Kierkegaard's Existentialism

Kierkegaard was born and raised in Copenhagen in the early 19thc, when the Lutheran Church--which was the center of its culture at the time-- was heavily influenced by the rationalist system of Hegel. He studied philosophy in Berlin, and came to despise academic philosophy. In particular, he saw in Hegel the surrender of all that is personal and passionate to the lifeless mechanics of an abstract, and "law governed" system . The concrete individual was swallowed up by principles and impersonal forces (e.g. "Reason in History") rendering the rich inner experience of actual persons a mere afterthought. "What our age lacks," he wrote, "is not reflection but passion." Christian religion had become "mere Christendom," according to Kierkegaard. That is, a set of culturally prescribed rituals, routines and templates for belief that allowed one to avoid uncertainty by becoming a faceless member of "the herd." His pamphlet, The Present Age, depicts early 19th century culture as utterly mediocre and staid. There was no vitality, no place for assertive individualism, a devaluation of emotional life, and thus, he thought, a misguided belief that rationality can ground human existence.

It is Kierkegaard's understanding of human existence which came to deeply influence most 20th century existentialists and phenomenologists, particularly Heidegger and Sartre. The latter credited him with founding Existentialism, though Kierkegaard would never have wanted the credit for any "ism," as he was an uncompromising and iconoclastic individualist. Existence , which had been a rather dry term in philosophy before K, became the central animating concern of his thought. To say "I exist" is not a mere epistemological assertion (an "existence claim" in the logical idiom), but rather an affirmation of one's being, where being is really living according to convictions in the midst of uncertainty. We are at every turn forced to make choices that define who we become, and what kinds of lives we lead. On what basis, for example, should we choose whether or not to marry given the opportunity? Kierkegaard almost married a woman he loved deeply, and then cancelled the engagement, choosing a more solitary and religious life. He thus made a commitment in a situation where there is no easy or rational answer. But these decisions do not necessarily rid us of our woes, doubts or anxieties . He wrote that he would have regretted the marriage as much as he regretted living without his beloved. The point is, we must make either/or choices even when both options are equally promising or equally problematic. Flipping coins is useless, and the only genuine alternative is to consult our deepest convictions. Sartre spoke to this issue when he recalled the example of a student during WW2 who asked him which would be more ethical, to stay home with his sick mother or to join the resistance to save democratic France from the Nazis. There is no objectively correct answer, and each person must choose subjectively. Niether answer will "solve" the problem; rather it will move us along on life's way for better and/or worse on the basis of our best hunches and convictions.

Most people, thought Kierkegaard, just drift from situation to situation believing that they have made thoughtful decisions, while in truth they have lacked both an awareness of their deepest passions, and just as crucially, the courage of their own convictions. His philosophy is one of what he called"inwardness and passion" or subjective truth. How should I live? What should I do? "The thing is," writes Kierkegaard, "to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die." Again and again in his many essays, we see this point illustrated. In his pamphlet, The Present Age, he provides several metaphors and similes to convey the mediocrity of passionless "herd life" and the value of individuation from the "herd"/masses(it is unclear if Nietzsche read him or arrived at very similar conclusions independently). The bourgeois life of the "average man" is compared to perpetual window-shopping without ever actually buying anything. More famously, we get the image of someone walking along the waterline on a beach, now and then dipping their feet in the water but never taking never giving oneself over to the water in good faith-- never taking a "leap of faith" by actually swimming. By always sampling and seldom or never committing to anything dangerous, life is only partly lived. We are stunted, held back by the search for external guidance through reason. We want to be reassured that our choices, our actions are objectively right or true. If such assurance were possible it would eliminate the need for self-trust, passion and faith. As we sometimes ask nowadays, "Is there an algorithm for that problem?" But even if there were such objective guidelines for our personal choices, it would rob us of everything that makes our experiences special, significant and unique. Religious, moral and familial commitments, for example, would be reduced to "going through the motions" or what later philosophers call "Inauthenticity."

Kierkegaard's own inner passion was for Christianity, and so he chose that over other possible paths (he cancelled an engagement, never pursued academic philosophy, etc.). But he had nothing but contempt for Christendom, and got into trouble with the Church which he took on vocally and satirically through the press. Kierkegaard's notion of "religious life" has little to do with the outward forms and rituals of the Church, nor is it a matter of holding beliefs. He heaps scorn on people who debate the existence of God. You would never see Kierkegaard trying to rebut Richard Dawkins on a TV show! He would gladly concede the lack of evidence and rational warrant for his way of life and be on his way. Personal religious belief is always a "leap of faith," and any reliance on theological or scientific reasoning trivializes it, thus putting the religious life at the mercy of external, impersonal and rational standards which are the antithesis of genuine religious experience. Kierkegaard would be amused to see some modern religionists arguing about archeological excavations in the Holy Land to establish or discredit religious truths. He might wonder if such people really believe anything with conviction since they appear to be waiting for scientific permission. One must choose to follow one's passionate convictions despite intermittent doubts, fears, anxieties, intellectual questions and the like. A truly religious person can, and at various junctures in life will fully experience doubts and despair without losing a deeper commitment to the religion. Faith must embrace doubt and pain, while conventional belief is much more brittle and relies on assurances regarding outcomes. True religious energy, for Kierkegaard, acquires force from deep within or else it is a sandcastle on the beach ready to be overwhelmed by the first clever argument or emotional crisis that comes along. Faith is not escapism but the pinnacle of strength..

