Kierkegaard Lecture

today we are going to look more closely at work of søren kierkegaard the 19th century father of existential thought and we saw last time in our general introduction to existentialism that there are some basic tenets of this way of thinking one of which really arises from the work of a manual Conte now although we didn't focus on Khan's metaphysical writing we did see that in the final section of Kant's groundwork he raises the problem that since the categorical imperative is possible on the basis of human freedom and yet because I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of human freedom it seems that I cannot prove that a categorical imperative actually exists okay now of course Kongo becomes this problem by simply saying that we can understand the self under two aspects as belonging to nature but also to intelligence but also that from a practical standing on a daily basis can only proceed on the assumption that one is free okay but what Kant teaches us in the critique of pure reason is that certain ideas like the idea of God the idea of soul and the idea of freedom are what he calls transcendental ideas we cannot prove that any of these ideas have exemplars in the world I can neither prove nor disprove that God freedom or soul actually exists because they transcend the realm of human understanding okay now certainly freedom soul and God have traditionally stood as fundamental grounds for the establishment of meaning unless we are free then the question of the meaning of life cannot even be raised intelligently because if I am NOT free to choose my own path then what does it mean to say that what I do matters and certainly in the absence of a proof for the existence of God that Avenue toward establishing the meaning of life in terms of a divine plan is closed off to us and in the absence of a proof for the existence of soul then we are tempted toward materialism or the view that everything is just matter there is no spiritual realm when you die it's over with and so what ultimately can we say matters so this is why I personally find to be the seeds for existential thought in the work of cocked although nobody would call Contin existentialist the basic tenets of existentialism are the following for one thing one cannot escape human subjectivity which means that I cannot step outside of the structures of my own consciousness in order to have a direct confrontation with things as they are in themselves and the most devastating result of this condition of being trapped within my own consciousness is what we call soloff's ism okay and because I cannot get outside of my own shoes I can't step outside of myself the structures of human reasons my personal history the structure of the language I speak or even my moods then it is impossible for me to establish the existence of an overarching meaning of human existence okay and so another basic tenant of existential thought is that there is no pre-existing essence of human existence and so the question about human nature what is human nature really does not admit of an answer because we don't have a fixed nature we are nothing but what we make of ourselves first we find ourselves existing and in the course of that existence we choose a path and we forge a meaning for our lives and so existentialism in a word comes down to decision we are decision makers and as even Socrates had argued what is more important even than the particular decisions we make on a daily basis is the decision we make about what we ought to do with our lives at all not what ought I to do in this or that situation but what is expected of me as a human being and if nothing is expected of me as a human being then where do I begin to make such a decision about what to do with my life so Kierkegaard in recognizing that there is no escape from my own subjectivity argues that there is a more meaningful sense of truth than the traditional modernist idea that truth simply means the correspondence between what I think the world is like and the way the world really is we call that the correspondence theory of truth if I say the lights are on what makes my proposition true is the fact that the lights are on okay but of course even if I'm right about that so what that doesn't tell me what it means to be a human being it doesn't even tell me whether the lights ought to be on and so what we call correspondence or propositional truth is not ultimately meaningful when it comes to making the decision about what to do with my life or what justifies human existence itself because certainly just as each era or period in philosophy arises from a basic question and what I mean by that is for example Plato said that philosophy begins in wonder we wonder about things and therefore we ask questions Aristotle similarly says that we have a pure desire to know things and so we inquire in the modern period of philosophy the 17th century the impetus for questioning is doubt with the advent of science we seek to understand what the world is really like but we had cause for doubting our interpretation of reality and over there for philosophy arises from the disposition of doubt but in the postmodern world to which Kierkegaard belongs or at least initiates a world in which the traditional questions regarding the existence of God or the afterlife or the soul haven't all but been given up on the impetus for origins of philosophical questioning becomes anxiety horror terror the horrifying notion that all our suffering our effort there ultimately amounts to nothing and that there is no justification for living a life about which we care but which