On a Variety of Kierkegaard's Essays

Starting on Either/Or, I thought it would be easy to pick out which camp I fell in, either the Aesthete or the Judge.  To begin with the Aesthete’s writings, his ideas about boredom seemed petty.  I couldn’t imagine wanting to be around someone who thinks about life and people that way (minus one point).  The Judge’s ideas about self-knowledge and transparency were more exciting.  I wanted to sit and ponder how others’ expectations prevent transparency (plus one point).  Yet when the Judge talked about the inevitability of regret, I balked (minus five points).  And when the Aesthete talked about a passionate demand for either/or, I jived (plus five points).  It would seem it's not as easy to pick as I first thought.  Now I can see why my classmates kept coming back to fence-sitting. 

An interesting insight was shared during discussion.  Someone noticed that the Aesthete would advocate for his hedonism by describing the ways it is ethically justifiable, while the Judge would advocate for his moralism by describing the ways it is personally satisfying.  It seems to be go around in a circle, so I'm not sure what quality is really being measured.  Picking a side is difficult for me because I don’t see pleasure and discipline as mutually exclusive. 

The excerpt from The Present Age was amusing.  I like Kierkegaard best in comparison with the other philosophers I’ve encountered since the start of the semester.  It's that wry sarcasm.  I haven’t determined if his sarcasm is marred by conceit, but it’s certainly perceptive and funny anyway.  Reading his works, I can see a resemblance between his beliefs and contemporary Christian teachings.  Currently, it’s emphasized that a person must have a personal relationship with a personal God, personally.  This emphasis seems similar to Kierkegaard’s insistence that Christianity be meaningful to the individual, versus a systematic school of thought.

In The Individual, Kierkegaard observes that for some, having a majority rule validates truth.  He also observes that for others, a majority rule discredits truth.  He finished by saying that he wants honesty.  I don’t exactly understand how honesty cuts across majority rule.  Is it “honest” to hold an opinion no matter what anyone else says?  Or is he saying it’s honest to hold an opinion no matter who praises or denounces it?  The latter makes sense.  Somehow, honesty is very important to Kierkegaard but I’m not sure what he means by "honesty".  He mentions it also in The Concept of Anxiety when he talks about responding to possibility.  He has some complicated idea of learning finitude or infinitude though treating possibility with honesty or cheating.  Still not clear on it.

Kierkegaard’s views on apologetics in On Becoming a Christian were insightful, too.  He noted that the incarnation measures individual faith because it’s such an absurd claim.  That’s rather biblical: to say the cross is foolishness to those who don’t believe.  It’s an interesting twist of the traditional faith versus reason conflict, because it moves to the arena of the individual.  Reason is pitted against faith because using reason to back up faith contradicts the definition of faith.  Of course, this argument relies on functional definitions of reason and faith, so the argument can come to any sort of conclusion (or lack thereof).  I think it’s most effective to discuss personal obstacles to faith instead of arguing about metaphysics and theology.  He says that “the speculative philosopher is perhaps the most removed from Christianity,” and I can see why.  If a person asks questions for intellectual reasons instead of existential reasons, the answer will not matter, regardless of what the answer is.  In order for answers about faith and religion to be meaningful at all, something about the questioner his-/herself must be contingent upon the answer.  It has to make a difference.