It is often claimed that relativism, subjectivism and nihilism are typically modern philosophical problems that emerge with the breakdown of traditional values, customs and ways of life. The result is the absence of meaning, the lapse of religious faith, and feeling of alienation that is so widespread in modernity. The Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55) gave one of the most penetrating analyses of this complex phenomenon of modernity. But somewhat surprisingly he seeks insight into it not in any modern thinker but rather in an ancient one, the Greek philosopher Socrates. In this course we will explore how Kierkegaard deals with the problems associated with relativism, the lack of meaning and the undermining of religious faith that are typical of modern life. His penetrating analyses are still highly relevant today and have been seen as insightful for the leading figures of Existentialism, Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism.
Lecture 5.3 Kierkegaard, Møller and Schlegel
Loading...
来自 University of Copenhagen 的课程
索伦·克尔凯郭尔：主体性，反讽与现代性危机
474 个评分
从本节课中
Kierkegaard, Møller and Schlegel
During this unit, we will continue the analysis of the second part of The Concept of Irony. Here Kierkegaard introduces the irony of the German Romantics as a contrastive form of irony to that of Socrates. We begin with Kierkegaard’s account of Fichte’s theory of subjectivity which, he (following Hegel) claims is the forerunner to Romantic irony. This then leads to Kierkegaard’s account of the appropriation of Fichte’s theory by the Romantic authors, Friedrich von Schlegel and Ludwig Tieck. This lecture also introduces one of Kierkegaard’s great mentors, Poul Martin Møller, who was also interested in an analysis of Romantic irony as a form of modern nihilism. We see how Kierkegaard is critical of Romantic irony as “historically unjustified,” while he continues his praise of Socratic irony. Finally, we continue the biographical narrative of Kierkegaard’s life with an account of his relation to and broken engagement with Regine Olsen.
与讲师见面
Jon Stewart, PhD, Dr theol & philFormer Associate Professor
Søren Kierkegaard Research Centre
[MUSIC]
Kierkegaard finished The Concept of Irony at the beginning of summer 1841 and
he submitted it to the faculty of philosophy on June the third.
The dean of the faculty was the professor of philosophy, Frederik Christian Sibbern,
who had the task of putting together the committee to evaluate the work.
He sent the work to the classical philologists, Johan Nikolai Madvig,
Peter Christian Peterson, Peter Oluf Brondsted, as well as the physicist and
then director of the University of Copenhagen Hans Christian Orsted and
finally the young theologian who we already discussed Hans Lassen Martensen.
The committee was in agreement that the work was certainly sufficient for
the academic degree.
But they had serious reservations about the style of the work.
And even suggested that it be reworked
to eliminate what they regarded as its stylistic excesses.
They further complained that it didn't have the proper scholarly tone for
an academic work.
They thought that Kierkegaard was self-indulgent, trying to appear witty and
clever in some passages and these were inappropriate in an academic context.
Expresses his view concisely when he writes in his report,
"Despite the fact that I certainly see in the work, The Concept of Irony,
the expression of significant intellectual strengths I Nevertheless cannot deny that
it makes a generally unpleasant impression on me particularly because of two things,
both of which I detest, verbosity and affectation.".
On the 29th of September 1841, Kierkegaard publicly defended his thesis,
presumably here in the old university building of the University of Copenhagen.
In accordance with tradition,
the oral defense took place not in Danish, but in Latin.
The official opponents or questioners at the defense were Sibbern and
Brøndsted, but
there was also the possibility of other people from the audience to ask questions.
And in all, seven such unofficial opponents took the opportunity
to raise objections to Kierkegaard's work.
In the official report about the event, Brøndsted praised Kierkegaard for
his ability to respond convincingly to the questions that were posed.
Kierkegaard must have been relieved to have completed his degree.
But more importantly, The Concept of Irony had helped him to develop
his own thinking about a number of key issues.
As he now contemplated his future, it was inevitable that
some of the things that were important in the context of his master's thesis would
be incorporated into both his coming works, and his view of life.
I'm joined here today by Professor Karl Verstrynge from the Free University
in Brussels, Belgium.
Professor Verstrynge is one of the leading international experts for
Kierkegaard in the field for philosophical psychology.
In addition, he's a leading member of a project to translate Kierkegaard's to
Dutch, and several volumes of this beautiful edition have already appeared.
Professor Verstrynge, Kierkegaard was an acute observer of the modern problems,
caused by subjectivity, relativism and nihilism.
Problems he sought primarily in the German romantics.
This resulted in many psychological problems that people still struggle
with to this very day.
Here I'm thinking of problems such as melancholy,
alienation, loneliness, depression, anxiety, and so forth.
What in your view was Kierkegaard's understanding of problems of this kind?