in itself amounts to nothing and so existential thought is really born of the the threat of nihilism that life means nothing and therefore what is at issue is everything why live at all and so Kierkegaard tells us that he has reached a point in his life where he realizes that the only question that matters is whether he can discover something worth living for or perhaps even worth dying for and this according to Kierkegaard is a question that cannot be approached from the perspective of objectivity so what do we mean by objectivity essentially we mean science when we put on a lab coat and step into the laboratory ideally we leave our personalities at the door and we approach the subject matter with pure disinterestedness I may have an interest in the outcome but I cannot let that interest influence my findings rather the question of the meaning of being especially of being human can only be approached from the subjective point of view and that is why this particular reading that I've asked you to consider is called subjectivity is truth what he's essentially arguing here is that there is a more meaningful sense of truth in subjectivity than there is in objectivity even if I could discover the answers to every scientific question that faces us that still does not tell me whether or not life is worth living and so what he does in this subjectivity is truth is to distinguish between two approaches to truth the objective scientific approach and the subjective existential approach such that he concludes that subjectivity is truth and here truth does not mean propositional truth or the truth of the judgments I make about the world rather truth is most meaningful as it is appropriated meaning what do I do with that which I regard to be true how do I take my understanding of the world and make it the basis for living a meaningful life and so near the beginning of this selection he says that if we are objective inquires the question pertaining to Christianity and he speaks of Christianity because he himself becomes a Christian is not whether Christianity is true as a matter of historical fact because that is not something I could ever prove but rather what is my relationship to Christianity in other words whether it is true or not that there was a man named Jesus who was the Christ who was the son of God sent to erase the mark of original sin and opened the gates of heaven but rather what must I do as an individual existing in time in order to participate in the happiness the joy the salvation even promised by Christianity and if you think about it there are only two possibilities either Christianity is true or it isn't true if it isn't true I've lost nothing by being a Christian in fact I have gained a worldview in terms of which to understand my suffering I have found something to ground me to get me through life but if it is true well then of course presumably I will reap the benefits of having become Christian but of course it's essential ISM is not about what happens after life it is about life itself and how I ought to live it and whether it means anything whatsoever okay or is it in the words of Macbeth a tale told by a fool full of pomp and fury signifying nothing is all our suffering all our anxiety our exertion of emotion energy wit in vain does anything we do actually matter and what existentialism is about is finding something to live for and the point is that whatever it is that you find to justify your life is a matter of decision making you choose your own meaning we made it you are nothing but what you do what you hope to be even what you think that you have become is nothing the only reality is what you do you are the sum of your actions and nothing more now it surprises people that there are Christian existentialists because in the 20th century existentialism gained momentum especially in France as an atheistic doctrine given that God does not exist where does that leave us what other possible ground is there for living a meaningful life and the answer is freedom your free decision and it doesn't really matter what you decide to do it doesn't matter if you make Kierkegaard's leap of faith toward Christianity or if you leap into Buddhism or Taoism or Hinduism or Islam or even something non-religious like the world of art or theater or music or sports or medicine the point is that you find something about which you can generate enough passion to get you through and so interestingly unlike an objective approach to truth wherein we ask is X true as a matter of fact in which we seek as Descartes put an absolute certainty about the world and in the course of which we have the academic luxury of remain prudent and indecisive until we clearly understand what we're talking about until the evidence is in because if the evidence is still outstanding I don't have to say yes or no I don't have to publish a paper taking a side I can just as well say this question cannot at present be answered and here's why and that is perhaps a noble thing for an academic to say rather for Kierkegaard what is more important is my ability to make a decision in the face of uncertainty and in fact perhaps paradoxically I can only make a decision in the face of uncertainty perhaps if I am free to make decisions and nothing is certain then all decisions are made in the face of uncertainty and I appreciate that comment what Kierkegaard has in mind is this some things are arguably certain okay sure like a mathematical proposition if I say that a is greater than B then certainly it follows if B is less than a okay the hole is always greater than the part to luck two points always