Jump to content

User talk:Bruzodin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Paper presented at FFRRC Students’ Seminar on July 25, 2017 at MTTS Kottayam by Zodinsanga Toimoi MTh II, Christian Theology) A SYNTHESIS BETWEEN SUBJECTIVITY AND OBJECTIVITY IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH IN SØREN KIERKEGAARD: A KANTIAN ENQUIRY ________________________________________


Introduction: A Co-existential Quest

In every form of life there are opposite poles which seem to be existed independently. Be it in natural science or ontology, opposite pole takes part in all forms of progress and destruction. Even in ideological phenomenon, the interaction of this opposite sphere becomes inevitable. Samkhya philosophy is a good example of obtaining this duality of opposite – prakrti (matter) and purusa (individual soul). The former is the unconscious matrix of all modifications, physical and psychical – it is the root cause of all existence. The latter, the soul is inactive but conscious. Matter cannot act by itself, but it is only through fusion with soul then can only be activated. In the case of Søren Kierkegaard’s life and theologico-philosophical articulation, the matrix or synthesis of opposite character has been a dominant feature. However, his synthesis of opposite is not exactly the same with Hegelian dialectic as the former spares ‘irreducible singularity’ whereas the latter synthesizes by reducing the singular qualities of both thesis and antithesis.

Immanuel Kant can be considered as the one who bridges the gap between rationalism and empiricism. In his book Critique of Pure Reason, Kant talks about two types of judgment/knowledge – analytic and synthetic judgments. Analytic judgment/knowledge is a knowledge which is derived from the subject whereas synthetic knowledge is based on intuitions. Further, Kant puts forward synthetic a priori judgment/knowledge in pursuit of augmentative knowledge. This judgment deals with non-empirical which is entirely based on conception of necessity. Also, in the case of ‘synthetic a priori’, predicate or effect is not merely the extension of the subject or cause (which one can easily know from experience) rather it is the synthesis of the predicate with the conception of the subject. Employing ‘synthetic a priori judgment/knowledge’ as a framework, attempt is made to investigate a synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity in the existential truth of Søren Kierkegaard.


1. Concept of Truth in Modernity and Postmodernity

The modern understanding of truth and postmodern understanding of truth have certain significance to Kierkegaardian truth in one way or another. Therefore, it is good to study in brief about truth in modernity and postmodernity before in-depth inquiry on Kierkegaardian truth.


1.1. Truth in Modernity : Idea of Certainty

The enlightenment thinkers have always engaged with either scientific experiment or world of ideas. People like Rene Descartes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Baruch Spinoza, and George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel are ascribed to rationalist philosophers who project rationalism in order to see and explicate both existential and metaphysical realities. Particularly Descartes (1596-1650), ‘the father of modern philosophy’ conceives truth as a “finished product” in the sense that truth can be fully understood by means of rational thinking. Another feature of truth in this period is that truth lies outside of human life and can be unearthed through reason and scientific approach. Reality and truth are something beyond the material and something supernatural. This notion of truth as something ‘outside’ or ‘beyond’ humanity can be safely considered as ‘objective truth’ or objective pursuit of truth. To know the truth, one has to seek objective pursuit of truth in which reality or truth is verified by the rules and formulae laid down by thinkers and inventors. It is objectivity in the sense that either empirical method or rational thinking has been employed in pursuit of the truth. In other words, this pursuit of truth is understood as ‘perspective of eternal’ or ‘God’s-eye-view’ because one has to employ the rules already laid out by someone, not from his/her own experience. It is impersonal observation of truth, devoid of existential reality.