Well allow me to answer first of all your question
by referring to the German philosopher
Karl Jaspers, who actually said that Kierkegaard was the first modern
philosopher to give an adequate account of not only his age,
but only the age we are living in, an account
where he is actually saying that we live nowadays,
in a reality that became highly unreal,
as if reality slipped through our fingers,
that we are no longer able to really relate to the here and the now,
to the actual we're living in.
Could you give us an example of unreal reality?
Well, if I am to give an example, Professor Stewart, here we are, look at us.
Constructing web lessons that are attended by I don't know how many people,
where in the world.
People that attend those lessons in a very virtual way,
in a non actual way, they shouldn't even come out of their beds or
their houses to attend your beautiful lessons.
Think about Facebook, think about virtual social realities,
think about those realms where we construct our virtual identities.
Thereby passing by the true persons we are.
So I think these are examples where actually, you can really see that
Kierkegaard was highly influential also for later philosophers thought about that.
Can you give us some examples of some leading philosophers who've
been influenced by Kierkegaard on this issue?
Well think, for example, about those leading philosophers who made similar
analysis of the age we're living in.
Think about Jean Beaudrillard who actually talked about an age of simulators.
Think about Leotar who actually speaks about an age of melancholy.
Think about Zygmunt Bauman,
the Polish philosopher who speaks about the liquid lives we're living.
Or think about Ellul, who actually is saying well we live in a age of technological bluff.
I think it's very similar to Kierkegaard analysis of our age as an age of despair,
an age of anxiety, an age of, well, melancholy even.
So what do you see is Kierkegaard's solution to this problem?
Well of course that's the toughest question.
I'm not so sure whether Kierkegaard is the philosopher of many positive answers.
He mainly gives us directions in a negative way by saying,
well, this is not how we should live.
I think for example his analysis of despair where he's actually saying
despair is kind of a counter poison for what we are going through.
And so in the first place, Kierkegaard's warnings in that sense
he's the philosopher of becoming aware, of shaping awareness.
And then the positive sense I would say he's the philosopher of
teaching us how to become concrete again.
I'm not saying here that Kierkegaard would be saying do away with Facebook,
do away with all virtual reality, because that is well became part of the here and
the now we're living in.
But at least we should be aware of those realms in
virtual reality that is strangest
from ourselves, from the actuality we're living in.
During the time that Kierkegaard was a student at the University of Copenhagen
and was writing The Concept of Irony,
he had his famous courtship with the young Regine Olsen.
He met the 15 year old Regine when he was visiting friends in Frederiksberg,
a suburb of Copenhagen, in the fall of 1837.
Regina lived with her family at Børsgade 66 in a house that was right behind
this building, the old stock exchange.
Unfortunately the house where they lived has been destroyed.
It's been replaced by a new one but we can still see it from old pictures.
Apparently, Kierkegaard and Regine knew each other somewhat for about three
years and it was in August and September of 1840 when Kierkegaard was finishing his
dissertation, that their courtship reached it's most important phase.
On September 8th, he saw Regine in the street and accompanied her to her home.
There was no one else at home and he asked her to play the piano for
him as she so often did.
After a short time, he closed the music book and
said to Regina that this was not why he had come.
He then, in his own idiosyncratic way,
proposed marriage to her, which apparently took her completely by surprise.
He immediately stood up and rushed out to the door without any clear response.
Kierkegaard went to Regina's father,
who was a high ranking civil servant, and asked for her hand in marriage.
Regina's father was also surprised, but
said he would go along with the idea as long as his daughter agreed.
So two days later, on September the 10th, Regina Olsen gave her consent and
the two were engaged.
Shortly after the engagement
was agreed to, Kierkegaard and Regine Olsen met here in the arch
passageway behind the royal palace, next to the riding ring.
Regine reports that Kierkegaard suddenly seems to have been changed and
to have become absent and cold.
She gradually came to understand that this was a part of
the inherited melancholy that ran in the Kierkegaard family.
But it didn't deter her from wanting to be Kierkegaard's wife.
At some point along the way,
Kierkegaard began to have some misgivings about the prospect of married life.
By August of 1841, he decided that he couldn't go through with it.
His reasons for this have been the source of endless speculation- And it's probably
safe to say that there were many different factors involved in his decision and that
there was not just one single reason that would explain his sudden change of heart.
On August the 11th, 1841, Kierkegaard broke off the engagement and
returned the ring to Regine.
He wrote to her a farewell letter that, somewhat oddly, he later reprinted,
verbatim, in his pseudonymous work, Stages on Life's Way.
Regine was completely distraught, and implored him not to break with her.
Her father also invited Kierkegaard to his house in order to discuss the matter.
Her father begged him to reconsider his decision,
explaining how Regine was upset beyond all consolation.
Kierkegaard consented to speak with her and to try to console her, but
he remained unmoved on the main issue of marrying her.
So, Kierkegaard spoke with Regine, kissed her for the last time, and
left with Regine finally accepting the situation.