describe a line but so what that doesn't tell me how I like to live my life okay furthermore if you tell me something like this and you say all a are B and all b RC what can I conclude all A's are C's right if all men are mortal and all mortals will die it follows that all men will die okay and that is absolutely certain it's a valid deductive argument but if you accept these two premises you don't have a choice about accepting the conclusion reason is compelled to accept it if you tell me that a is equal to B & B is equal to C and I accept that then I am not free either to affirm or deny that a is equal to C I am compelled to accept that a is equal to C therefore the things about which I can be absolutely certain do not allow me to make a free decision so paradoxically decision-making in the authentic sense of really having to choose requires uncertainty decision presupposes uncertainty okay only where I am uncertain must I make a real decision and only where I make a real decision can I be passionate I can't be passionate about a is equal to a okay now why am i passionate about the things that I decide precisely because I'm taking a risk why do political and religious discussions get heated so quickly because the subject matter is both the basis for myself understanding and also something that I cannot prove so people are very protective of the decisions they make in the political or spiritual domain but to continue only where passion exists can there be faith faith requires passion but passion requires making a decision and decision requires uncertainty okay and so when reason despairs of its own inability to prove what is ultimately true as Todd puts it when reason enters the dialectics or antinomies of pure reason all it can do is sort of stand back and watch itself struggle because I can give equally compelling arguments at the world must have a beginning and that the world cannot have a beginning when it comes to these transcendental issues reason is indecisive and so I must make a decision from my freedom and that is risky but the risk is not that I might be wrong because I can I cannot prove the existence of God or the non-existence of God the reason existential decision is risky is because I must be able to generate enough passion to sustain my belief all the way to the end it doesn't matter what I choose to believe what matters is that I choose and take responsibility for having made the choice okay this always reminds me of Leo Tolstoy's novella the death of Ivan Ilyich okay it's a very short novel in which the protagonist Ivan has led his life according to the duel gods or idols of pleasure and propriety he wants to live a life of pleasure the good life but part of living the good life is doing what is deemed proper by the crowd to which he seeks to belong and so he led his life making decisions according to what other people deemed appropriate he married just the right woman he landed just the right job he lived in the right neighborhood he decorated his apartment in the right style and then one day as he was standing on a ladder fixing a curtain he fell and whether the fall was the cause he shortly thereafter became ill he had a problem with his cecum or kidney and this ultimately became the cause of his death okay but during the last three days of his life he holed up in his study with only the company of his assistant a younger man and he screamed at the top of his lungs for three days straight screaming that he had missed it he missed the boat he got it wrong he led his life according to other people's ideals he fought other people's battles it wasn't the real thing it was all a farce it was all empty but then on the very last day of his life in fact the last moments of his life he had an epiphany he realized that he could make it all right he says wait a minute I can still make it all right I can be delivered from this agony and of course he's not talking about simply dying now of course he can't go back and relive his life and this is not a matter a matter of apologizing to others because what is tormenting him is that his own life has been a waste and Tolstoy doesn't tell us what this epiphany is so we are led to speculate now I personally think that what Ivan Ilyich realizes in these last moments is something very simple that he himself made the decision to live this life simply taking responsibility for having made a decision and sticking to it even if it is the wrong decision by somebody by some standard what he retains is the dignity of a free being he freely chose to live this life he alone is responsible for it and so even in his last moments he recognizes that he has a dignity which as Khan would say is inviolable he took responsibility for his life and was thereby saved okay now of course that is just my excursion into the philosophy of literature which is something I enjoy doing as we saw in the ethics of care which we will be quizzed on eventually excuse me not the ethics of care in virtue ethics one of the advantages of virtue ethics is that we can learn virtue not just by watching people around us but by epic heroes by literature in film right and literature especially great literature Russian literature is replete with the existential struggle life is not easy and it has nothing to do alternately with simply putting food on the table anybody with any kind of Drive whatsoever can put food on the table it's a real challenge of living is finding something to live for something to justify suffering because it is not as Viktor Frankl says that people are unwilling to suffer we are simply unwilling to suffer meaninglessly but