1.2. Truth in Postmodernity: Idea of Probability

The world wars, gas chambers, urban mass-destruction in the early 20th century brought about the ‘end of ideology’ in the intellectual level. The modernistic optimism has been replaced by pessimistic approach and critical thinking in postmodernity. Due to the changes of ideology and worldview, the idea of truth in postmodernity has been changed. In modernity, the idea of truth is largely based on facts but now facts become just interpretation of truth. People like Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jacques Lancan, Jacques Deridda, employ critical thinking. Nietzsche (1844–1900) said, “Truths are illusions we have forgotten are illusions” in the sense that “Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms and anthropomorphisms.” In this connection, there is no certainty about truth for truth has many dimensions. There is a big shift from ‘metanarrative of truth’ (of modernity) to ‘suspicion of truth’ in postmodernity. Truth in postmodern concept is not of absolute truth rather it is more of multi-dimensional truth. In postmodernity, there is no absolute truth which cannot be questioned or suspicious. Truth lies in uncertainty and probability. The metanarrative of Hegel (absolute rationalism) and Karl Marx (social theory) have been questioned in various ways in postmodern times. Merold Wesphal is right in his statement, “the truth is that there is no Truth” that there can be no single absolute (T)ruth but many truths in probable.


2. Subjective Truth and Objective Truth: A General Observation

Kierkegaard separately discusses objectivity and subjectivity in pursuit of truth in Christianity. For him, subjective approach of truth is rooted into existential life. Also, he does not totally neglect the objective truth for it is important for the study of mathematics, science and history, and also in certain ontological life particularly in the case of daily survival. In this section, we shall look into the objective truth and subjective truth in the light of Kierkegaardian truth.


2.1. Objective Truth: Correspondent/Conditioning Truth

According to Kierkegaard, objective truth has two dimensions – one, historical truth and; two, philosophical truth. Historical truth is the truth which is conditioned by a critical scrutiny of its sources and hence historical truth is contingent to the examination of its sources. Philosophical truth on the other hand, is that “the object is to determine the relationship of the doctrine thus historically given and verified, to the eternal truth.” In this way, objective truth is depended on the facts and theories which are already set forth on one hand, and also relied on rational thinking on the other hand. This truth requires rules or facts to be verified or proven. The truth is measured whether the judgment factually match the object. In the light of objectivity, truth is understood as something that lies within the realm of rules or conditions and these are in turn the tools for its (truth) assessment.

Hegel observes truth as something “external self moving object” which has no connection to individual matters. It is totally outside of the sphere of subjectivity. Therefore, for Hegel, truth is objective by nature. To know this objective truth, for Hegel, is possible by means of reason whereas for Kant is not possible by any means. For Kant, human being can only know truth partly that is the phenomenon (thing-as-it-appears) but cannot know the noumenon (thing-in-itself). Hegel on the other hand argues that there is no unknowable noumenon which human reason cannot reach. In the pursuit of truth, Kant acknowledges the limits of reason thereby restricting the absoluteness of reason whereas for Hegel human reason has capacity to unearth reality and truth. Hegel employs dialectical triplicity so as to search absolute truth. In dialectical triplicity, thesis, antithesis and synthesis are three important tools of enquiry. To him, synthesis of thesis and antithesis provides absolute knowledge about truth.


2.2. Subjective Truth: A State of Becoming

Subjective truth refers to the truth a person personally excavates through inwardness. In subjective truth, the how rather than the what of Christian faith is taken into consideration. The subjective truth is the truth which is realized through personal experience not through factual information. Paul Roubiczek is of the opinion that “to discover the truth by which we live, we must start from personal experience and base our ideas on it, not vice versa.” To him, starting from experience accompanied by thinking or reasoning on the basis of experience is mandatory in subjective truth. It is not reasoning or factual information that is prior to experience (like in objective truth) rather prior importance is given to personal experience in the case of subjective truth. It is something like starting from particularity to universality.

Kierkegaard is considered as the proponent of subjective truth in the sense that he advocates personal inwardness to realize the truth. At one point of discussion he mentions “subjectivity is the truth” that is “the highest truth attainable for existing individual.” He refers more to subjective experience of existence within truth. When he talks about ‘inwardness of subjectivity’, he does not refer to introspection on mental or emotional states rather he focuses on passionate involvement into one’s innermost moral or spiritual commitments. In this way, his subjective truth or subjectivity of truth has to do with the question of existence of a person. To Kierkegaard (in a subjective truth), truth becomes “a matter of appropriation, of inwardness, of subjectivity, and thought must probe more and more deeply into the subject and his subjectivity.”