There is a name for this kind of thinking about religion, "Fideism" (faith over reason). But we must be careful not to confuse faith with conformity. Reciting scripture on the basis of "faith," praying in prescribed fashion on the basis of "faith," believing whatever a preacher tells you on the basis of "faith"-- none of these count any more than the most eloquent logical arguments. None of them are "subjective truths." All real religion throws the individual back on his or her own inner resources. If these resources enable a personal and direct confrontation with the divine as the radically "Other"-- an impenetrable and mysterious yet undeniable determinative presence in one's lived experience--then one may speak of religiosity. Many Church members are unsure about the religious status of their own experiences and seek validation by attending church, following precepts, and trying to believe what they are taught, but never discovering within themselves the power of their own convictions. An analogy may help here. Imagine the kind of Inward Truth a composer discovers when thrown back on his own musical resources after graduating from the conservatory. If he is a "natural" or authentic composer, and not just a well trained musician, then he must discover resources that transcend the need to please teachers and audiences. This would count as "subjective truth" in the "Aesthetic Mode of Life" for Kierkegaard. If the composer's artistic life is a result of such passion despite the opinions of the world, then likewise the genuinely religious person must have a faith that transcends doubt, belief and conventional wisdom. He or she must discover inner religious resources and experiences as independent and compelling as the artistic resources of a composer. In addition he or she must have a personal encounter with God, whose authority alone is final. This is surrender to the divine. But it requires self-trust since the divine is discovered within. And it requires the willingness to express inner passion in a harsh and judgmental world. If one's subjective truth is Christian Faith, then its fulfillment lies in doing God's will as you understand it, even if it flies in the face of social standards and all that you have learned, including moral precepts. Thus the binding of Isaac in the Old Testament serves as a paradigmatic example of a "leap of faith" without appeal to reason. For in that Biblical passage Abraham is ready to sacrifice his beloved son to obey God despite his revulsion at the thought of his son dying, his grief, and every ethical precept he has ever learned.

Has Kierkegaard gone too far here? What if Abraham is rendered as a deeply religious man who is also prone to hallucinations in the 21st century? Without some objective and rational standards, subjective truth and delusion/illness are indistinguishable. Individual action may have moorings in the depths of inner life, but action in the world is also wedded to the lives of others who may not share our subjective truths. Doesn't this matter? Don't our deepest religious and ethical concerns reach beyond ourselves as individuals? Is shared life not as deserving of reverence as inner life? Are not the world, nature and society the ground from which individuals come to be? I think so. And there can be no society without objective standards of some kind. In my own view, Kierkegaard's leap of faith, and emphasis on subjectivity are extreme overreactions to the more impersonal philosophy and culture he so abhorred. His total rejection of reason as having an important place in spheres of value and religion are likewise reactionary. In the end his religious views come close to those of 3rd century Church Father, Tertullian, who said "I believe because it is unfitting to do so." https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... making him an early fideist (faith over reason). Just as Kierkegaard was dismayed by the rationalism of his age, Tertullian was upset about other bishops in his day who were studying Plato and the Greeks, thus incorporating Metaphysics into Theology (which is how the Trinity and Christology come about historically). "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" asked Tertullian. Kierkegaard similarly asks what German philosophy ala Kant and Hegel has to do with Christianity. I think these fideist positions are highly problematic for reasons stated above. However, on balance, Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to focus intensively on the individual life, and to find value in what had been dismissed as "the merely subjective." (Only Rousseau had ventured as far into the depths of subjectivity before him in philosophy).

Whether atheistic or theistic, many philosophers and psychologists have been deeply influenced (sometimes indirectly) by his passionate and perceptive explorations of inner life and emotions. Existentialism and much phenomenological work of the 20th century would simply be inconceivable without the work of this troubled but insightful philosopher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommended Reading:

Kierkegaard:
-The Present Age
Link to a 4 page excerpt from The Present Age:
http://cliffarnold.com/thep...

Considerations:

-Does K's understanding of faith differ from faith as you understand it? Why does he insist that fundamental lifestyle choices (including the practice of a religion) cannot be settled by reasoning? Is he onto something? Does he go too far? Is he simply beyond the pale as an irrationalist? What do you think?

-Though Kierkegaard influenced some theologians (e.g. Paul Tillich), he was ultimately more influential on atheists and agnostics like Sartre, Camus, Rollo May and many others. Why do you think his views would resonate with non-religious thinkers in the 20th century and beyond? If you are non-religious, do you see anything of value in Kierkegaard's thinking from a personal perspective? Does he "speak to you?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psychologist, Eric Dodson, presents a decent overview of K in under 20 minutes. (Note: He does commit an error in the beginning though, by implying that objective truths in science come from consensus alone. He has clarified the oversight saying that what he meant is that non-experts learn these objective scientific truths not by first-hand experience while doing scientific experiments, , but rather by trusting the scientific consensus of experts as reported by journals, news outlets etc. Otherwise, the video is good and may be useful as a short overview).