Jake Stanford

4/19/2018
Introduction to Philosophy

Soren Kierkegaard was a Danish man of intelligence, anxiety, religious fervor, with an
erratic humor to match his depression. Born in 1813 his philosophical ideas were birthed during
what can be considered the Danish “golden age” and have survived centuries because they ring
in the ears of the honest observant. This is primarily due to his unique writing ability and use of
pseudonyms, many of which were obviously fictional, to stir the thoughts of the reader in a
very intentional and specific way to build fictive narratives for the reader (say, in the case of
Either/Or) so that that the reader may identify and become uncomfortable with their own
worldview, perhaps moved enough to begin questioning their own values and sense of
significance in the world or society (which very well may be an individual’s world). For example,
Kierkegaard understood that you can't just objectively describe angst and the process of
transformation for the reader - you need to push them into feeling it, and living it, for
transformation and understanding to really begin. Throughout this paper I will explore and
critique Kierkegaard’s philosophy on the Bureaucratic Society, the Authentic Self, and further
dive into Existentialism and its overall impact on culture then and now. Due to Kierkegaard’s
various use of creative pseudonyms I will do my best to give credit the correct “authors” and
hope to not misplace the quotes between the “writers” of his works.

When I was younger, I struggled to understand the concept of money. I knew its value
would gain aesthetic items and I knew those items generally made me happy. I learned the
cycle of wanting more money for more aesthetics was and continues to be endless. The
interesting thing about money, in crude roundabout way, is that it only holds value because the
vast majority of society deems it a certain worth. Similarly, with gems and precious metals we
are told what is of worth. Kierkegaard rejects this notion in a separate vain of the same heart.
He is heavily against “the crowd” and his ideology focuses on the self. This “crowd” are the
societal systems in place that curb one from becoming uniquely “oneself”. These are
organizations spawned from a capitalistic society, such as, universal education, increased
population in cities, and greater mobility in a social sense, thus taking down the hierarchal
ladder and laying it flat. This allows individuals to float among groups to find a resting place, a
home where they can feel safe and belong. How apparent is this today? With social media this
hierarchal stigma has basically vanished as anyone who can access the internet can find social
groups that allow them to feel as “one”. Kierkegaard would be rolling in his grave to see the
literal “social numbers” in our society. However, his belief is not so much being a part of a
group as it is being and thinking authentically. This is not to suggest that Kierkegaard would
reject using money as much it is simply he would define what money is worth to himself. This
can be best summed up in his words where he describes his pursuit for, “a truth which is truth
for me”. In his diary he proclaims, “Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is
always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really
have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no
opinion—and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the
stronger) assume its opinion … while Truth again reverts to a new minority”. One could suggest
there is power in a group that agrees among itself, to have increased validity with every
conjoined voice added to the throng. Kierkegaard shoots this thought down as a floating fallacy.
Group think according to his philosophy is the weakness of the human condition; It is an easy
escape from the responsibility to think more deeply. Minorities do have strength and the
greatest strength lies in the minority of the one; loneliness is the great catalyst for thought,
creativity, and truth. I personally find it dangerous to put so much trust in oneself and to avoid
the support of a group of other individuals. Other ideas help check and balance what we believe
and know to be true, or possibly help us discover more truth. The warning that Kierkegaard
offers is to be wary of doing just to do. Or living just to live. He wants us to live and think
dangerously in a sense that we are in control, but that control has an unnerving freedom to go
against anyone else. Possibly even against God Almighty Himself. Ironically, his depression and
anxiety crippled him during many important life events he encountered, such as deaths of loved
ones and breaking up with his love, yet he pushes for us to experiences these feelings over the
feeling of peer pressure and pettiness. I think this is somewhat laughable due to both having
negative effects on the worth of one’s self.

