Fragments :: Dispair and sin

Q: Why is despair somewhat equivocal with sin for Kierkegaard?

In answering the basis of the relationship between despair and sin; I intend to firstly consider what Kierkegaard understands to be the despair, why an individual might be in despair, what the solution might be and how sin relates to despair.

Kierkegaard describes man as a synthesis of body [finite] and spirit [infinite], but notes that he is not yet whole until he acquires a self. This incompleteness is what Kierkegaard refers to as despair. Kierkegaard introduces the reader to three forms of despair: I can be unconscious that I am in despair because I do not know that I need to be whole. I can want not to be whole because I am so fatigued with the effort of attempting to pull myself together. Alternatively I can despair because in trying to pull myself together I discover that I simply can't do it.

For the self, being a self is an issue; it can respond to this problem either negatively by suppressing one aspect of this synthesis [choosing either the body or the spirit], or positively by relating to itself as a whole self. Either way the self is an issue because without it we are incomplete and in despair.

The solution to the problem of despair according to Kierkegaard is that in willing to be it's whole self "the self is grounded transparently in the Power which posited it". In other words man is only complete, despair is only eradicated and the issue of being a self is only resolved by means of a relationship with God. Such a solution cannot be demonstrated to be the case; but must instead be willing accepted by the individual on the basis of faith.

For Kierkegaard once the individual becomes conscious of this reality it is a sin to remain in despair and not choose faith. Sin is the decision to escape the painful reality that one needs to be whole, by continuing to act as though such action is unnecessary. To remain in despair despite knowledge that a solution exists

Fear and Trembling :: Idea's that Cost :: Preface

The focus of K's preface on fear and trembling centres around the possibility of doubt and faith. In particular aspects of faith and doubt that are not immediately apparent from our Greco-Roman perspective.

K begins by casting doubt on the possibility that doubt and faith can be adequately circumvented to achieve any kind of certainty. K makes the twofold criticism that to proceed beyond one would need to (a) first have faith, and (b) know where one was to proceed to. The criticism at this point being that those who profess to have done so have, like poor mathematician's, failed to demonstrate their working out.

Instead what is available are proposed methods or definitions of the problem. K suggests there are aspects of both faith and doubt which cannot be understood in terms of abstract concepts; as such concepts do not account for why I might doubt or believe a thing.

K also employs a metaphor akin to the "market place of ideas" noting that there are significant "bargains" to be had therein. Here K is suggesting that the wealth of ideas available to the individual are cheap. As a reader I find myself asking the question "if it costs me nothing is it actually worth anything?" This is a fascinating idea that some aspects of being can, and perhaps should, cost the individual something. If we pause for a moment here to consider K's point we might well agree that the aspects of being most prised by humans are the most costly [love, justice, mercy, peace, forgiveness, faith and doubt to name a few].

K's criticism of the market place is not the wealth of available ideas but how little they cost the individual both in terms of time and commitment. Time as a cost implication is mentioned on two occasions. Firstly in relation to the Greeks and "doubt", and the second in relation to veterans and "faith". On both occasions K indicates that proficiency was historically considered to be the work of a lifetime. Yet we now find ourself in a time in which most individuals believe they can simply pickup where others left off.

Using Descartes and his method as an example K proceeds to point out the significance of both choice and commitment. Descartes acknowledged that is method held significance for him as an individual, and the route that he employed to arrive at his conclusions. For K it is the commitment to the method and not the method itself that is significant. The market place then has nothing of value to offer then because it cannot offer a commitment within which the individual is invested. The individual has not grappled, wrestled, struggled or striven to achieve they simply follow a method to an outcome that is (apparently) valuable. For K both doubt and faith require commitment over time and an investment from the individual. For K what actually seems to make something valuable is the individuals decision to invest himself in it.

Kierkegaard perceives faith and doubt as costly aspects of being that cannot be adequately explained away by formulae or pithy-zen statements. Why an individual might choose commit himself to one or the other over the course of his life cannot be adequately explained. Instead the individual is confronted with the choice to have faith or doubt indicating that what matters here is not the format that this takes -there are many readily available- but that one either commits himself or does not.

Fear and Trembling :: Why study this book? :: Context

Fear and trembling is one of those books that you read once, and barely understand. Read it twice, three times and you might deceive yourself into believing you grasped the most significant aspects. Yet with each successive visit you realise you had barely scratched the surface.

During my most recent visit I became acquainted with Fear and trembling as the stage on which Kierkegaard displays the distinctions between two mindsets that exist within western society. The Greco-Roman (GR) mindset that perceives Truth as objective, universal, timeless, critical, rational, detached and disembodied. The Judeo-Christian (JC) mindset that perceives Truth as subjective, local, historic, irrational, committed and embodied (Dreyfus, 2004).

