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

Subjectivity

Expand Messages
  • gnosticism6794
    Hi all who may still be around here. I have been studying K for some time now. I have especially been interested in his existentialism and more specifically
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all who may still be around here.

      I have been studying K for some time now. I have especially been interested in his existentialism and more specifically his thesis on the subjectivity of faith and belief in God. I went through Either/Or (existentialist choice) and then Fear and Trembling. His presentation on the scripture on Abraham/Isaac is, to say the least, very enlightening.

      What I would like is to ask some members on their thoughts on Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and K's differentiation between objective and subjective faith, especially it's postulate that faith can't be grasped objectively. He uses the analgy of history being understood objectively, but since there is even the slightest possibility of error in the understanding of history then it cant be used as a foundation for faith since eternal happiness cant be predicated on an approximation. Faith is a conclusion not a resolution. This seems to be straight at the heart of K's existentialism, especially in regards to religion. And the infinite passionate interest" cannot be therefore based on any amount of "error".

      Any thoughts on this are appreciated.
    • James Rovira
      I agree with your general outline of faith and subjectivity in CUP. I think part of what needs to be incorporated into your description of faith as it is
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree with your general outline of faith and subjectivity in CUP.  I think part of what needs to be incorporated into your description of faith as it is described in CUP is the notion of paradox... one of Climacus's points in CUP is that the paradox of the incarnation is what makes faith a requirement, since the incarnation is an offense to rational thought.  The incarnation is a paradox for two reasons: first, the divine and human are met in a single individual (Climacus describes pantheist or generic versions of this belief as Religiousness A, not B), and next, the historicity of the incarnation makes it paradoxical -- the fact that it was a historical event is part of the paradox of faith, because we know it is was a historical event not by historical method (as you say -- that's based on an approximation), but inwardly and subjectively.  I think that Climacus's thinking is along the lines that we relate in time to an event in time, and that relation is what establishes our relationship to the eternal. 

        Jim R

        On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:06 PM, gnosticism6794 <gnosticism6794@...> wrote:
         

        Hi all who may still be around here.

        I have been studying K for some time now. I have especially been interested in his existentialism and more specifically his thesis on the subjectivity of faith and belief in God. I went through Either/Or (existentialist choice) and then Fear and Trembling. His presentation on the scripture on Abraham/Isaac is, to say the least, very enlightening.

        What I would like is to ask some members on their thoughts on Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and K's differentiation between objective and subjective faith, especially it's postulate that faith can't be grasped objectively. He uses the analgy of history being understood objectively, but since there is even the slightest possibility of error in the understanding of history then it cant be used as a foundation for faith since eternal happiness cant be predicated on an approximation. Faith is a conclusion not a resolution. This seems to be straight at the heart of K's existentialism, especially in regards to religion. And the infinite passionate interest" cannot be therefore based on any amount of "error".

        Any thoughts on this are appreciated.


      • Kenneth
        I suggest these preliminary questions for subjectivity: Do I will to believe? Do I will to understand Kierkegaard? And these parallel Either/Or thoughts: I
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 12, 2011
        • 0 Attachment

          I suggest these preliminary questions for subjectivity:

          Do I will to believe?

          Do I will to understand Kierkegaard?

           

          And these parallel Either/Or thoughts:

          I alone can know when I am in love.

          I can only know I am in love when another human being has been persuaded that it is true.

           

          To will to become subjective is requisite to faith.

          Only subjectively can I become offended.

          To objectively publish my being offended shuts the door.

          ka


          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "gnosticism6794" <gnosticism6794@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi all who may still be around here.
          >
          > I have been studying K for some time now. I have especially been interested in his existentialism and more specifically his thesis on the subjectivity of faith and belief in God. I went through Either/Or (existentialist choice) and then Fear and Trembling. His presentation on the scripture on Abraham/Isaac is, to say the least, very enlightening.
          >
          > What I would like is to ask some members on their thoughts on Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and K's differentiation between objective and subjective faith, especially it's postulate that faith can't be grasped objectively. He uses the analgy of history being understood objectively, but since there is even the slightest possibility of error in the understanding of history then it cant be used as a foundation for faith since eternal happiness cant be predicated on an approximation. Faith is a conclusion not a resolution. This seems to be straight at the heart of K's existentialism, especially in regards to religion. And the infinite passionate interest" cannot be therefore based on any amount of "error".
          >
          > Any thoughts on this are appreciated.
          >
        • James Rovira
          Good questions, but I wonder about a couple of them. Kierkegaard isn t Christ. We don t need to understand him to attain subjectivity. Those most likely to
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 12, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Good questions, but I wonder about a couple of them.  Kierkegaard isn't Christ.  We don't need to understand him to attain subjectivity.  Those most likely to need him, in particular, were members of his original audience: raised in a generally Evangelical Lutheran culture, took EL and its values for granted and assumed most others did too, assumed they were Christians because they were Danish, attained a certain level of education and superficial sophistication, have been schooled in Hegelianized theology (again, superficially at least), etc. 

