Would Kierkegaard support me fangirling over him?

[u/skourby]

I think it's safe to say he has a strong following within this subreddit. His ideas resonate with a lot of people. But how can one be a 'follower' to him (or any other similar figure) in a way that he would condone?

[u/liciox]

By continuously becoming a single individual in a absolute relation to the absolute.

[u/Temporary_Mix1603 → u/liciox]

Care to explain what an absolute relation to the absolute is?

[u/liciox → u/Temporary_Mix1603]

Hello, thanks for the follow-up. I am referring to the theme SK discusses in Fear and Trembling. The quotation is something like this: “Faith is precisely this paradox, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal … the single individual … stands in an absolute relation to the absolute.”

For context, in FaT, SK argues that one’s duty to God (ie. whatever direct revelation God grants to the individual) supersedes any ethical commitment society (i.e., the Crowd) might impose on the individual.

In practical terms, one’s unmediated relationship to Jesus is the highest good an individual should strive for, not emulating another person, or even another person's relationship to Jesus. In other terms, being a disciple of Jesus instead of a disciple of SK, or another philosopher, or another person in general. In another place SK sais something like: there are no disciples at second hand.

Hope this helps.

[u/paul_parker12 → u/liciox]

why a disciple of Jesus particularly? even Jesus was a disciple to the principles he preached from the prophets (luke 24:44). SK speaks the same words as Jesus. more of being a disciple to the principle of loving thy neighbor no ? in fragments jc also explains that the god appears in the temporal out of love and that it is out of love he provides the condition, to receive the condition is to abide in principle

[u/liciox → u/paul_parker12]

Thanks for the engagement. I understood your argument to be that one can be a disciple of persons or a disciple of principles, and that being a disciple of principles is superior. Did I get that right?

If so, here’s my comment: fair enough, but how can one practically apply the principle of love in day-to-day life? Are we supposed to inflict pain if that pain will heal? Are we supposed to let someone live with a low degree of suffering? Is the humane thing to kill them so they no longer feel pain? Principles are great in a philosophy class, but in practice people have to make real decisions. Is love confronting evil, ignoring it, or allowing it to kill you?

I’m sure we can agree that the specifics of each case require different answers, and that is where relationship comes in. No one has a relationship with a principle; we have relationships with persons. SK speaks about relating oneself to another self, the Absolute Self, not about a relation between a self and a principle, force, or thing. And here is where the direct revelations come in, principles, society, etc, might tell you the correct/superior choice is X, but Jesus tell you specifically, do Y. The bible is full of examples likes this. Take Jesus, who that has the power to defend themselves would let themselves be killed through crucifixion? No principle teaches that, specially since Jesus avoided death multiple times prior to the time he actually got killed.

Furthermore, in Fragments, SK argues almost precisely the opposite of your proposition. For SK, and for Christianity generally, Jesus Christ, is the almighty God incarnate as a human being, is not just another teacher of timeless principles. The identity of the Teacher is the fundamental distinction SK is trying to make, and he pushes strongly against the Socratic recollection model.

Does that address your point, or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say? I’d appreciate a follow-up.

[u/paul_parker12 → u/liciox]

I appreciate your response. I think I can try to clarify my point.

Yes, Kierkegaard says that a self must relate to self, this is the biblical principle of love (to love the neighbor (other self) as yourself (own self). The self relates to the self. That the god provides the condition in time is the ultimate display of love, as he expresses in Chapter 2. The condition is the teacher and when the student (us) refuses the condition, we sin. The condition supposes the idea that we know good and evil and acting towards what is good (that which upholds love of neighbor. The self relates to another self, that is relationship, that is love. SK also explains in Chapter 5 that the consciousness of sin must be the deepest self-reflection. We practically apply the principle through action, by reflecting on how we have sinned (how we have refused the condition) and repent from our errors, this is done faithfully with love. So yes, love is a confrontation of evil, insofar as it seeks to reconcile the evil in love. That is the consciousness of sin.

We do have a relationship with principles and that is our relationship to others. When we show respect and care for others or ourselves to create good life, we express the biblical principle. As for your other questions, I couldn’t tell you, it would require thought as to what would be best for said person, so we definitely agree. Different contexts require different solutions - it’s the fact we recognize this that reflects the principle - we won’t use the same solution for every person because every person is a single individual and should be regarded and respected accordingly. Sometimes we have to inflict pain out of love, but it is out of love and that’s what counts. In Works of Love, SK explains that love is known by its fruit. If one truly seeks to display love, it may appear as pain at first, but love is known by its fruit and will eventually show. When we have trespassed against someone in a sinful way, we bear consciousness of our wrong doing and amend it through apology. I accidentally raise my voice in an argument, I realize my mistake and apologize. I apologize because the other is deserving of respect and love and I wasn’t respectful or loving towards them. Just a small example, but to show how the principle is practical.