The GR mindset finds it origin within the Heraclitian idea that there is an underlying Logos or structure within the world that can be discovered and understood. That the nature of a thing could be discovered by a process of reasoned argument, because the world follows consistent logical rules. This world view became embedded within western culture [see the enlightenment] and is perhaps most clearly exemplified within the work of G. W. F. Hegel.

Hegel perceived history as the triumphant and unrelenting progression of ideas within the world spirit [geist] towards freedom by means of the dialectic. Hegel asserted that within every thesis can be found ideas that dialectically lead to its own demise and the rise of a new dominant thesis; each step forward an increment in human rationality and freedom towards the end of 'absolute knowing' [Absolute Mind]. As such the highest goal for any individual is to set aside one's personal desires and ambitions and be motivated exclusively by the general interest of all. Yet this communitarian ethic was unpalatable for Kierkegaard who placed great significance on both individuality and individual choice.

The JC mindset, on the other hand, is one in which their is a relationship with Truth. I am in some way bound [or committed] to it. It is time and context specific and cannot be universalised. To exemplify this consider how one corpus of humans values individual autonomy in choosing a mate. For one group there is a significant emphasis on individual freedom in such a decision; any outside influence is no only considered undesirable but actively discouraged. The other believe and accept that others [family] should be involved in the  process and can even make arrangements without that individual's active participation. How one deigns to answer the question "Which is the best method?" is telling.

Agreement or disagreement we feel compelled to not a position but, our position. We have some ownership of this aspect of our being. Our compelling arguments may be based on rational ideas; but if we took a moment for self reflection we would discover those arguments are not what binds us to our decision. They are simply an afterthought; rationalisations to make us feel better about our commitment to the Universal norm in our own corpus of humanity. Our rationalisations expose our commitment to values we maintain to be true.

For Kierkegaard the GR world view does not offer a complete account of how humans exist within the world. Our relationship with truth is not dispassionate, cold and disinterested in matters of value. We are instead driven by irrational passions to bind ourselves to local and historic truths which are as absolute to us in our contexts as they will be absolute wrong to others in years to come. Without such a possibility there would be no passion in this world only quiet compliance. For this reason I choose to study Fear and Trembling

Fragments :: Matters of Fact, Hawaii and Climate Change

(1) How can we agree about 'matters of fact' about which we know nothing?

For the existentialists it is not possible for us as humans to disentangle ourselves from the 'world' in which we are a participant. As such it's not possible to take a dispassionate, timeless, pure position on 'matters of fact' per se. As I am participant within the world with prejudices and preconceptions I can only form a perspective about my interactions with 'matters of fact'. How can I establish if I am correct?

One way might be to attain as many perspectives as I can in the hope that the more perspective that cohere to my own, the more complete my concept of 'matters of fact' will become. I assemble the puzzle with as many pieces as I can, to develop a clearer picture of the object of my enquiry. The problem here that "black holes" seems to expose is the possibility of error should I only accept ideas that cohere with my own; there is no guarantee the consensus is correct.

(2) The Hawaii Problem and Climate Change

If I accept that (a) knowledge is experiential, and (b) I have no experience of Hawaii, and (c) I cannot share your perspective of Hawaii given our distinct experiential frameworks. Yet it does not follow that Hawaii is unknowable. It simply is the case that I am not [yet] in a position to have a perspective upon something of which I have no experience.

As such in asking questions such as "IS the climate changing due to human influences?" the answer is contingent upon who you ask. What we really appear to be asking is "Does it appear to you to be the case that climate is changing due to human influences?" or "Do you have experience of climate changing due to human influences?"

The reason such a question is likely unanswerable is because it's not immediately clear what such experience might actually be. With issues such as climate change, and the current political situation within the UK it seems optimistic to expect a binary conclusion from a question of such nuanced complexity.

Fragments :: Irrational Interlude

"...one may say anything about the history of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat."

The purpose of this essay is to examine the belief that the best kind of life is the reasonable life. That the life which is most desirable for humans is the life in which I deduce and aspire toward what is reasonably in my interest. It is my intention to cast doubt upon the belief that man is rational, and make the case for the significance of mans irrationality.

Firstly let us examine, reductio, the suggestion than man is a rational animal and consider if it is reasonable to make such an assertion. Does man consistently act rationally and in accordance with his interests? We would be hard pressed to defend such a position given we are likely all guilty of such crimes against what is reasonable. After all who has not preferred to give into to the temptation of desirable food despite the full knowledge of what the consequences might be? The ever expanding waistline of this generation is testament enough of the appetite to fill our bodies with something more than what interest and reason alone can supply. And driving above the speed limit? And paying attention in class at school? And not slacking off at work? And exercising regularly? These are all things we might reasonably conclude we should do and yet we do not.

