Blog 5 -- 2/17/14

While the majority of the day’s dialogue offered confounding, yet enriching—thus ultimately constructive—thematic deliberation, I believe the seemingly unchallenged notion of objective uncertainty’s applicability to normal passions remains fallacious. I explicitly recall a speaker from the audience suggesting that the objective uncertainty, the apple teasing us from a branch just beyond our grasp, need not be restricted to infinite passions, but I suspect Kierkegaard would contest. Doesn’t the fact that our normal passions are inherently mundane, and thus not infinite in nature, preclude these worldy passions from being considered uncertain. After all, normal passions are defined by reality, the antithesis of uncertainty in this context. That being said, I concur that objective uncertainty need not be restricted to cosmological interpretations, but I also feel as though these passions, while not necessarily traditionally infinite, require some fundamental obscurity about them. For example, one might consider their infinite passion to be that of true love, traditionally speaking. This does not rely on some supernal entity for definition, but the concept itself escapes reality in the same sense that death eludes us.

On another note, despite having read through Kierkegaard’s arguably esoteric prose, a part of me still considers his push for a subjective god-figure reason enough that objective uncertainty ought to be referred to as subjective uncertainty. After all, if we are in constant chase after this independently conceived entity, what about this is objective? There is nothing objective whatsoever about a subjective god-figure that suggests the term should be referred to as such.

Yours Tru.ly