Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Subjective and the Objective

Expand Messages
  • John Anngeister
    SK: There is no word in human language, not a single one, not even the most sacred word, of which we could say: when a man uses this word, it is
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      SK: "There is no word in human language, not a single one,
      not even the most sacred word, of which we could say: when
      a man uses this word, it is unconditionally proved thereby
      that there is love in him. ... There is no deed, not a
      single one, not even the best, of which we dare to say
      unconditionally: he who does this thereby unconditionally
      demonstrates love.

      "If it were true - as conceited shrewdness, proud of not
      being deceived, thinks - that one should believe nothing
      which he cannot see by means of his physical eyes, then
      first and foremost one ought to give up believing in love."
      -Works of Love, p.30, 23


      Your dogmatic assertion - that the question of the existence of God
      is to be determined only by objective proof - assures a negative
      judgment (since there is no such proof). But you are not actually
      proving the non-existence of God, you are indeed denying the truth of
      subjectivity, and not only in this regard but in every one of its
      other regards.

      SK: "... one can be deceived in believing what is untrue, but on the
      other hand, one is also deceived in not believing what is true; one
      can be deceived by appearances, but one can also be deceived by the
      superficiality of shrewdness, by the flattering conceit which is
      absolutely certain that it cannot be deceived. -p.23

      "When there is talk about being deceived in love the one deceived is
      still related to love, and the deception is simply that it is not
      present where it was thought to be; but one who is self-deceived has
      locked himself out and continues to lock himself out from love." p.24

      What is more, Jim, it is not possible that you could generate, on
      objective grounds, a passionate commitment (ie, a willingness to
      suffer) on behalf of such an unphilosophical judgment of negation (on
      behalf of the non-existence of something). I question the sincerity
      of any commitment not pledged on behalf of some positive good. It is
      to this good that you bind yourself, and in the light of which you
      behold the evil implied in its opposition and possible negation.

      However, in your case, this positive good is just your strangely
      dogmatic truth-condition regarding the requirement of objective proof
      of God's existence, and so the opposing `possibility' which must
      arouse your passionate denial cannot be the existence of God per se
      but only the possibility that the existence of God is capable of
      subjective proof.

      Een, thank you for your inspiring "Direct Communication" posted a day
      or so ago.


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Stuart" <jimstuart@n...>
      > Een berates me for taking an objective mode in stating my points. I
      am happy to be more subjective: I have a passionate commitment to
      atheism, but also a commitment to conceptions of the self and the
      human way of life as subjective matters - the way we choose to live
      our lives is a subjective matter through and through. Further, I
      think that SK is correct when he argues that to choose the ethical
      way of life is to live life more subjectively than when one chooses
      the aesthetic way of life.
      > Where I differ from Een, and also from SK, is that I think that the
      question of the existence of God is an objective matter. Either God
      exists or he doesn't. Either the Christians, Jews and Muslim are
      correct, or the atheists are correct. Now you, my Kierkegaardian
      readers, may think that I'm beyond the pale - that if I don't regard
      the question of the existence of God as a subjective matter then I
      really ought not to be contributing to the Kierkegaardians group.
      > Jim Stuart
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.