Approaching the work through some of his self-conscious reflections upon the task may prove helpful. At first, one might be inclined to accept Kierkegaard's straightforward declaration that his entire career as an author is nothing more than an earnest desire to achieve worldly fame.
But even this appears in a work he published pseudonymously! Perhaps his claim to be preaching Christianity to the Christians is closer to the mark. Opposing the staid, traditional complacency in which many people live out their lives is a worthwhile goal that calls for an unusual approach.
Kierkegaard's life and work exemplify the paradox that he saw at the heart of modern life. Ever scornful of human pretensions, he deliberately chose the reverse deception of pretending to be less than he was. Since serious work should stand on its own, without deriving any arbitrary force from the presumed authority of its creator, Kierkegaard wrote privately and published under a variety of pseudonyms while frequently making flighty public appearances in his native Copenhagen.
Perhaps this was a great project of personal ironic exhibitionism: how better to illustrate the uselessness of customary "social" life than by living it out to the fullest?
But why would anyone take such great pains in a deliberate effort to be out-of-step with his own world? Leetaru concludes that any dataset can be sufficiently filtered to yield any answer. Which means there is no truth, per se — just choice. In short, yes. He goes on to say that the more familiar we are with a stimulus, the more cognitive ease we feel and the more likely we are to believe something is true — even if it is not.
As a result, they are seen frequently enough that people become familiar with them, which can then lead them to buy a product. Their need for said product is, however, subjective. We all have our own personal truths. Your orange is my peach. My tolerable is your terrible. Millions of cyber citizens believe ardently in their subjective truth. For brands, this involves actions like tracking what kind of questions your customers are asking online, seeing what they click on, and monitoring what seems to influence their perception so that you can better understand what makes them tick or, click.
Particularly in regards to Christianity, Kierkegaard was upset about things like the Biblical exegesis - people distracting themselves on trying to understand specific interpretations of words in texts the objective instead of living out the teaching subjectively , which should be the focus, but is far harder.
There is nothing hard about objectively understanding the words "Sell all your posessions and give it to the poor", but it is far harder to live that teaching subjectively. K thought that folks treating the Bible objectively or scientifically was a cop-out, a cowardly way of hiding from how they should be living:.
Of course, you can always find ways to defend yourself against it: Take the Bible, lock your door — but then get out ten dictionaries and twenty-five commentaries.
Then you can read it just as calmly and coolly as you read newspaper advertising. With this arsenal you can really begin to wonder, "Are there not several valid interpretations? And what about the prospect of new interpretations? Perhaps there are five interpreters with one opinion and seven with another and two with a strange opinion and three who are wavering or who have no opinion at all. So you calmly conclude, "I myself am not absolutely sure about the meaning of this passage.
I need more time to form an opinion. What a tragic misuse of scholarship that it makes it so easy for people to deceive themselves! Another great passage about what it means for Christianity to be subjective, and how the search for the objective is a cop-out, a distraction:. Objectively there is no truth "out there" for existing beings, but only approximations, whereas subjectively truth lies in inwardness, because the decision of truth is in subjectivity.
For how can decision be an approximation or only to a certain degree? What could it possibly mean to assert or to assume that decision is like approximation, is only to a certain degree? I will tell you what it means. It means to deny decision. The decision of faith, unlike speculation, is designed specifically to put an end to that perpetual prattle of "to a certain degree.
Kierkegaard is strongly influenced by Socrates in the sense that he observes that Socrates is not proud of 'knowing the truth' about something, nor looking for it, but is curious about the people who say they know such truth. Socrates proceeds to ask these people questions about this truth they know just to make them realize that they actually don't know this truth see the Concept of Irony.
But the sense of this questioning to these people according to Kierkegaard is not intended to expose them as ignorants, but to help them find their own truth about that object of knowledge. Truth may be reflected upon objectively or subjectively. Kierkegaard argues that the objective thinker finds truth by approximation, while the subjective thinker finds truth by appropriation.
The objective thinker has a need to quantify certainty or probability, while the subjective thinker ultimately must accept uncertainty. According to Kierkegaard, faith cannot be attained by approximation, or by an effort to quantify deliberation into a higher degree of certainty.
Faith can only be attained by an appropriation or acceptance of the condition of uncertainty. Thus, faith requires a leap from disbelief to belief. Faith is a state of objective uncertainty in which the individual affirms his or her own subjectivity.
According to Kierkegaard, faith is a subjective, personal, passionate interestedness in attaining eternal happiness, as found through appropriation. Kierkegaard argues that the falsehood of objectivity may be revealed by a lack of need for personal commitment, and by a lack of need for decision-making, while the truth of subjectivity may be revealed by a need for personal commitment, and by a need for decision-making.
The speculative thinker attempts to stand apart from his or her own existence, and attempts to view existence objectively. In contrast, the subjective thinker realizes that he or or she cannot stand apart from existence, and that the truth of his or her own existence is found in his or her own subjectivity.
Kierkegaard explains that truth is a paradox, in that it is objectively defined as subjectivity, and in that the outwardness of objectivity is also the inwardness of subjectivity. Truth may be objectively defined as a passionate inwardness, which may change in depth or intensity according to the experience of the subjective thinker. Inwardness is an ethical infinity in which the individual may find eternal happiness.
0コメント