I have not been able to grasp “truth is subjectivity” so I
have been looking into the end of Kierkegaard’s “Truth is Subjectivity” to try
to understand. This section deals with the “contempt for the individual” and
after confusing myself even more, I am going to share what I have come up with.
Kierkegaard says that “truth is precisely the daring venture of choosing the
objective uncertainty with the passion of the infinite”(21). He believes there
is a decision in subjectivity and in the quote he wrote that objective
uncertainty is a necessary choice for truth. Is not wanting to be an actually
existing individual an objective uncertainty? Objectively, humans do not want
to be actually existing individuals (AEI), they fear being lonely and forgotten
so they do not have any passion. This seems like a paradox to me: by not
wanting to be an AEI, they must be aware of the possibility of their own
existence meaning they potentially know they exist but they escape into science
and history and ignore the thought of existence. There is uncertainty about
one’s existence. By humans not wanting to be individuals, they cause themselves
anxiety but ignore the realization that they exist. Is that fear of being an
AEI considered passion even though they are not worried about being an AEI but
about not being one? Passion can include worry about being an individual in a
boundless environment, which in my opinion seems similar to humans not wanting
to be AEI with their fear that they will be forgotten. When humans do not want
to and do not believe they are AEI, does that not make them more of an AEI? The
personal belief or disbelief that the individual exists is an inward,
subjective reflection. Even if they do not consider existence, is it possible
for those humans to still have inwardness? Maybe subconsciously they have
repressed such thoughts. As previously mentioned, in subjectivity there is a
decision. Is knowing that one is an AEI or distracting oneself from the thought
both decisions, that is subjective decisions, that contribute to the overall
concept of subjectivity. To summarize my thought process for this blog post: Kierkegaard
says that objective uncertainty and passion of the infinite is truth. Humans
who have contempt for the individual do not have passion and are lying to
themselves. Maybe it is not a lie and they subconsciously know they are AEIs. Those
who worry about being an individual and being forgotten, distract themselves.
Truth is a paradox as is knowing and not knowing one is an AEI at the same time.
This knowledge of existence would be inward but not all humans know it. The
inwardness is subjective and existence is true. The way AEIs subjectively think
they are an AEI or worry about being one, along with how the brain thinks
subconsciously, helps me make more sense of “truth is subjectivity."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo what you're saying is that ironically (like real irony, not hipster irony) sometimes, those who overly concern themselves with actually existing versus merely existing become just as objective and distanced from passion as those who are not even concerned with their own existence? If so, then you seem to be making Kierkegaard's point about the faults of Cartesian or Hegelian theories. However, I wonder if (considering Kierkegaard's existential stance as revisionist) it is possible to still lose one's passion when contemplating the meaning of human life versus only contemplating the metaphysical nature of human life like Descartes or Hegel.
ReplyDelete