There was a great public scandal surrounding this event.
Copenhagen was not a large city and everybody knew about him.
The Olsen family was outraged and felt publicly humiliated.
Kierkegaard subsequently tried to cultivate a public image
of being a scoundrel in order, in a sense, to take the blame himself and
to allow Regine to avoid the feeling of any wounded pride.
Given the situation, the atmosphere in Copenhagen was unpleasant for
him, and so he decided to get out of the city for a while and
to take a trip to Berlin, the capital of Prussia.
He departed on a boat for Berlin on October the 25th, 1841.
Kierkegaard's critical account of Schlegel and
romantic irony certainly has a degree of importance in the history of ideas.
But, is it really in any relevant way for us today, in the 21st century.
Although, it's relevance is, perhaps, not immediately obvious, this analysis is,
I think, highly important for us in modern times.
Let's think about the concept of living poetically.
That Kierkegaard uses to capture the romantics attempt to create themselves.
As we saw, living poetically simply refers to the way in which the Romantic Ironist
can free himself from the actuality of established society, and
create himself at will.
He can choose to make himself anything he wishes.
Reinterpreting his past and his present at will.
He wishes to present a public image of himself to others
that demonstrates his ability to live according to his own premises.
To live free from the constraints of traditional customs and bourgeois society.
Well, the formulation living poetically May sound like something foreign and
not immediately comprehensible, what's described here is not so
different from something that's very common to our modern experience.
All of us try in one way or
another to present a specific image of ourselves to others.
We cultivate a public picture of ourselves that embodies all the positive features
and character traits that we value.
We wish to be seen, for example,
as interesting, intelligent, attractive, and so forth.
We tell stories about ourselves that highlight these features.
We do this in different ways.
Think of online social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter.
What are we doing in these media?
In Facebook we're projecting a certain picture of ourselves to our friends and
acquaintances.
We're in a sense continually updating a kind of living autobiography.
We're telling the story of our lives to others.
But as everyone knows, there's always a discrepancy between,
on the one hand, the things one posts on Facebook and
the self image that they are intended to convey, and on the other hand,
the full totality of one's life, one's experiences, and one's personality.
everyone has certain character flaws that one tries to hide or
certain experiences that one's embarrassed or ashamed of.
These are not the kind of thing that we're anxious to put on her Facebook page.
but yet they still belong to who we are as individuals.
So there arises a split between the public image that one which is to cultivate, and
a true self which presumably overlaps in part with the public image, but
also contains much more and much that's less than flattering.
Here we can see the outlines of Kierkegaard's criticism
of the romantics view of living poetically.
There are people who take very seriously their Facebook page and
the image that it conveys.
Indeed, they take it so seriously that it becomes real.
They try to forget the other parts of their personalities
that don't fit this image.
This is what's known as the problem of authenticity.
The authentic person is true to him or
herself in the sense that they know full well that they are in a sense projecting
a fiction with their Facebook profile, and they're fully aware of and
in touch with the other aspects of their personalities that don't match this.
They're honest with themselves and recognize their flaws,
regarding them as areas for improvement.
But unfortunately, not everyone is always so honest.
There are also people who are inauthentic,
that is, they in a sense believe a lie that they've told about themselves since
it makes them look better in the public eye.
They don't recognize any failings or shortcomings with themselves.
While the romantic can try to live poetically,
and while the modern person can try to live like his public image,
this is always a part of a fiction that departs from who they really are.
This then raises the question with which we started.
What is the true self?
What makes me who I am?
Let's suppose that I wanted to be as honest and
authentic as absolutely possible, openly recognizing my shortcomings,
my failures, my negative character traits and so forth.
Can I ever really truly succeed?
Can I ever gain absolute transparency about who I am?
We all know people who are too hard on themselves.
Exaggerating the negative things about their persons and characters.
Their self-image is just the opposite of the one that we just discussed.
Instead of being overly positive, it's overly negative.
But in the end, it's no more accurate than the other view since
it doesn't reflect the true self more accurately.
So given the possibility of self-deception,
is it even possible for us to come to an accurate view of ourselves?
We've all had experiences where other people had a much
clearer insight into our character or situation then we ourselves had.
Other people can see certain things about us clearly from the outside where
we might have a blind spot.
So, maybe other people are a better judge of who we are.
But yet, other people also have their own agenda and their own forms of
self-deception, so why should we privilege their views to our own?
Here we can begin to see how complex this issue really is.
Our common sense intuitions tell us that there is something
that makes us unique and special.
We want to say that there is something absolute and
irreducible about our persons and characters.
But as soon as we try to define what this is, the problems start to arise.
So with his criticism of Schlegel and romantic irony, Kierkegaard confronts
the modern reader with the question that is or should be important to all of us.
Who am I?
[SOUND]
[MUSIC]
