I just want to take a moment to thank my group for these
last few weeks. I know we had a rough time wrestling with this content and we
lost two group members in the process, but man it feels good to have our
presentation over with. It definitely did not help with the wordiness of the
text. I swear I will probably have dreams about some of this stuff in the
future from reading it so much. That was the hardest seven pages of reading in
my life hands down. Overall I am extremely happy with the way our presentation
turned out. Hopefully the rest of the class felt the same way about our
presentation.
After dissecting Kierkegaard’s material I see things a
little differently. Especially with the way I feel about things. It actually
helped me to clarify some of my religious feelings. In a sense I can relate to
Kierkegaard seeing as he too was born into a religious family, but he believed
in science and objective facts. But at one point he became re awakened and up
took his religious faith once again. In a sense that’s where I stand with my
religious view. I have many doubts in my religion and I do not really want to
be a part of it until I accept the objective uncertainty and take faith in God
fully and passionately. It may not be at the age of 25 for me, but perhaps one
day it will happen for me. I do not want to go into the House of God and pray
if I do not completely believe. I want to go for me, not for everyone who
thinks I should be involved in church.
In highlight I decided to share a few quote that I felt kind
of wrap up what Kierkegaard was trying to emphasize in this section.
“Inwardness in an existing subject is at its highest in
passion; truth as a paradox corresponds to passion, and that truth becomes a
paradox is grounded precisely in its relation to an existing subject. Thus the
one corresponds to the other. By forgetting that one is an existing subject,
passion is lost, and in truth does not become a paradox; but the knowing
subject becomes something fantastic rather than an existing human being, and
truth becomes a fantastic object for its knowing.”
This all comes back to finding meaning to our life and
finding truth within ourselves. Taking a step back and realizing that for us to
exist and not just be an existing subject we have to be THE existing subject.
It is our choice how we choose to carry on and feel about life. Seeing as
Kierkegaard took strong emphasis in the individual this is important for us to
know.
“Objectivity
emphasizes: what is said; subjectivity: how it is said.”
This distinction is
important as most of his existential work revolves around this philosophy.
As Kierkegaard explains, there are some things that are
rooted in subjectivity and others in objectivity. In subjectivity, the concepts
of immortality and religion are directly rooted here. According to Kierkegaard
they serve no purpose in the realm of objectivity as they are something that
cannot be proved. He makes it distinct that those who chose to seek out the
truth in the uncertain being in fact truth get further away from the truth. He
uses God and Immortality as his examples seeing as they are both something that
cannot be achieved through hard core proof.
I also found it interesting the differences that
occur in the absurdity aspect with Kierkegaard versus Camus. Whereas Camus said
that the absurdity occurs with the individual struggling against the world,
Kierkegaard indicates that the absurdity takes place within the existing being,
which the struggle the individual has internally. In a sense I side with both
of them, as I believe that it is important to understand that absurdity can
take place you against the world and I think that an internal absurdity does in
fact occur. I mean, I have internal debates within my mind and the way I feel,
but of course absurd things occur in the actual world. So I choose to take a
stance in the middle of both philosophers as I find both of their contribution
equally important.
I would definitely agree with you that there are certain ideas that belong to the categories of subjectivity and objectivity within Kierkegaard’s thought process; however I think you could have built further on this theme. Kierkegaard essentially approaches the notion of the religious sphere of life with the emphasis on the idea that religion itself is paradoxical. He asserts that “the idea that God is at once eternal and temporal, is like a man but not at all like a man, is utterly and fundamentally absurd. Because this doctrine is the central doctrine of Christianity, the religion is absurd and paradoxical at its very foundations” (Solomon, 1972, 99). This is a very important theme in Kierkegaard’s argument and should not be taken lightly because it is built into his conception and use of faith.
ReplyDeleteTo Kierkegaard, faith is a necessary precondition for risk. Furthermore, risk is a necessary precondition for infinite faith. As I pointed out earlier, the idea that religion is absurd and paradoxical is an important notion because if it was not, and was possible to objectively grasp, then there would be no risk. Yet, this leap of faith is important because it exemplifies the truth that is contained within an individual that expresses passion. “But this passion of the infinite is just subjectivity, and so subjectivity is truth” (Kierkegaard in Solomon, 20).