3. Subjectivity-Objectivity Synthesis in Kierkegaardian Truth: A Kantian Enquiry

Looking from the Kantian perspective particularly from synthetic a priori, Kierkegaardian truth is not independently subjective alone it is more of the dialectic of subjectivity and objectivity in truth. It is a synthesis of the two, subjectivity and objectivity without reducing each quality for the fact that Kierkegaard does not deny the existence of objective truth in totality. He even accepts the significance of objective truth in order to study certain subjects like science, history, mathematics and also for certain daily life. However, for Kierkegaard, subjective truth is essential not to deny the existence of moral and religious truth but to know the inwardness of human existence. This shows that though he belongs to modern period of certainty, he denies absolute objectivity that ascertains in the quest of truth, but believes in the synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity in pursuit of truth. The fact is that there can be no subjective truth alone without objective truth. Kierkegaard speaks more about ‘subjectivity’ instead of ‘subjective’ which refers to methodology to unearth the truth subjectively rather than the nature or ‘black and white’ of the truth.

Traditionally, synthetic judgments are a posteriori in the sense that the truth is derived from experience; analytic judgments or analytic truths are a priori because they are derived from the analysis of concepts and ideas. But Kant synthesizes perception of mind and sensible experience under the framework of ‘synthetic a priori judgment’. Kierkegaardian judgment or truth can also be grouped into synthetic a priori as he never undermines rational thinking or perception in the course of seeking truth. Rather, perception and experience are going side by side in Kierkegaardian truth. Moreover, Kierkegaardian truth is synthetic a priori in the sense that the truth is not the ‘already known’ like the concept of predicate is included in the concept of the subject in analytic truth, but it is more of keeping distance to truth which is ‘unknown’ (objective truth) from the subject. For Kierkegaard to meet the truth is to perceive the truth on the basis of one’s own experience (subjectivity) and to have strong faith in the unknown (objectivity). In this connection, we see the interaction between subjectivity and objectivity in his truth.


3.1. Leap of Faith: Synthesizing Pathos and Volitional Faith

In Kierkegaardian leap, there is a close contact between subjectivity and objectivity. He is of the opinion that there is the Unknown state of reality and truth which is ‘wholly other’, cannot be known from pure theoretical reason or pure practical reason. Faith becomes the framework for leaping unto the Unknown. In other words, leap is caused by faith that is to say Kierkegaard speaks about ‘leap of faith’ or ‘leap into faith’. Apart from faith, for Kierkegaard ‘leap’ is qualified by ‘passion’ or ‘pathos’. Pathos is the substance of the leap for the fact that he connects ‘pathos-filled transition’ or ‘transition of pathos’ with a leap. It is this pathos with the combination of faith that transits a person to the infinite knowledge and truth. In this case, Kierkegaardian leap, volitional aspect or freedom of choice is a part of faith that determines the leap. Also, in volitional aspect of faith, a clear thought or rational thinking (which we can say objectivity) is indispensable before making a choice. Therefore, ‘pathos’, subjective experience along with ‘volition’ (objectivity) that determines ‘faith’ leads to leap unto the realm of the Unknown.


3.2. Paradoxical Faith: Synthesizing Experience and Reason

For Kierkegaard, God is ‘Spirit and infinite distance’. Any kind of human attempt – be it theoretical reason or practical reason – to know the infinite becomes futile. At the same time, in religious circle the main focus is on infinite sphere – building personal relationship with God for eternal welfare – that in return demands a strong commitment and faith. According to Kierkegaard, the knowledge of infinite or God is absolutely paradoxical in the sense that Christianity believes in the incarnation of infinite (God) to the finite human being in the person of Jesus Christ in order to install new innocence to the whole humankind (absolute likeness and image of God). In this connection, the transcendent God takes initiative to become immanent God in the form of Christ to rebuild a broken relationship between him and human being. It is not human being who takes initiative with regard to retaining new innocence. It is the grace of God that in return inspires everyone to have faith in him, to believe in him and to make a strong conviction and commitment for him. Kierkegaard even speaks about God’s intervention into the sphere of the horizon of his disciples so as to enlighten them to see and have faith in him in return. In this case, the experience of God’s grace (subjectivity) makes a person to reason and analyze (objectivity) for further personal response and commitment (subjectivity).