            Climacus claimed his writing wasn't for rural peasants who already had simplicity of faith, but for those who had been educated out of simplicity of faith so therefore needed to return to it through the process of reflection.  Kierkegaard hoped the process of reflection would lead his audience members to a confrontation with a paradox that crucified their intellect, thus allowing them to return to a simple faith.

            If you alone can know when you are in love, does it matter that another person recognizes this love?  Being in love and knowing how another person needs to receive that and recognize it as love are two different things.    

            To will to become subjective is requisite to faith: good stuff. 

            Jim R

            On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Kenneth <karmstrong@...> wrote:
             

            I suggest these preliminary questions for subjectivity:

            Do I will to believe?

            Do I will to understand Kierkegaard?

             

            And these parallel Either/Or thoughts:

            I alone can know when I am in love.

            I can only know I am in love when another human being has been persuaded that it is true.

             

            To will to become subjective is requisite to faith.

            Only subjectively can I become offended.

            To objectively publish my being offended shuts the door.

            ka


          • jimstuart46
            This intoxicating mixture of thoughts is making my head spin. My advice to you, gnosticism6794, is to proceed slowly. K argues that becoming a Christian is not
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 12, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              This intoxicating mixture of thoughts is making my head spin.

              My advice to you, gnosticism6794, is to proceed slowly. K argues that becoming a Christian is not as easy as one, two, three, hop, skip and jump and you are there.

              Why should Johannes Climacus argue that to reach the religious sphere, the individual must first traverse the ethical sphere? And why does Johannes de silentio argue that to attain the faith of Abraham, one must first make the inner movement of infinite resignation?

              If you must plunge in at seventy thousand fathoms straight away and discuss the absolute paradox with Jim R, perhaps you should tarry over this quote from CUP:

              When the eternal truth relates itself to an existing person, it becomes the paradox. Through the objective uncertainty and ignorance, the paradox thrusts away in the inwardness of the existing person. But since the paradox is not in itself the paradox, it does not trust away intensely enough, for without risk, no faith; the more risk, the more faith; the more objective reliability, the less inwardness (since inwardness is subjectivity); the less objective reliability, the deeper is the possible inwardness. When the paradox is itself the paradox, it thrusts away by virtue of the absurd, and the corresponding passion of inwardness is faith." (Hong, p. 209)

              The advanced kierkegaardian can find some discussion of this quote at:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kierkegaardians/message/8454

              jim_the_aesthete
            • Kenneth
              Do I will to believe? facilitates subjectivity/faith. Do I will to understand Kierkegaard? facilitates objectivity, the contrast, the Or , spiritlessness,
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 12, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                "Do I will to believe?" facilitates subjectivity/faith.
                "Do I will to understand Kierkegaard?" facilitates objectivity, the
                contrast, the "Or", spiritlessness, the absence of faith.

                "I alone can know when I am in love," facilitates
                subjectivity/recollection.
                "I can only know I am in love when another human being has been
                persuaded that it is true," facilitates objectivity, the contrast, the
                "Or", denial, the betrayal of love.
                (This illustration pair recurs in SK.)

                ka


                --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "gnosticism6794"
                <gnosticism6794@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi all who may still be around here.
                >
                > I have been studying K for some time now. I have especially been
                interested in his existentialism and more specifically his thesis on the
                subjectivity of faith and belief in God. I went through Either/Or
                (existentialist choice) and then Fear and Trembling. His presentation on
                the scripture on Abraham/Isaac is, to say the least, very enlightening.
                >
                > What I would like is to ask some members on their thoughts on
                Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and K's differentiation between
                objective and subjective faith, especially it's postulate that faith
                can't be grasped objectively. He uses the analgy of history being
                understood objectively, but since there is even the slightest
                possibility of error in the understanding of history then it cant be
                used as a foundation for faith since eternal happiness cant be
                predicated on an approximation. Faith is a conclusion not a resolution.
                This seems to be straight at the heart of K's existentialism, especially
                in regards to religion. And the infinite passionate interest" cannot be
                therefore based on any amount of "error".
                >
                > Any thoughts on this are appreciated.
                >
              • James Rovira
                Ha... wonderful.... if gnosticism6794 s post brought Jim Stuart back on the list, must have been a good one indeed. But since when was Jim S an aesthete? I
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 12, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ha... wonderful.... if gnosticism6794's post brought Jim Stuart back on the list, must have been a good one indeed.  But since when was Jim S an aesthete?  

                  I would say that K's belief about becoming a Christian is that it is simultaneously the easiest and most natural and most difficult thing in the world.  I think K believed that because he was in a culture in which everyone was a Christian, it was very likely that no one was a Christian, so becoming a Christian was very difficult.  

                  Thank you for the response, Kenneth... good, dialectical response.  

                  Jim R

                  On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:46 PM, jimstuart46 <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
                   

                  This intoxicating mixture of thoughts is making my head spin.

                  My advice to you, gnosticism6794, is to proceed slowly. K argues that becoming a Christian is not as easy as one, two, three, hop, skip and jump and you are there.

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.