Having heard what Kierkegaard has to say about both faith and subjectivity/truth, I have been trying to relate those ideas to one another and see how they fit together. After all, there seem to be overlaps in terms and concepts. The most prominent concept relating both essays is passion. The vibe that I have gotten from both the content and the style is that passion is living--and by living I mean what we would clarify as really living.
In "Is There Such a Thing as a Teleological Suspension of the Ethical?" Kierkegaard describes the absurdity and magnificence of faith. By very definition, faith is a direct relation between a person (an actually existing individual) and the absolute, and it suspends the ethical (the universal) to do so. In this way, the relationship an actually existing individual has with something else that is singular is, itself, truth. This is because, as we learn from the second essay, truth is subjectivity (a.k.a. that relationship between an actually existing individual and other subjective things, not the lack of relationship between an individual and a universal/objective "truth"). So such an act of faith/suspension of the ethical could also be described as embracing truth through surpassing an easy/prosaic "relationship" (not really) with a universal "truth."
So how can we make sense of Kierkegaard's claim that "truth as a paradox corresponds to passion" (17)? His descriptions of paradoxes (of faith and truth) are related. To undergo faith, Abraham must believe that "Isaac will die" and "Isaac will not die." To renact truth, an actually existing individual must believe that "I am infinite" and "I am finite." Abraham's paradox of faith is, in a way, just a specific instance of enacting truth. Kierkegaard makes this clear when he says "faith is a passion" (17) and that "passion is also subjectivity's highest expression" (18). Abraham believes that Isaac / god's ultimate promise is finite (he will most certainly die and the promise will be unfulilled) and that Isaac / god's ultimate promise is infinite (he will most certainly live on and the promise will be fulfilled) in that single moment.
It seems to me that I constantly live by the paradox "I will not die" and "I will die" (at least when I am most myself--when I am living most truthfully). No one really lives like they will die tomorrow, because that would make the life that one is experiencing now meaningless (truthless?). Even people who "live it up" because they know they will die soon are not completely focused on their impending death, but actually live passionately because they believe both "I am alive/have infinite possiblities" and "I am dying/am finite." Perhaps this is what Kierkegaard is getting at: that paradoxes like the ones we have described are our experiences. They are actually the most accurate way of describing what we are doing/meaning here.
I think it is a good idea for the class to develop a better understanding of what Kierkegaard meant by "passion" if we are going to be able to give his ideas a fair chance. I think we should remember that Kierkegaard's "passion" is a lot like his conception of faith. One does not possess either of these, they are processes or ways of beings that the AEI undergoes. However, from only having these short excerpts of Kierkegaard's work, I'm hesitant to say much more about "passion".
ReplyDeleteKarissa makes an interesting point on the paradoxical nature of human existence. We act everyday as if we will not die, yet we are absolutely aware that we will. Do you think the existence of these paradoxes genuinely undermine reason as Kierkegaard suggests?
I think a lot of times when we make a really big decision (greater than what we will eat for dinner, when we will go to sleep, etc) we first think of the consequences. If I were to drop out of college, what would be the subsequent consequences? I might not ever get a degree, might not ever get a good job, might not ever make enough money..etc. We make decisions with the hope that they will maximize comfort and happiness. Death I guess can be seen as the biggest discomfort, but I don't actively think "if I do this, will it help me die?" I think there's a middle state between the infinite and the finite, and that is the "now". Which I think we'll probably get into later in this class, but I'm a big believer in the "now".
ReplyDeleteWhile objectivity would analyze the bible word for word in order to deduce its logical form, etc., subjectivity reads more into the figurative language and symbolism (if I am correctly substituting in for "Objectivity emphasizes: what is said; subjectivity: how it is said." (20)). "When subjectivity is truth, the definition of truth must also contain in itself an expression of the antithesis to objectivity..." (21)--in other words, when one is interpreting metaphors, one must realize that it is not meant to be literal while still knowing that the statement is "true"...I think.
ReplyDelete