Kierkegaard And Christianity Essay, Research Paper
Soren Kierkegaard is said to be one of the & # 8220 ; establishing male parents & # 8221 ; of
existential philosophy. His manner of authorship, his tone and vocabulary tie him closely to another precursor of existentialist idea: Fyodor Dostoevsky ( although either of them would likely deny this vehemently ) . However, in the class of his Hagiographas, Kierkegaard takes rather a broad and ( daring I say it? ) individualistic base on the side of Christianity. In the transitions I have read of Kierkegaard ( & # 8221 ; That Individual & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; Truth is Subjectivity & # 8221 ; ) , he puts frontward two basic subjects which seem to be his & # 8220 ; driving force & # 8221 ; behind each piece severally. It is behind these subjects that Kierkegaard makes his forceful thrust to detect the & # 8220 ; ageless truth & # 8221 ; and the waies which lead us at that place.
Kierkegaard wastes no clip in puting the tone for the first choice, & # 8220 ; That Individual & # 8221 ; . Right off he starts his treatment on the & # 8220 ; crowd & # 8221 ; , which he states early on is ( in its really construct ) the falsehood. In a crowd, the cry and craze of that crowd frequently drowns out the truth, even if each member of that crowd has separately obtained the truth. Kierkegaard makes the statement that & # 8220 ; merely one attains the end & # 8221 ; , in that we all are capable of obtaining said end ( in this instance the ageless truth ) if we each seek after the end as persons. In crowds, he says, it is certain that no 1 is working, life, endeavoring for the highest purpose, but merely for one or another earthly purpose. Merely as persons ( with God as our assistant ) can we obtain that which is the absolute, ageless truth. In these get downing paragraphs, Kierkegaard has already set his subject for this transition: that merely as persons with the aid of God can one accomplish the end, or & # 8220 ; ageless truth & # 8221 ; , that is Christianity.
As we delve deeper into the transition, we about detect a politico-religious message hits us shortly after he forms his original premiss. Kierkegaard states that the crowd being the falsehood, none has more neglect for what it is to be a adult male than those people who see fit to take this flock of falsity. In amplification, Kierkegaard goes on to province that even Christ, who taught the unaware multitudes about human compassion and redemption through the Lord & # 8217 ; s ways, intentionally chose non to hold any crowd association of any type. He merely existed as the Truth, staying unflinched by the public, even to his ain crucifixion. The lone manner Kierkegaard sees that one could turn to the crowd like a politician and stay a competent searcher of truth is to turn to the multitudes non with the purpose of learning them something but with the purpose to edify one of those in the crowd to separately seek out the truth for himself. After all that is the lone manner to the ageless truth, and the truth itself is in its most high grade & # 8220 ; the most & # 8216 ; impolitic & # 8217 ; thing that can be imagined & # 8221 ; .
As we continue on our journey of truth Kierkegaard reiterates his subject like an award-winning opera, this clip with more accent than the first. In this he does one time once more province that merely the person, aided by God, can accomplish the ultimate truth of Christianity. He goes farther, nevertheless, to declare that the communicating of the truth can merely be perceived or expressed by the person. The imperativeness and the public hence can non transport or to the full show the ageless truth, for it is merely communicated through God to the person. Kierkegaard likewise goes on to province that the truth is besides to fear God and honour one & # 8217 ; s neighbour. In this Kierkegaard states his sentiment on human equality, that if everyone were to truly love his neighbour as himself so complete human equality would be attained. He does demo some bitterness with this political orientation, nevertheless, in that loving one & # 8217 ; s neighbour is merely a signifier of self-denial & # 8212 ; a manner to do what seems to be an easier truth than that which one would draw a bead on to. In this regard, Kierkegaard says that puting one & # 8217 ; s authorization in this system is besides the falsehood.
In his coating statements, Kierkegaard defends the repentant attitude of the & # 8220 ; good & # 8221 ; Christian. He sets up an interesting statement: How can one so weak and impotent ( in his ain head ) successfully do his base against a crowd who possesses the power? His reply: acquiring the crowd on your side is non the aim of the thought Christian, it would be mocking himself. The benefits of being so mild and self-reserved are big plenty: it & # 8217 ; s fair to all, offends no 1, and makes no differentiations of category or stature. No 1 is out to go an & # 8220 ; single & # 8221 ; in this right, everyone who strives to separately cognize the truth and doesn & # 8217 ; t seep into the & # 8220 ; crowd & # 8221 ; can draw a bead on to this plane. It is in the individualism of adult male that one can go great.