So if man has great difficulty in acting rationally, why then should we assume that he would desire a rational life? It might seem more reasonable based on what we know of mankind to conclude that he is not rational and does not desire a ration life. That at times it is preferable for him to choose against his own interests. That there is in fact something more valuable to man than reason and his "own interests". Perhaps then we can conclude that mankind has consistently demonstrated his preference to act as he chooses with little regard to his own interest.

But Man's natural irrationality does not eliminate the possibility he might, one day, become rational. That tomorrow he might be more reasonable than he is today if he commits himself to do the cognitive work. That discipline and education might make him sufficiently aware of his interests so that he would "see sense" and abandon all other pursuits. This is, however, a rather generous assessment. Does history indicate this possibility in man? Where has "progress" taken us thus far? The countless examples in this century alone of how progress has expanded our capacity for acting irrationally and against our own interest reveal the comedy in this assessment. Our progress has merely opened our eyes to permit us to see our behaviors more clearly than ever before. We are still far from having learned to act as reason and interest dictate.

Yet now our eyes are open we can see that it is not us that chose. Our biological machinery chooses for us as dictated to by natural laws. we are simply an insignificant cog in the machinery of this universe. What a relief. Soon all questions will be answered with an algorithm or equation. Every question we have about human behavior will be answered to our satisfaction so that there will be nothing left to ask. Nothing left to desire. Nothing left to chose (and what choice would we have anyway?). I should, with such an objection to freedom of choice, be able to calculate my whole life beforehand and then what? Would I really then be forced to live it out in all is monotony? Such a Life would be remarkably dull but at least boredom can lead to interesting places. Perhaps even to irrationality. After all what is left once we have achieved this reasonable Utopia but to destroy it?

For Human life acts as a whole, and it appears, may in some instance intentionally desire what is harmful. And why not? What is hurtful can be useful; can awake impulses that would otherwise have languished and decayed within a person. Are we so committed to extinguish harm within society that we are willing to sacrifice the very thing that may one day preserve the species? How do we know such a venture is possible? is desirable? is advantageous? Such claims are only pragmatic suppositions man would do will to mistrust given his natural inclinations.

In closing you may object to this essay, and argue that to attempt to examine the irrationality of man is to miss something fundamental. After all, by definition how can one reasonably evaluate that which is not reasonable? The irony of such an en devour is not lost on me and hence the continental approach. It seems to me a very appropriate means for an apologist of irrationality to adopt reason as the tool by which he intends to make his point. Besides we can hardly conclude that one more irrational act by a human would really hurt the case.

The Gay Science :: Book 1 :: [1]

Nietzsche asserts that whether viewed as evil or good human beings are engaged in what they perceive to be the conservation of the species. This is not out of love for his kind but simply because there is nothing more unconquerable than instinct. Human beings appear predisposed to divide individuals we encounter into those that are helpful [good] and hurtful [evil]. Yet such a binary approach fails to recognize that even the most hurtful individual can be the most useful in how they awake impulses that have languished and decayed in others. All that is hurtful belongs to the "economy of conservation" a costly an injurious economy.

One might then question is it possible to live "badly"? To live either well or badly; one is probably still the benefactor of mankind in one way or another and will have admirers and critics. Yet even your critics who confront you with your moral deficiencies cannot lead you to adopt a positive state of mind toward the negation of your being. [N uses laughter as an expression of, and an affirmative response to, the negation of "being."; comedy for N is a special way for which tragic situations might avoid a negative state of mind]. But is a positive state of mind then possible? Given all humanity has adopted the view that "the species is everything; the individual nothing", once the door is open for all to choose to live badly then joy might be united with wisdom ["Joyful wisdom"].

But for now it is still the time of tragedy, morals and religions. We are presented with hero's of an ideal that take centre stage. All things cater to the needs of the ideal with some devotee's appointed to be valets, others salespersons. These teachers of design (often oblivious to the fact that they) also work for the conservation of the species in that they believe in life and consider it worthwhile. This impulse that rules the most noble and ignoble will try to make us forget that it is just impulse; so that that which happens without intervention appears to be done by intervention. Mankind might have been ruined at any moment had any one system of ethics got the upper hand.

But as each came and fell mankind was changed by the unrelenting progression of teachers of the design of existence to become a visionary animal. The new condition of human life is that man must know why he exists and he cannot flourish without the belief in reason in life.