A recurring topic in both the group’s presentation and the
text is that of the relationship between finitude and reality as contrasting infinitude
and possibility. This novel dichotomy is coupled under the overarching theme of
anxiety, which, as Kierkegaard points out, is critical to the development of
one’s faith. As a victim of chronic anxiety in a strictly medical sense (which
I acknowledge is not the type of anxiety to which Kierkegaard speaks) and having
been raised as a devout Roman Catholic, I must confess to remaining confused by
the position being made here. In a religious sense, I can certainly attest to a
sort of “high” that deep spiritual reflection often produces in me. One might
even say I derive a great deal of pleasure from the contemplative induction of fear
resulting from uncertainty in faith, a paradigm that has shaped my life from
its very outset. As strange as this deliberate meddling with fearfulness may
sound, I believe this oddity might be the only similarity between what I feel
and what Kierkegaard preaches. Moreover, I am not convinced that possibility surpasses
reality in its density, as suggested on page 30 of the Solomon’s Existentialism. I imagine, while not
expressed as such, that Kierkegaard’s argument is grounded in the
unpredictability of possibility that—to the trained eye, those who wish to
concern themselves—lays the foundation for anxiety in an otherwise certain
reality. This brings about the following question: Is the true determinant of
whether or not reality is inferior to possibility in its capacity to give rise
to anxiety solely the product of time? Is it safe to assume, from Kierkegaard’s
logic, that reality always refers to the present, while possibility always
refers to the future? Are these relationships consistent as hard-and-true as
that of infinitude and possibility as opposing finitude and reality?
http://www.existentiality.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I noticed in your blog was the similarity I share with you; we were both raised very religiously! The distinction you make greatly resonates with me. You explain that Kierkegaard’s religious philosophy is nothing like what you have learned in your upbringing.
This is absolutely the case, and perhaps it is what Professor Botham meant when he told us of how Kierkegaard spent his last days insulting the Christians at the church. He is not regular Christianity; not the Christianity that is preached from most pulpits. This fact makes him all the more interesting to me
I enjoyed your final question, even though it was quite technical and difficult to read(my failure not yours). I think Kierkegaard does set up the black and white dichotomy between reality and possibility. The distinction of infinitude and possibility and finitude and reality seems extremely reminiscent of the Cartesian dichotomy of body and soul. This distinction is also consistent with his beliefs as a Christian, and thus a dualist. The separation of infititude and finitude that he sets up could be used as a sort of “universal acid” that can help set the precedent for his beliefs in the ephemeral soul.
Kierkegaard has been the most difficult reading yet for me and It is difficult to critique someone on a subject I struggle with myself!
-AW