3.3. Existential Truth: Synthesizing Human Effort and God’s Promise

In his book Sickness unto Death, Kierkegaard discusses about synthesis of the infinite and the finite, the temporal and the eternal, freedom and necessity in humanity. For Kierkegaard, both infinite and finite or temporal and eternal are equally important in the sense that the temporal life conditions the eternal life. In Fear and Trembling, he talks about Abraham’s balancing finite and infinite spheres in order to find the truth. Abraham was asked by God to give his son Isaac to him. From the ethical point of view, what Abraham intended to do upon Isaac is to murder his son whereas from the religious perspective he attempted to sacrifice Isaac for God. Kierkegaard keeps on saying that Abraham believed that God would not require Isaac literally rather God wanted Abraham’s fulfillment of this requirement that could be a proof of the degree of his love and faith to God. Before the eyes of God Abraham has fulfilled what God requires from him. In other words, from the purview of God Abraham has sacrificed his son, Isaac. Abraham well understands that the finite human being must strive for the infinite knowledge or truth. In this course of action, one can see a synthesis between objectivity and subjectivity in Kierkegaard’s presentation of Abrahamic faith. In his interpretation of Abraham’s sacrificial act upon Isaac for God, Kierkegaard gives highest importance to the fulfillment of God’s requirement so as to show his love and faith to God. Here, obedience or fulfillment (subjectivity) is from human side, but promise or requirement (objectivity) is made by infinite God. In the light of synthetic a priori, the subjectivity or human efforts is driven by the objectivity or covenant/law (promise) of God. In this way, there is a synthesis of human efforts and promise of God without reducing their singular qualities.


4. Theological Significance of Subjective-Objective Synthesis

Tracing back to the development of theology in the past, one can see that almost in every theology there is bias epistemology. Perhaps, the finitude nature of humankind is a good reason for biasness. Some theologies are antagonistic each other in their approaches towards certain realities. Paul Tillich is one of the theologians who can keep well balance between subjectivity and objectivity in pursuit of reality by employing ‘correlation’ as his theological methodology. Due to this reason, Tillich’s theology becomes one of the finest theologies in systematic theology. Considering this interaction, we shall discuss the significance of subjective-objective synthesis in doing theology.


4.1. Faith-Reason Amalgamation: Theology of Inclusivism

‘Faith and reason’ has been an age old debated topic in theological circle. The discussion reached its peak during the middle ages and reformation period. The enlightenment during the medieval periods brings scholasticism into theological circle. Scholastic theology glorifies reason in all walks of life. The key theologian during this period was St. Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologiae Aquinas discusses the role of reason in faith. When we come to reformation period, sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia became the slogans of the reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli. However, it does not resolve the debate over faith and reason. Till today, particularly in the case of contextual theology the debate is still alive. The problem with these theologies lies on the fact that they all employ exclusivism as methodology. In fact, faith needs to be checked by reason and vice versa. This cross-checking is possible only when subjective-objective synthesis is applied in theology.


4.2. Understanding Paradoxical Realities: Accessing Quality of Life

The Chinese philosophy particularly Taoism has propounded a concept of duality Yin-Yang (dark side and bright side). This philosophy teaches that there is two opposite poles yin and yang in everything. Even in human’s life, the duality of darkness and lightness take place interchangeably. No normal individual can have both feelings at the same time. After yin, yang arises and vice versa. This is a paradox in human life. God has created humankind in his own image and likeness so as to obtain a good quality of life. To maintain a good quality of life one needs to understand this paradox in life. Some take their own lives when they face difficulties and problems. Some do sinful thing out of joy. In any situation, those who accept both subjectivity and objectivity in approach will shape good relationship with God and will live a normal life.


