Kierkegaard Within Your Grasp (ISBN 0764559745) edit
Author: O'Hara, Shelley. Publication: Hoboken, NJ John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (US), 2004.
Index edit
Hegel, G. W. F. (philosopher). See also Hegel’s System
- criticism of, 64
- Descartes and, 35
- Kierkegaard and, 41–42
- philosophy of, 10–11
Hegel’s System
- in Concluding Unscientific Postscript, The, 65–67, 73
- in Fear and Trembling, 36
- in Philosophical Fragments, 44
(p. 10-11) edit
Kierkegaard Responds to Hegel G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) created a philosophy widely respected during his time, in which he sought to determine the status of religious beliefs. He wanted to reconcile religion and reason and, in so doing, prove that all the fundamental beliefs of Christianity could be shown to be objectively true. Hegel created a philosophical system that, in his eyes, encompassed all thought. He wanted to show that there were universal truths that could be discovered and that these truths were based on opposing ideas. He even went so far as to rank the angels in importance. Kierkegaard disagreed in this assessment of knowledge and the role of religion versus science. For Kierkegaard, religion was a matter of faith, not reason. His other major criticism of Hegel was that this system was abstracted from everyday life; it was written from outside the system. Kierkegaard believed that, because man has a beginning and an end, because existence is incomplete and constantly changing, and because man must exist within the system he created, the system could not be all-encompassing.
(p. 35) edit
The Preface: Setting the Scene The purpose of the Preface is to set up the following parts, giving readers clues about the author and his purpose. The author claims to be “no philosopher.” He also mentions “the System,” a reference to Hegel. Hegel, the most dominant philosopher when Kierkegaard was writing, created an entire system of thought. (You can read more about Hegel in Chapter 2.) Hegel believed knowledge was objective and that his system of thought was all encompassing.
(p. 36) edit
Kierkegaard clearly does not hold the same views as Descartes. He pokes fun at this type of thinking: “As far as his own weak head is concerned, the thought of what huge heads everyone must have in order to have such huge thoughts is already enough” (Fear and Trembling). He talks about living “in an age where passion has been done away with for the sake of science” and concludes, “I prostrate myself before any systematic bag-searcher: this is not the System.” In jest he wishes “all good on the System and on the Danish shareholders in that omnibus, for it will hardly become a tower.” The last remark is a reference to a Bible passage from Luke:
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that beheld it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. (Luke 14)
The Preface, then, outlines the author’s thoughts on the current thinking of the time (Hegel’s System). This sets up the background for the new ideas this nonsystematic author has and presents in the rest of the work.
(p. 41-42) edit
Another relevant theme to Kierkegaard’s lifetime is Kierkegaard’s reaction and response to the predominant philosopher at the time (Hegel). Hegel’s System stressed the importance of the individual within the whole of society, but Kierkegaard disagreed, emphasizing the individual and the individual’s choice.
(p. 44) edit
Hegel Again Kierkegaard was clearly reacting to Hegel in his writing, but modern readers don’t easily pick up the nuances and clues indicating this connection. Hegel has largely disappeared as an important philosopher unless one is studying nineteenth-century philosophy, but Kierkegaard, who wasn’t widely read during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, is still more widely read today.
The title Philosophical Fragments, for instance, is a rebuke of Hegel’s work. Hegel thought his System was all-encompassing and that he had, once and for all, solved all philosophical problems. Although he acknowledged that a few issues may need to be addressed in the future, Hegel believed that they could be handled easily in a short postscript by his disciples. Kierkegaard’s book title, then, pokes fun at Hegel’s egotism and overconfidence in his System.
Kierkegaard also wrote a follow-up to Philosophical Fragments, a book that is four times as long as Philosophical Fragments and is titled Concluding Unscientific Postscript. (You can read more about Kierkegaard and his criticism of Hegel in Chapter 7.)
