UNSCIENTIFIC POSTSCRIPT

The compelling importance of this work by Kierkegaard is stipulated by its two main aspects: a critique of Hegel, and the pronouncement that Subjectivity is Truth! Apparently, Kierkegaard himself considered this particular work of such importance that, in addition to his normal use of a pseudonym, he attached his own name as the book’s “publisher.” The book was published in 1846.

This momentous book’s full title was Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments. A Mimic-Pathetic-Dialectic Composition, an Existential Contribution. By Johannes Climacus. Published by S. Kierkegaard. The “Philosophical Fragments,” alluded to in the title, was his 1844 book, ironically, just one-fifth the size of its Postscript. The Fragments, following Britannica’s concise narrative, is an attempt to present Christianity as it should be, if it is to have any meaning. It aims at presenting Christianity as a form of existence that presupposes free will, without which everything becomes meaningless. This was an attack on the prevailing Hegelian philosophy. Kierkegaard was preparing a showdown (the Postscript), but before he did so, he felt the need to extend his ideas on the philosophy of freedom into the sphere of psychology. The result was The Concept of Dread (published later the same year 1844). Extraordinarily penetrating, it is perhaps the first work of depth psychology in existence.

Returning to the Postscript, I must first note the phrase “Existential Contribution” in its title. It is generally assumed that the word ‘existentialism’ originated in the twentieth century, while it had never been used by the “father of existentialism,” Kierkegaard himself. I would argue that existentialism is already implied in Kierkegaard’s title, and this term’s origination should therefore be reexamined and corrected. (I grant that this is an altogether minor issue, as Kierkegaard’s greatness cannot be diminished by the minisculest iota by the withholding from him of such an attribution.)

The first feature of the Postscript is Kierkegaard’s attack on Hegel. What he specifically attacks is Hegel’s attempt to systematize the whole of existence, declaring that a ‘system of existence’ cannot be constructed, since existence is incomplete and constantly developing. He further drew attention to the logical error that arose from Hegel’s attempt to introduce mobility into logic, and so revealed the confusion arising from the mixing of categories. Hegel thought he had created the objective theory of knowledge. Kierkegaard offered the thesis that subjectivity is truth or “the objective uncertainty maintained in the most passionate spirit of dedication is truth, the highest truth for one existing.”

These tenets, which have become the foundation stones of modern Existentialism, have not only punctured ‘the System,’ as Hegel called his own philosophy, but have made all philosophical systems precarious. The system builder will never understand that it is not possible to understand existence intellectually. Hegel was equating existence and thought and thus left no room for faith. Accordingly, Christianity appeared only as a paragraph in the system, an example of the general, and that, according to Kierkegaard, was the scandal.

Kierkegaard’s Christianity, however, will be the subject of the third entry of this series. Meanwhile, we will return to the subject of truth, and with it to the question of objectivity and subjectivity.

…Objective truth is what relates to propositions, having no relation to the existence of the knower. History, science and speculative philosophy all deal with objective knowledge. According to Climacus, all objective knowledge is subject to doubt. It focuses on what is asserted.

Subjective truth is essential, or ethico-religious, truth. It is not composed of propositions or perceptions of the external world, but of introspection, experiences, and especially, one’s relationship with God.

Direct Communication consists of statements communicated and understood without appropriation, that is without experiencing personally what is being communicated. Objective knowledge can be communicated directly.

Indirect Communication requires appropriation on the part of the receiver; the receiver must experience or have experienced what is being communicated, not just hear it.

This particular subject of truth, and what it is, is of great interest to me personally, and having pursued its parameters throughout the pages of my book I shall undoubtedly return to Kierkegaard’s uniquely original (yes, such tautology is not only linguistically permissible, but makes a lot of sense!) explorations and deal with them at a later date on a much more substantive basis.