognizes that God has "answered" one of his prayers, to whom would he attribute this response? According to Kierkegaard, it can't be God for if that individual accepts an answer to his prayers as some sort of objective proof of God's presence, he would lose his objective uncertainty and no longer have the means to believe.
This article is obviously difficult to read, as has been said by just about everyone. The simple basis of his article, that when it comes to things like God we cannot know and should not... I have to agree with Matt Rice on this one, that it sounds like he's giving up on knowing God. Isn't the whole point having a relationship with God and trying to know God so you can become more like him? Maybe I have Christianity's ideas a little skewed, but that's how I always saw it.
Post a Comment