(p. 64) edit
Although Concluding Unscientific Postscript was written as a “postscript” to Philosophical Fragments, it is actually much, much longer than the earlier work. The title is a knock to Hegel’s System. (Hegel’s goal was a comprehensive system of thought, and although he did not complete this work, he thought that his followers would soon finish up by adding a few “postscripts.”)
(pp. 65-67) edit
Problems with Hegel and Rationalism One of the main thrusts of Concluding Unscientific Postscript is the criticism of Hegel’s System. Kierkegaard takes issue with this prevailing philosophy because it is incomplete and because Hegel writes from outside the System. He questions where and how the System was begun. In this criticism, Kierkegaard doesn’t just attack Hegel but raises issues with the emphasis on rationalism. Kierkegaard didn’t just disagree with Hegel’s System; he disagreed with any systematic approach to knowledge. In this regard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript was a turning point in philosophy. Kierkegaard offered a new approach and new ideas. This section discusses the points Kierkegaard makes in his critique of Hegel’s System.
Hegel’s System In short, Hegel created what he thought was a comprehensive system of thought based on reason or abstraction. He offers an evolutionary view of human reason; that is, man moves from levels of truth until he eventually arrives at the absolute truth. In Hegel’s view, God is this Absolute Truth. God, then, becomes immanent, all that exists. Man is defined in relation to others, and his greatest good is as part of society. Hegel emphasizes the whole rather than the individual. Kierkegaard takes issue with all these assertions.
The Incomplete System In his criticism, Kierkegaard mocks the System because it is not complete. In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he writes, “Tell me now sincerely, is it entirely finished; for if so I will kneel down before it, even at the risk of ruining a pair of trousers (for on account of the heavy traffic to and from the system, the road has become quite muddy).” In other words, if the truth is in the whole, how can the System be true if it’s not complete, not whole? This passage shows Kierkegaard’s use of humor to make his point about the incompleteness of the System. He also asserts that experience is never complete; therefore, how could a system of thought be complete?
Where Does the System Start? Kierkegaard also questions where and how the System started: “How does the System begin with the immediate [given]? That is to say, does it begin with it immediately?” He asks, “With what do I begin, now that I have abstracted everything? . . . [W]ith nothing. And it is indeed true, as the system says, that it begins with nothing. . . . How do I begin with nothing?” Kierkegaard points out the flaws in the System’s logic and its main tenets.
Outside Looking In In Hegel’s System, the thinker (Hegel) is outside the System; Kierkegaard exposes where this thinking eventually leads: “But who is this systematic thinker? . . . It is he who is outside of existence and yet in existence, who is in his eternity forever complete, and yet includes all existence within himself—it is God.” He criticizes Hegel for taking the role of God in the System. Kierkegaard also points out the inherent weakness in a system where the thinker is outside the system.
The Problem with Abstractions Kierkegaard also points out the problems with the reliance on reason or abstraction. He writes, “Abstract thinking is conducted sub specie æterni [from the point of view of eternity], and therefore disregards the concrete and the temporal, the becoming of existence.” He compares using abstraction or pure thought this way: “Existing under the guidance of pure thought is like traveling through Denmark and relying on a small map of Europe, on which Denmark is no larger than a dot.”
In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard uses irony, humor, and logic to make his points. He jokes, “I assume that anyone I may have honor to talk with is also a human being. If he presumes to be speculative philosophy in the abstract, pure speculative thought, I must renounce the effort to speak with him; for in that case he instantly vanishes from my sight.” Hegel’s System puts everything in its place and, thus, destroys the role of possibility, of having and making choices. Kierkegaard asserts that a man’s choices define his actions and his life; therefore, having possibilities and making choices is critical. He offers another view of truth, truth as subjective.
(p. 73) edit
One of Kierkegaard’s criticisms of Hegel’s System is that, if everything is known, why does one need faith? Instead, Kierkegaard not only believed in the importance of faith, but said that faith has its truth in subjectivity.