We spent the first part of class reviewing and wrapping up Soren Kierkegaard’s ideas. A quiz was given which was made up of ten questions that involved several key tenants of Kierkegaard’s philosophy, including but not limited to the following concepts:
Kierkegaard suggested there are three stages on life’s way: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. The aesthetic is associated with a lack of identity—or commitment or seriousness directed toward any one identity—a detachment, a tendency to live in the immediate, an avoidance of taking responsibility or making judgments, and a conception of daily life as a game, a show, a rat race, etc. The ethical involves putting the universal before the particular for a greater end; a person might act in accordance with the laws or demands of the majority for a greater good or duty (their actions can be seen as unfortunate but necessary, eliciting pity). The religious deals with going ‘beyond’ the universal so as to only fulfill the duty one has to oneself and the duty one has to the Absolute; these two duties must always one and the same (e.g.: God’s will was for Abraham to prove Abraham’s faith and Abraham’s will was for Abraham to prove Abraham’s faith). Emotions associated with movement from one way of life to another are fear, avoidance, despair, or anxiety, because this movement is a break or a leap and is often uncertain and uncomfortable or daunting. Kierkegaard uses Agamemnon and Brutus as examples of what it means to be a tragic hero: each of these men’s actions are universalizable and understandable; the men resigned to their ethical duties and therefore their actions evoke pity. Abraham and the Virgin Mary are examples of the Knight of Faith as their actions cannot be understood universally or justified in the ethical realm. Their actions are completely particular and specific to the individual, and they cannot be understood under the greater umbrella of social or ethical norms, expectations, or requirements. Abraham did not act to save a nation, uphold the idea of the state, or appease angry gods for the greater good of his community, rather he acted on a one-to-one relationship to God; therefore, in the ethical, Abraham must be called a murderer because in the ethical the father is required to love and protect the son.
At this point in class the question was posed: “Are great people throughout history great because we can understand them (they are the most ethical) or because they are more (they are unpredictable, revolutionary)?” We considered Martin Luther King Jr. noting that we could in fact understand him better if he became violent; we would be able to relate and universalize his actions, it would make more sense. MLK’s non-violence was revolutionary, absurd, ‘beyond’.
We continued to explore some of Kierkegaard’s ideas. For Kierkegaard, truth is a paradox, an enigma, subjectivity, untruth, internal; the only thing we can know for sure is the Socratic recognition that we know nothing. Because truth forms identity, each person’s truth is unique, absurd, and his or her own.
The next concept we discussed is best expressed as a question: “Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?”—which can be paralleled with this concept that (in Aristotle’s three-part construction of the soul: Vegetative, Appetive, and Rational) the wants and needs associated with the Vegetative and Appetive components—necessities such as shelter, water, food, nourishment, and ends or needs involving desire or willing, respectively—must be suspended to achieve the ultimate end, the rational. Similarly, one must suspend the teleology of the ethical to be in the religious way of life. Religion is the teleological suspension of the ethical, but only if the religious trumps the ethical. Take, for example, the story of Abraham when considering the suspension of the teleology of the ethical. Abraham’s act is not a means to an end, rather it is an end in itself; it is for no purpose but for fulfilling his own identity: answering to both himself and the Absolute with the same action, which he ‘must’ perform. As stated previously, Abraham’s will and God’s will are identical, which proves God’s role as the Absolute in this story. The Absolute has to be completely internalized by the actor, to the point that there is no longer a subject/object distinction; there is no separation or distinction between intention and action.
Chris sought further clarification on this subject and wondered if there can be an Absolut e in the religious other than God; and he looked for an alternative solution. He asked if a nationalist could act with his or her country as the Absolute. At this point, a discussion ensued centering on the nationalist as a religious person. It was determined that the will of a nation cannot perfectly match the will of a person, and that the teleology involved with nationalism largely disqualifies it from the realm of the religious. We then questioned “What about Hitler?” Can Hitler be considered a religious man because his fanaticism and devotion to his cause, though evil, completely defines him as a person, arguably fulfilling his identity? What is the Absolute in this situation? It was determined that Kierkegaard would not consider Hitler religious.
After wrapping up Kierkegaard, we began to talk about Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher and philologist who lived from 1844 to 1900. We learned that a philologist is one who studies classical languages and classical history. Nietzsche was a rising star in the field of philology until his book, “Birth of Tragedy,” which was considered unscholarly because of its mention of the mythical characters Apollo and Dionysus; the publication of this book marked his transformation to philosophy. We began our discussion on Nietzsche by talking about our existing ideas and conceptions of Nietzsche. Our main idea was that Nietzsche was a Nihilist, which we learned is a common perception and a perverse misunderstanding. It is true that Nietzsche talks about Nihilism ad nosium (over and over), but he is actually an anti-Nihilist; Nihilism is Nietzsche’s central target of critique. Nietzsche’s predicted the ailment of Nihilism.
We began to discuss Nietzsche’s idea of the Ubermensch, or ‘over-man,’ which is a life-affirming creator. We discussed how the Third Reich misinterpreted and misapplied Nietzsche’s Ubermensch to justify their actions. (Somebody pointed out how this misuse of Nietzsche’s work proves Kierkegaard’s assertion that the author is separate from the work that he or she produces.)
Nietzsche “transformed many ideas and values that form the background of our Western culture…[and] questioned the traditional concepts of reason, nature, God, time, and religion”. He brought about an end of metaphysics because he questions truth and suggests truth is a construct.
At the end of class we began talking about Nietzsche’s history: the problem of modernity and his three forms of history. We talked about how a healthy culture is one that has horizons that its people live within and unconditional beliefs---an identity—which give life and meaning to the culture and allow it to be strong and productive. An example was given of Dr. Layne living in Belgium, being open to learning about Belgium and welcome new ideas, but at the same time still maintaining her Americanism as her true cultural identity. On the other hand, we talked about how a diseased nation is one that engages in a fight to prove its identity; a struggle to prove identity proves decay.
No comments:
Post a Comment