In terms of Kierkegaard’s view of subjectivity and passion
and how they are essential to the “existence” of a person, to generalize the
complexity of the whole as a means to lead a point, is a point of view that I
could not agree with much more than I do. My complication of enjoying the
arguments of Kierkegaard has never come from his views of how one should arrive
to decide who they are, or that of the lack of passion that derives from birth
entitlements, status, or simply any sense of self that derives from the occurrence
of birth. In most every regard, I agree with his points of essentially deciding
who you are from an inward perspective. I find conflict in the fact that his
leap of faith concluded in a continued lateral stagnation of remaining
Christian.
Perhaps this will be seen as simply attacking the fact that
he did not renounce his faith, or that enlightenment and an honest inward view
of self can only conclude in ones loss of faith. In that regard, I can only say
it is entirely wrong in my intent, and hopefully that notion is let go while
reading this in order to see this point from my intended meaning, rather than
one of face value perception.
Through all of his works that I have read and studied,
Kierkegaard is very open to criticize faith and state how most are not of true
Christian faith as it comes with no internal conflict, subjective decisions of
the morality they choose of the life they live, a complete lack of passion to
truly care about “what” they believe life, morality, or simply faith is. Does
one simply argue their faith in god because they can provide self-formulated “evidence”
of the existence of omnipotence? Does that prove one has faith? Simply put, no.
He screams against the notion as it lacks any inward anxiety of personal struggle
with a true faith, a true personal relationship with “God”, one derived of your
own decisions of what life is from how you perceive morality and experience.
Why does this raise my ire of his points which I agree with in
terms of subjectivity bringing you to your own path of how you view life and
death and what meaning you apply to where that path leads? Simple, I never felt
he showed his anxiety or passion beyond simply proving he was a true Christian
as he understood a philosophical approach better than “Christians”, as well as
the Dialecticians such as Hegel (or Hegelians even). I always find, when I read
his work, I agree with his points of an inward life, and the paradox of faith,
I even agree with the leap of faith; yet I still feel such a massive disconnect
with his passion. It took a few readings before I could accept this unsettling
disconnect, as I had no issue that he “leaped” into the arms of his “God”, I
had a problem that it is never clear what inward anxiety separated him from
those he criticized and very heavily chastised or belittled for their
birthright beliefs. Obviously he had inner turmoil, Fear and Trembling leads to
his, more than likely, mimicking of the story of Abraham with his then wife to
be Regine Olsen by sacrificing what he loved most in an earthly regard in order
to devout his entire being to the love of his “God”. A true showing of faith.
However, I see only a child born of a “cursed” father because of his (the
fathers) sins against god (child out of wedlock, lords name in vain as a child,
etc) who instilled a heavy religious mindset and spent his life flagellating
himself for sins to a possible greater degree than his father is implied to
have done. I see someone who shows more a fear that he is not devout enough,
than someone who gave an honest subjective view of self in order to ever
actually have a “leap of faith”. To make the point simple, I believe that while
the views and critiques Kierkegaard proclaims are mostly fantastic, and a very
good perspective when the subject of self and personal meaning is at discussion,
I do not believe he was at all different from those he showed such a heavy
disdain for. I feel of what I have studied thus far only show a man who has
done an amazing job hiding his own fear of death and possible religious doubts
behind a passionate wall of finger pointing and angst.
Again, I still have more to study, and perhaps others could
guide me down a path of research that may shed some light on this being
incorrect. However, I have been searching his works, and I have yet to find
anything that shows me his faith was truly derived from a personal relationship
from his own struggle with faith and self in the first place, beyond that of
essentially being “more” of a “true” Christian. That bothers me.
No comments:
Post a Comment