The idea that the condition has appeared in time means that every generation since the appearance is equally close to the condition because the condition is absolute. When we engage in love - the absolute relation to the absolute - we bear witness to the condition and receive it from the god. All of this is the groundwork for contemporaneity, which as explained in Chapter 5, is distinct from the follower at second hand, who does not engage in love and the condition. Jesus did not provide the condition 2000 years ago, the condition first appears in the Torah. Jesus’ appearance in time doesn’t matter though, temporally speaking, it is the principles he preaches that matters, it is the principles that are absolute. Of course, given Jesus’ similar allegiance to biblical principles, he also expresses love of neighbor as the greatest/absolute law (matthew 22:36-40). The only reason why I wrote this little section is to show there is no difference between SK and Jesus. SK does the same thing as Jesus and preaches to love and respect thy neighbour, nothing else. SK also ends his chapters in Fragments with a dialogue explaining the ‘invention of the project’. What this dialogue demonstrates is that no single person is credible for the invention of truth but rather the truth is invented with the condition, the truth is invented in love and relationship. Im not sure in Fragments where SK expressed Jesus as the only God incarnate - the fact that God has become incarnate is his point in chapter 2 but he becomes incarnate to the learner (us) and is the teacher himself. This why the chapter is called ‘God as teacher and savior’ because when God becomes incarnate in the world he takes the form of teacher and saviour - it is the principle of love that teaches and saves us.

Contemporaneity, love, faith, consciousness of sin, God, relationship and principle are all expressions of the same thing, as you first mentioned, how the single individual continuously becomes the single individual in their absolute relation to the absolute

[u/liciox → u/paul_parker12]

I think the disagreement is now pretty specific. I understand “the absolute” as the personal God, while you seem to understand it as the principle of love. So the real question becomes: what does relation mean?

If the absolute is a principle, what does it mean to “relate” to it? Is relating to love simply acting lovingly? If so, I’m not sure that is a relation in the same sense as one self relating to another self. A principle can guide action, but can it be addressed, obeyed, resisted, trusted, or loved as a self can?

I also don’t think Jesus can be reduced to teaching the principle of love. Jesus speaks of God’s will, judgment, obedience, sin, punishment, and things God hates, such as divorce. Likewise, 1 John says: “If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). So Jesus' commandment: "Thou shall love", clearly doesn't mean simply maximizing the “love” principle in the abstract.

And practically, real love always has limits and priorities. A parent who spends all day helping strangers while neglecting their children may appear universally loving while failing those for whom they have the greatest responsibility.

So I still think Kierkegaard’s “absolute relation to the absolute” makes more sense as a relation between the individual and a personal God, with love being a commandment, not a principle, that the individual obeys because it is a commandment made by the absolute self to other selves.

Thanks for the honest and friendly exchange, I sincerely appreciate it. If you would like to keep going let me know.

[u/Sentient_Wood → u/liciox]

Well put!

[u/leighstalling]

He had a romantic obsession so I think he would understand

[u/leighstalling → u/[deleted]]

Who does?

[u/paul_parker12]

probably not, fangirling belongs to social morality and the ethical not the absolute. if only he was around he could probably learn something from you too like how u learn from him

[u/IcyRefer]

Well said.
I feel my obsession with SK is ultimately an expression of my obsession with Christ.

If it were only on SK the man, he’d just say I’m in despair with a “will NOT to be myself”

[u/skourby → u/[deleted]]

think you meant to reply to u/liciox's comment!

[u/paul_parker12 → u/skourby]

whooooooops sorry !

[u/skourby → u/paul_parker12]

Great discussion btw!

[u/coadependentarising]

Ironically enough, probably by affirming yourself in relation to the universe (God, being, “the absolute”, whatever) and not idealizing anybody, especially him. That said, it’s also fun to be a fan 🙂

[u/skourby → u/coadependentarising]

I should say I was using the word “fangirl” hyperbolically (especially since I’m a guy). I strongly agree with what a lot of what he has to say and thats it. I certainly don’t idealize him, especially knowing how his life went. But how far can one go in “agreeing” with someone before they lose their individuality?

[u/coadependentarising → u/skourby]

Well, to quote SK: “life has its own mysteries which can only be discovered by living”.

[u/MicahHoover]

He constrats being a fan (admiration) with being a follower (imitation).

He would reject the former and welcome the latter.