The Sickness Unto Death :: Possibility and Actuality (Part 2)

There is a distinction between the possibility of a thing, and its actuality. For example I may decide to always tell the truth, but when confronted with a situation in the real world I can still lie. For this possibility of always-truth-telling to be actualized I still need to tell the truth in each situation. Possibility then is a detached abstraction whereas its actuality is an embodied reality. For despair this distinction between the idea of and reality of being in despair is important. The idea is advantageous insofar as it confronts the Christian with the possibility of despair, that he might avoid its ruinous reality.

For whilst the Christian is aware of the possibility of despair its actuality is yet to be realised. Here the Christian is presented with a choice to (a) embody what he truly is in relationship with God, or (b) not to do so. A decision within which the peril of despair of one sort or another is a very real possibility. To be be truely free of despair, Kierkegaard explains, is to actualize the possibility of its negation. Put plainly to make the choice not to despair.

Whilst it is not uncommon to attribute despair to some misfortune, the reality is that despair is a choice. One might catch a cold through careless interactions with others. Despair, however is different. In every moment the possibility of despair is also the possibility to not despair. I cannot escape the choice. I cannot simply blame happenstance. Now is the time to decide.

The Sickness Unto Death :: Despair is the Sickness Unto Death (Part 1)

Note: Dreyfus has referred to this section as one of the most dense passages in all western thought and with good reason. It is virtually unintelligible, and I am under no illusions that I have unpacked even half of what is said. Good luck.

Kierkegaard indicates man is an indivisible whole. There are aspects of the finite [my body physically being here] and infinite [death is not the end]. Yet how these relate, and what I am remains an issue for me. This aspect of my being that questions the "why" and "what" I am, is the self. For this self that I am, being a self is a issue. The self can respond to the issue of being a self either negatively by suppressing one aspect of this synthesis [choosing either the finite or the infinite], or positively by relating to itself as a whole self. Either way the self is an issue for the self because without it the human being is incomplete and is in despair.

Kierkegaard offers an example noting that (a) if being a self is something that is self-established, and (b) being is an issue for my self, then (c) the only thing I could want to be is something else. In such a situation I could only work myself into greater despair given I cannot escape being myself. The other option is that the self is established by something else. If this is the case three forms of despair are possible namely:

1. Being unconscious of having a self

2. Not wanting to be oneself

3. Wanting to be oneself

These forms of despair might be understood to mean (1) not realising I am incomplete, (2) wishing to be something else, and (3) the discovery I cannot pull myself together. Kierkegaards conclusion is that I cannot independently resolve the issue of the why and what I am. As such If I am truely committed to finding out what I am; I am invited to live transparently before God through the power that made my being possible.

The Sickness Unto Death :: Introduction

For human beings death overshadows life. Death for humans is the last thing of all; the end of the self. All of life then is orientated in accordance with this trajectory. How we view life, sickness, suffering and even death itself is contingent upon our view of death. That for humans whilst there is life there is hope, and conversely, without life there is no hope. Yet this is not the case for the Christian.

For the Christian death does not represent the the end of the self. For all who would accept Christ by faith, it is merely another minor event in an eternal series of events. In answer then to the question "And what good would it have done Lazarus to be awoken from the dead if in the end he must die anyway? What good would it have done Lazarus if He did not exist" we must think differently. To the Christian his resurrection brings glory to God, and his second death is not the end. He does not cease to exist. For the Christian there is, in death, infinitely more hope than in life in all it's flourishing and glory.

Life for the Christian then is no longer orientated towards death as some grand finale of the self. Yet man is preoccupied with this notion and even sets up life as an idol; to preserve at all costs. Kierkegaard uses the analogy here of a child drawing back in fear of what the adult thinks nothing of. For the Christian there is something greater to fear the sickness unto death. That is to live and orientate life as though death were the end of the self; to presume that what I am should be defined by my temporality consciously or not. For Kierkegaard the courage to live is drawn from a greater fear of this sickness as something even more horrifying.

The Sickness Unto Death :: Preface

There were two brothers each dreamed of becoming a Doctor. The first studied all that he would need to know from academic journals, books and sources; the second by doing the work of a physician, learning on the job from his mistakes. Which of these brothers became a Doctor? 

Kierkegaard begins TSUD by challenging the readers assumptions that we know what it is to be something; specifically to be human. We may well have scientific or historic knowledge about humans but this is detached; taken from context. If an non-human acquired this same scientific and historic knowledge would it also know what it is to be human? It may learn that Socrates died in 399BC, and how the thyroid is involved in body temperature regulation, but is this sufficient for it to know what it's like to die or to have a fever? Furthermore in describing what it means to be human many would talk about beauty, love, happiness and other unique aspects of their life. Yet the most amusing, precious or even difficult times are typically difficult to convey to others in words. We tend to give up and resort to statements like "I guess you had to be there" or "walk a mile in my shoes" to indicate their unintelligiblity.

This is the point that Kierkegaard is making in the preface. Scientific and historic knowledge are detached from the contexts they describe and therefore cannot holistically account for them. So to understand what it is to be human we must be somehow involved in being human; a participant not just an observer. For Kierkegaard it is a romantic pretence that by accumulating and cataloguing "pure concepts" one might arrive at a full understanding of what it is to be human. So if we  concede that Kieregaard is right and our non-human will never know; what about the human me? can I know? 

The fact that I am asking this question, that I entertain the possibility that I do not know, is a starting place. I suspect this is the very place Kierkegaard wishes the reader to begin. To dismantle the confidence we have in our scientific and historical world view. I begin with a suspicion that I may very well not know, and a desire to discover if I do. Kierkegaard then suggests that to know what it is to be human; if I am truely committed to finding out I must choose be what I am, and to be accountable for that great undertaking before God. Ultimately this opening preface is  a terrifying invitation to become a committed participant in ones own life to discover what it means to be human.