4.3. Body-Soul Integration: Ontology-Metaphysics Interplay

In classical philosophy especially Platonic metaphysics, there is duality of body and soul. Plato believed that body and soul are two separate entities. For him, body is temporal and material whereas soul is immaterial. ‘Soul’ for Plato is the property of ‘the world of forms’. According to Plato, soul is to the body that ensouls the body as the captain is to the ship. Basing on platonic metaphysics Alexandrian school advocates the divinity of Jesus Christ. Due to the absolute emphasis on the divine nature of Jesus by Alexandrian school, Antiochian school takes up the humanity of Jesus Christ to defend the immanent nature of Jesus. These two schools create controversy over the nature of Jesus Christ in the early period. This is due to the fact that these two schools lack synthesis between subjectivity and objectivity in their approach. In synthesis, there is no body-soul antagonism rather there is always integration between them. Even in doing theology today, keeping body-soul integration needs serious consideration so as to avoid bias theology. Having authentic theology will in turn strengthen our faith.


Concluding Remarks

Kierkegaardian truth has been popularly known to be subjective in its character. This is due to the fact that he himself declares ‘subjectivity is truth’. However, looking at his truth from the Kantian ‘synthetic a priori’ one may find some objective insights incorporated in Kierkegaardian truth. His articulation of ‘leap unto the unknown’ has deeply rooted into experience in the form of pathos experience and reasonableness of choice which are very much objective. When he talks about the grace of God, Kierkegaard outlines the experience of the grace that makes a person to reason for preparing further commitment. In the case of Abrahamic sacrificial response to God, Kierkegaard presents in such a way that Abraham cannot think about if God would give him another son in future as a reward of his fulfillment; what is occupied in his mind is to fulfill God’s requirement by any means. In this case, there is objectivity (of rules or requirements) that compels Abraham to accomplish the task ahead of him. Succinctly speaking, Kierkegaardian truth is the truth founded on subjectivity and covered by objectivity; which in turn helps one to understand the co-existence of the opposite.


Bibliography

Cahoone, Lawrence, ed. From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. USA, UK, Australia, Germany: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003.

Charleswoth, Max. Philosophy and Religion: From Plato to Postmodernism. England: Oneworld Publications, 2006.

Ferreira, M. Jamie. Kierkegaard. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.

Hannay, Alastair and Gordon D. Marino, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Hodgson, Peter C. Hegel and Christian Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

John, Varughese. Truth and Subjectivity, Faith and History: Kierkegaard’s Insights for Christian Faith. Bangalore: SAIACS Press, 2012.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn. New York: P.F. Collier and Son, n.d.

Kierkegaard, Søren. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Translated by David F. Swenson and Walter Lowrie. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941.

________________. Fear and Trembling. Translated by Walter Lowrie. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1941.

________________. Philosophical Fragments. Translated by D.F. Swenson. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1936.

________________. Sickness unto Death. Translated by Walter Lowrie. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1941. ________________. The Last Years: Journals 1853-1855. Edited and translated by Ronald Gregor Smith. New York and Evanston: Harper & Row Publishers, 1965.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, second edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1994.

Nash, Cristopher. The Unravelling of the Postmodern Mind. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001.

Norris, Christopher. The Truth about Postmodernism. UK, USA: Blackwell Publishers, 1993.

Osborne, Kenan B. “Existentialism.” The New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Joseph A. Komonchak and Mary Collins, eds. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1987, 366-369. Po-tuan, Chang. The Inner Teachings of Taoism. Translated by Thomas Cleary. Boston & London: Shambhala, 1986.

Ramsey, Paul and Waldo Beach, eds. Faith and Ethics: The Theology of H. Richard Niebuhr. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1965.

Roubiczek, Paul. Existentialism: For and Against. London: Cambridge University Press, 1964.

Sharma, Kaushal Kishore. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company, 1989.

Sinha, Jadunath. Outlines of Indian Philosophy. Calcutta: New Central Book Agency (P) Ltd., 1985.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology Vol I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Varghese, Zac, eds. Expanses of Grace: A Birth Centenary Tribute to the Most Revd Dr. Philipose Mar Chrysostom Valiya Metropolitan. Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithi, 2017.

Watts, Michael. Kierkegaard. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2007.

Internet Sources:

http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/religious-studies-and-philosophy/compare-plato-and-aristotle-s-view-of-the-soul.html (28 Jun 2017)

http://academic.mu.edu/phil/jonesj/courses/P050Notes3.pdf (28 Jun 2017)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Bruzodin[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Bruzodin, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bruzodin&oldid=970398737"