This stance for individualism rose in part from his contempt for the Hegelian
heavy society that surrounded him. It taught to look at truth objectively and rationally, and that
change in ones life typically comes from an event that shapes their essence. These “events” are
dramatic life occurrences, or they could be minute, however Kierkegaard rejected the
philosophy that events shape the human essence. The most prominent example of this belief is
his understanding of the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. Being a very devout man, much of
his philosophy stems from Religious principles. Given that Adam and Eve were cast from the
Garden, the Hegel intellectuals would claim this event as a turning point for Adam and Eve in
what was to shape their life and ultimately their eternities. Contrarily Kierkegaard suggests The
expulsion from the Garden opened up a wide range of new possibilities for them and thus the
problem of anxiety arose. Now free to determine through his actions the how life occurred,
Adam had a new responsibility or calling. Naturally, there is a tension here. A human, created in
God’s image, is an infinite being. Like God he also can choose and act according to his will.
Simultaneously, he is a finite being since he is restricted by his body, although God-given,
comes packed with socioeconomic conditions and so forth. This struggle between the finite and
infinite is the source of “anxiety”. But unlike a Hegelian interpretation, Kierkegaard does not
look for a way out from anxiety; instead he stresses its positive role in the flourishing of the
human condition. As he simply puts it: “Because he is a synthesis, he can be in anxiety; and the
more profoundly he is in anxiety, the greater is the man”. Anxiety not only is a creation of God
through man, it is also how a man becomes. This intense understanding of the infinite choices
and the finite time to make them are what drive us to ultimately make decision and “choose”
ourselves. Sure, becoming a father is a potentially life-changing event, but it is your actions
following the event that determine what kind of father you will become. This is to suggest that
only the internal affects the external, and not the external affecting the internal. This
philosophy is beautiful to anyone that seeks a liberation from the life events that could hold
them back. No one chooses where to be born, or who to be born to. But in the same breath our
birth place can determine much of our life, unless we act for ourselves and create the life we
desire. Obviously, every human has a beginning and an end. That does not determine an
individual, yet the choices in between do. Rather than waiting on events to determine a life,
events which may never come for a person to change and the possibility for a better life might
be lost, you can act at any moment and liberate yourself. Although I believe that events can
open up the eyes of many people, I hold the same tune that actions carry more weight in who
we become than the events in one’s life. On this note, a rich man is not one who inherits wealth
but earns for himself a respect and love that money cannot buy. Kierkegaard believes the
human essence is to be free and be passionate about our choices. Especially the decision to be
religious. For Kierkegaard Christian faith is not a matter of regurgitating church dogma. That
would fall directly into the concept of “the crowd”, which he so despised. Instead, it is a matter
of individual subjective passion. Faith is the most important task to be achieved by a human
being, because only through faith does an individual have a chance to become a true self, the
most authentic self. This authentic creation is whom God will judge for the eternities.

The individual is therefore subject to an enormous burden of responsibility, for upon

