We have discussed in class what it means to be an “actually
existing individual” and Kierkegaard claims that it is impossible to exist
without passion or emotional investment, or at least only in the most basic
form of existence. I have not done the blog post for this class until now
because I lack passion or care about anything that I might be able to put on
this blog and, consequently, have had no relation to this blog up until this
moment. This also means that up until this point, I have not been a subject to
the truth of this blog. There was a lack of interaction and so there was
relationship by which to establish existence or truth of myself in relation to the
blog.
Even though I am know interacting with the blog, and some
might say that I have a relationship to blog (being an author), Kierkegaard
would say that since I am only performing the basic functions needed, I have
only an aforementioned basic existence, I still cannot be a subject to observe
a truth and thus still do not exist. I lack any sort of agency to the blog,
insofar as this post is doing nothing in the way to contribute or change the
contents of the blog (besides merely providing a post to inflate the number
that there are). Along with my lack of passion, I also will not be able to
become passionate in the context of this blog. Kierkegaard gives the example of
putting a man on an out of control horse to incite passion in him. An
equivalent in the context of the blog would be if my post was not going through
to post, or if the blog site itself were to be taken down; however, because I
lack any emotional investment in the blog itself. The closest thing I have to
passion related to the blog would be the impact it has on my grade in class,
but this does not translate to passion about the blog. This “passion” would
apply to anything regardless of the object on which the grade was dependent,
making it completely independent of the blog itself. It then follows that my
existence and passion for my grade does not translate to an existence or
passion for the blog.
Therefore, I can never become passionate and by extension, have no existence in this blog.
I think there's a logical flaw in this argument inasmuch as it seems there is a confusion between lacking passion, and lacking the potential thereof. Perhaps (and there's a decently good chance of this) I misunderstood Kierkegaard, but I believe an actually existing individual is simply someone who, at a particular moment, is existing (as opposed to an individual who has already expired, or one who may or may not exist in the future). But one's degree passionateness does not qualify one's actually existing. Rather, one's potential to become passionate dictates whether s/he is actually existing, or is either a) a non-human creature, b) a deceased human, or c) a speculation on a human of the future.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSchaeffer, I believe that Kierkegaard would disagree with you on this point. The differentiation between one's status as an Existing Individual or an Actually Existing Individual cannot be based on existence (per your point about having existed or having not yet existed) or individuality (per your point about non-human creatures). The difference must be based on that term "actually," meaning that an Existing Individual (though existing right now as an individual) is missing something which would give his/her existence further "actuality." Emily identifies that something as passion, but (unless I'm wrong) makes the mistake of basing passion on the object of her subjectivity (i.e. the blog). Emily, I think that Kierkegaard would say that passion necessarily exists in the subjective relation (rather than the object) because of the action of the subject (you), and furthermore, you actually seem pretty passionate about this blog being a load of balderdash.
ReplyDelete