Kierkegaard & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; Truth is Subjectivity & # 8221 ; was ( for this perceiver, at least ) the harder of the two texts. Its capable affair and insurgent linguistic communication frequently made it look contradictory to itself, about as if it were running about
in circles. Kierkegaard starts out seeking to explicate his concluding about how something makes sense this manner, merely to make an about turn and exemplify its arrant invalidness, eschewing it to the deepnesss of Hell. However, I shall seek and decode this every bit good as I perchance can.
Kierkegaard begins inquiring why Christianity is such a good theological position to follow. He brings up the point that in Christianity the person is the most of import thing ( besides God ) to continue in order to detect the truth. This he says ( or to be more specific, & # 8220 ; Johannes Climacus & # 8221 ; says ) is an highly vain and narcissistic position of oneself, and seems to run counterpoint to what Christianity is all approximately. He ( Climacus ) observes from an outside point of view that the main discourtesy against Christianity would be to take the relationship between single and God himself for granted, and in this vena he asks what one can make to take part in the felicity that Christianity promises. At least he & # 8217 ; s shut to doing his first determination in the right way.
To get down his hunt for the method by which to obtain this Christian
felicity, Kierkegaard says, one must procure a personal and historical history of what Christianity truly is, for to seek and accomplish something without first
understanding all of its contents would be a inadvertence. One must plunge himself in the survey and comprehension of this faith to to the full understand it and prosecute its good. Like a professor or sage, one must deduce a kind of pleasance from his work to to the full understand what his topic is truly approximately ( non an & # 8220 ; ageless felicity & # 8221 ; head you, but at the least a shred of felicitousness ) . From this concentration on the plants of Christianity, Kierkegaard & # 8217 ; s 2nd subject emerges from the mist & # 8230 ;
The Southern Cross of his authorship, the topic of his work foremost appears here, shadowed in all-abstruse linguistic communication. His premiss is this: In taking religion we must suspend our ground in order to believe in something higher than ground. However as the Hagiographas continue, Kierkegaard realizes how absurd this signifier of logical thinking is and comes to a point in which he realizes that Christianity is ( in kernel ) a paradox.
Back to the present & # 8212 ; non long after saying his point ( nevertheless esoterically ) Kierkegaard enters a treatment on objectiveness and subjectiveness. Early on on he dismisses the nonsubjective point of position merely because God is a topic, therefore turn outing the nonsubjective angle absurd in itself. Subjectively, nevertheless, the proverbial can-of-worms is opened. He states that in kernel, a individual who prays in a false spirit is every bit idolatrous as one who worships an existent graven image, for even though he is idolizing God he is praying with his eyes upon something less than the space. In bend, the graven image believer is more true than the false Christian.
Objectively, each of the premises on which Christianity is built easy fall apart. Objectively, a human can & # 8217 ; t believe there is an immortality without holding some cogent evidence of it foremost. Objectively, the truth is existing when it is said to be so and passionately believed to be so. However, the ability to believe this statement is still unsure at best. Objectively, it is absurd that a God so powerful and all-knowing came into being, grew up, and developed like most single human existences. The focal point in all of these prevarications in the what alternatively of the why and how, and that is how objectiveness ( while it can still be utilized to further understand the truth ) is finally ruled out of such a subjective cognition as Christian truth.
Now the subject arises once more: in the absurdness that is Christianity one can merely trust to deduct ground from one & # 8217 ; s duality and replace it with something higher than ground itself. For every bit long as ground is still applied, so all that one will see is absurdness in the face of what should be a glorious act. For illustration, Kierkegaard asserts that one time one gets into the mentality that one will & # 8220 ; set Forth & # 8221 ; to be a Christian, forcing aside all absurdness and endeavoring frontward to be the best Christian he can, so he has transplanted absurdness as his object of religion and has therefore made it impossible to believe. One must understand that Christianity can non be understood before he can farther research the significance of & # 8220 ; ageless truth & # 8221 ; .
As Kierkegaard begins to recess his composing, he looks at how it is
merely a affair of class that the people of his clip are Christians. It is no longer folly to be a Christian like it had been in the yesteryear, it is merely harder to separate the truth-seeking Christians from the simple, practical Christian. In his shutting he about looks at the present and future with lacklustre optimism ( as do most existential philosophers ) , believing that possibly the objectively-oriented Christian has replaced the truth-seeking Christian as the normal of the universe. Possibly this scares him to no terminal and, after seeing today & # 8217 ; s society of naysayers and pessimists, possibly it should & # 8230 ;
340