their existential choices hangs eternal damnation or salvation. The “existential choice” is
ultimately the choices that develop into our “destiny. Anxiety is the knowledge of this terrible
responsibility when the individual stands at the bank of an infinite existential choice. Anxiety is
a two-sided emotion: on one side is the dreaded burden of choosing for eternity; on the other
side is the exhilaration of freedom and passion in choosing for oneself. This anxiety matures
when one comprehends that all their hopes and regrets hang in the balance of their unlimited
array of actions yet to be made. Perhaps it may include their past actions and the fallout that
occurred. Yet, choice occurs in an instant, which is the exact point at which time and eternity
intersect. The finite and infinite have communion and then part until another existential choice
occurs. This is the inspired portrait of Kierkegaard. You choose what to believe, who you are,
and what your future is. Today they would say, “You can be whatever you want to be”.
Kierkegaard put it beautifully through his pseudonym Johannes Climacus when he wrote, “Life
can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards”. Our purpose is not to
rationally interpret our condition and place all faith in reason. No, it was to live with passion
and press on with faith.
 The self is the essence of Kierkegaard’s philosophy. Without the gift of agency, we
would all be tools or puppets in God’s hand. How pointless of a life then? How pointless of a
God at all? His society justified God with reason. The closer they came to an intellectual
understanding the more “faith” they could permit. Kierkegaard inverts this thinking. He said to
have faith first and reason will come. This is not to throw out all rational thought on “blind
faith” but to temporarily suspend our finite understandings of an infinite Being. He said, “False
doubt doubts everything except itself; with the help of faith, the doubt that saves doubts only
itself”. There are three spiritual steps the individual journeys through to an escape from this
doubt. The first gate the individual passes through is the Aesthetic way of life. This is the
pleasures whether physical, temporal, or even intellectual that affect one’s choices. The
following gate is that of the ethical, of which he makes a comparison in his work written partly
by Johannes Climacus titled Either/Or. This ethical transcends above the aesthetic in such that
once one in the aesthetic is overcome with anxiety, known as angst, and realizes the infinite
they pass along to the ethical. Furthermore, the final gate once the ethical is realized one can
experience the religious. This is the third and highest way of living life, the life lived by faith.
This becomes a personalized and subjective belief system. Aesthetic can be described as
choosing actions because “I do what I want for myself”. Ethical can be stated as choosing
actions because “I do what I have to for my community”. Finally, religious can be summarized
as choosing actions because “I do what I have to for God”. This drastic outlook on religious
activity has a reminiscent flavor of a Socratic behavior. Although in Kierkegaard’s university
thesis On the Concept of Irony he is very critical of Socrates, his religious demeanor is cut from a
similar thread of cloth that Socrates wore. Rather than objectively describing one’s faith to save
his life, Socrates gave up all for his faith, which was contrary to the majority at the time.
Similarly, Kierkegaard believes that one should give all to God, even if that is meant to live a
peasant’s life.

Of Kierkegaard’s God given gifts, I am most appreciative of his ability to write in a

demeanor that shakes one’s intellectual soul. Considering the most prominent pieces he wrote,
naturally via pseudonyms, the most powerful I read was that on Fear and Trembling written by
Johannes de Silentio (meaning John of the Silence). Unearthing the heavy weight of faith and
the struggle of its morals against the ethics of society is an arduous task that Kierkegaard
targets through the story of Abraham and Isaac. The moral question of duty is brought before
the courtroom and asks, what is one’s duty? To God or to Society? Or to both through faith?
Abraham was faced with an almost insurmountable choice, deny God or deny the ethics he
knew to be true. This is the ultimate choice, an epitome of the existential decision. Yet
Abraham chooses God and Isaac is saved, neither corrupting his morality and cementing his
faith. This is the “leap of faith” that scholars attribute to Kierkegaard. Although I couldn’t find a
quote in his published works that says “leap of faith”, I do believe more accurately Kierkegaard
believes that we must leap through faith. Without faith we could never make the decision to
jump into situations that our outside our realm of possibility. There was no possibility Abraham
could use deductive reasoning or rational understanding to justify what God was asking him to
do. If so it would have never been attempted, but simply because he obeyed the divine, he
crossed the finite with infinity and was blessed forever.

I briefly mentioned before our society is one that Kierkegaard would be rolling in his
grave over. With social media, online havens for groups to confide in group-think, and
governmental education teaching generations how to think and what to believe, I believe he
would be surprised many of his ideas hold true. In the past decade much of the Bureaucratic
society is beginning to fall apart as the minority is gaining voice. Individuals are discovering their
own paths and breaking from society norms. Perhaps this is what he intended people do. On
the contrary this could also be deciphered as a repetition of the minority becoming the majority
with a decade of conformists shunning those with contrary beliefs on ethical issues. Overall, his
greatest disappointment would be the lack of Christianity in the world. Christ is the answer to
anxiety and depression Kierkegaard carried. He is the ultimate answer, one that you must
simply believe in and in that belief, you may gain faith by displaying it. In the most
quintessential philosophy by Kierkegaard he declares, “To believe is indeed to lose the
understanding to gain God”.
 Bibliography

The Diary of Soren Kierkegaard, 1850

Philosophical Fragments, 1844, Swenson
Either/Or Preface & Part I, Swenson
Either/Or Part II, Hong
Fear and Trembling/Repetition, 1843, Hong
Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Vol I, Hong
Works of Love, Hong