give a person a what to live for one can live with almost any how and this is how he explains those who are able to survive the death camps at Auschwitz and Dachau and others so remember what Kierkegaard has established here existentialism does not mean atheism although there are atheistic existentialists as we will see the point is not what you believe the point is that what you are is what you choose to be life is a decision and decision is only possible when we are uncertain and therein lies the risk there is a certain horror about existential awakened like as it is portrayed in the famous painting the screen that empty nude horror when you talk about existentialism you get the a you get the imagery of our simply spinning on this rock hurtling through space attached in nothing on our own and existentialists deal in terminology like abandonment we have been abandoned by the idea that someone or some thing can come along to save me or despair despair meaning the realization that what my life can be is limited to the sum total of possibilities that are feasible for me and anguish which means that we alone decide our being no one else can decide for me I'm a knock on many doors looking for the answer I can consult a preacher or a priest a teacher psychologist a friend a mentor a role model but ultimately not only do I decide whose door to knock on I decide whose advice to take and I will continue to search until I find the answer which will work for me and that's what existentialism is about it is about taking back the right and the responsibility for choosing what it means to be human no one has a monopoly on the meaning of human existence no one in the history of the world has been more human than you or I am some have made bigger splashes I will never be an Einstein the name Brzezinski will never be uttered in the same sentence with Shakespeare or Mozart Plato but that does not mean that they were more human it just means that there were geniuses so perhaps you can go back to this selection subjectivity is truth with the advantage of having talked about it and realized that although he does not explicitly list the objectives traits of inquiry versus the subjective but that is essentially what he is doing he is arguing that truth is more meaningful on the side of subjectivity truth as we appropriate it because when reason despairs of its own dialectical difficulty and by that I mean when you realize that there simply is no proof for what you ultimately believe whether that is in the existence of a god or something else then you also realize that what your life is going to be is completely up to you the weight of existence rests entirely on your individual shoulders nobody can save you but you and so carefully guard argues that we ought to make a leap of faith there's no shame in because ultimately even objective scientific inquiry is human science we understand things in a human way we never have access to the way the universe is as a thing in itself we understand things as human beings are able to understand them it's all guesswork the one thing that we really do have control over is our decision-making and what we decide is worth living for so from an ethical point of view where does this leave us if there is no human nature but rather we choose our own essence there may be a universality of human condition we are all in the same boat in the sense of having to make a decision we are faded to our freedom it can't avoid it but the meaning of life is not universal it means only what you allow it to me and that amounts to what you do with it so Kierkegaard is the first existential thinker because existentialism is about decision making and so he is developing a doctrine of theism or a doctrine about faith how is it possible to develop faith because knowledge can't get us there no matter what you know it cannot make your life worth living it is what you do that makes life worth living and so he urges us to make the leap make a leap of faith make a decision to believe and it doesn't matter what it is that you believe what matters is that you have chosen to make a choice that you have found passion and so for Kierkegaard the highest possibility for a being that exists in time for mortal be is not knowledge it's passionate the greatest thing you can experience is genuine passion even if it is for nothing but the pure flame of life itself as camu will later say okay so fine as we progress now and look at Nietzsche Sartre Camus who is not really an existentialist but I'm neither list we will come to understand Kierkegaard better but what I want you to realize is that a shift is taking place here we are now no longer asking what is the meaning of goodness what does it mean to live a good life we are asking how is it possible to find meaning in a life that means nothing in itself not only are we responsible for what we do we are also responsible for deciding what is worth doing there is no correct moral theory because this is no longer about correctness this is about the quality of your life okay so I will post a quiz over the weekend over comm and of course stay with the reading assignment on the calendar which I believe calls for Nietzsche on Monday unless I'm mistaken I have to write it after I write it well you know I won't make me do until probably Tuesday at 11:59 oh yeah no so you'll be fine even if you don't look into Monday you'll be fine okay all right guys

Channel: Michael B Brezinsky, Ph.D.

Views: 11,797

Rating: 4.8192091 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: IyNfCP6PaqY

Length: 54min 29sec (3269 seconds)

Published: Fri Jul 11 2014