066 - Kierkegaard vs. Hegel: The Existentialism/Absolute Idealism Debate

19th century Danish theologian and philosopher Søren Kierkegaard was a towering figure not only in philosophy and religion, but in psychology as well.  He is commonly considered to be the father of Existentialism, with the importance he place on individual subjectivity in finding meaning and truth.  He was also a fierce critic of Hegel.  

By examining the differences between the two, one can hopefully see the distinctiveness of each.  This podcast episode will examine two main themes of Kierkegaard, that of subjectivity and the "leap of faith," to show where some commonalities exist, where their difference was a matter of emphasis, and where there exists an unbridgeable gap between the two.  

I hope to show how their differences cannot be reduced to the old "individual vs. society" or "head vs. the heart" debate; but what I believe to be a faulty/incomplete portrayal of Hegel's philosophy by Kierkegaard.  

Transcript

0:01

Hello, this is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist episode 66. Welcome back. The purpose of this podcast is to explore philosophy, psychology and science with an emphasis on the great 19th century philosopher, George William Friedrich Hegel. In this episode. I will be showing why I believe Hegel's philosophy provides a full context and understanding of just what is going on in the world. We live in from a macro top-down outline perspective. And how his philosophy can also show us individuals. W that we have the power to change things in our lives. And in the lives of others for the better. And that is because mind is baked into the universe along with matter. Which means the universe is not absurd. And it is our role here to bring about greater rationality in the world to improve it for one and all. To better understand this. I believe it will be helpful to focus on the 19th century. Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard. And in particular, the criticism that he leveled against Hagle. And it is often by exploring objections. Then one can see the strengths of a position in better light. And carrier God's work provides an excellent vehicle for this. His work can be viewed as a direct reputation of Hegel's philosophy of absolute idealism. So let's get into it. First who is Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a Danish theologian and philosopher who was often cited as the first to expound existentialist thoughts. And he's often called the father of existentialism. And as all of you probably know, existentialism became very popular in the 20th century. As a philosophical way of thought is probably the leading, philosophical thought today. Kierkegaard was born in 18, 13 and died at the very young age of 42. But he He wrote in published many works often under pseudonyms. And it's interesting. He did that because he would often argue with himself under different names in things that he published. And what I found in doing the research was the, the full impact of his work was not felt until many of his writings were translated into other languages. Later in the 20th century. And I was very much impressed by what a towering figure he was in philosophical circles. Doing the researcher, this really came through, he had an enormous influence on Nicha, Heidegger, Sartre, and others. He also beyond philosophy. He had enormous influence in psychology, particularly with the 20th century humanistic movement in psychology, which would include people like Victor Frankl, Eric from Carl Rogers. And Rolo may. And if that were not enough. He is often credited. It was starting the postmodern movement. That all truth is subjective. And last but not least. Kierkegaard also had a major influence on Christian theology. He expressed the importance of an inward individual spirituality in the Lutheran Protestant tradition. And not just accepting dogma, blindly from the church. And it is interesting. His influence in the 20th century is certainly as widespread as Hegel's and perhaps even more influential. And that is saying a lot. So here we have a very worthy. Adversary to halal. And this difference in outlook by two giants of philosophy is what we're going to consider in this episode. Now. We want to understand Hagle and see how his philosophy can shape our lives. And in, so doing, we can't ignore his major critics. Anyone who wants to understand to Galean is a must address. The issues brought up by Kierkegaard. And as often by looking at harsh criticism, the we can get a better idea of just what we stand for. And this is what I want to do in this episode. Now I'm not going to painstakingly cover all of care. God's work. There's just too much. But what I'm going to do is present a couple of themes that he used to counter Hagle, and I'm going to address them. And instead. Some detail. Now there is plenty of material on the internet that one can find free of charge regarding Kierkegaard's work. And let me point you toward two works that I found very helpful in addressing the Hagle Kierkegaard debate. The first is Cuker guards relations to Hagle reconsidered, which is booked by John Stewart, published in 2003. And the absolute paradox, Kierkegaard argument against haggles account of the relation of faith to philosophy. Which is a paper by David James published in 2007. And as I said, for our purposes here, I'm going to focus on two major themes. That I've selected from Kira God's work. The first is. The importance of subjectivity in determining truth. And the second is what is commonly called a leap of faith. Now let me point out. Is often said that Kierkegaard coined the term leaf of faith, but he never used those pres that precise term. So, but I'm going to continue to use that because it's so common, but he used other words to describe the leap of faith. So let's deal with the first subjectivity. One of the expressions that Kierkegaard is best known for is the line. Quote, subjectivity is truth. And quote, or that quote truth is subjectivity and quote. This thought was later picked up by Nicha in his famous phrase, quote, there are no facts, only opinions and quote. Now Kierkegaard did not mean that there are no objective facts out there in the world, just that these facts need to be interpreted by a subject. And this interpretation is also critical to understand. And this brings me to the American pragmatist philosopher, Charles Pierce. Whom you remember we've discussed here often before he had a theory of signs that suggested all phenomena consist of an event. Uh, assign or signal for that event. And then interpretation of that sign. All three, go together. We discussed Pierce's work specifically in episode 52. Now Kierkegaard centered the truth and meaning of something, whether it be religious or anything else back on the individual's own perception and understanding without this, the meaning or truth is empty. Now it is just as point of subjectivity and that was the jumping off point for the existentialist movement. But more in this later. Now, this is the first area. The Kierkegaard took issue with Hagle Kierkegaard criticized Hegel's work as leaving out the individual and putting emphasis much more on something called Geist spirit. And this Geister spirit can sweep up, not only individuals, but whole communities and even nations in its goal. Hey go clearly saw individuals as being linked to each other first to family, then to their community and the communities then linked to the nation state. Which has its own spirit as I'd Geist. And then there's the working out of the nations fighting for dominance in the overall historical movement of spirit. So in a Galean philosophy, the individual can be come a very small cog in the very vast wheel of history. And some critics, including Kierkegaard felt that the importance of the individual was ignored. And he Gaylene ism. Now Geer Kogarah was coming at this. Issue of subjectivity, primarily from a religious standpoint, which we'll get into where he believed true religion was a matter of personal faith, not just mouthing the words and having no skin in the game. If you will. To Kierkegaard, there's nothing more important or powerful than what was in an individual's heart. And on the other hand, Hagle sees a grand operation at work in which the individual has the smallest unit. Kierkegaard. Sees this individual unit, however, is the only source of meaning and purpose. Or hago takes a much broader sweep. So, is there a disagreement here or not? Well, my personal feeling is that this is a matter of emphasis. This question of subjectivity between Halen Kierkegaard. It is not a categorical difference in fundamental belief. I believe that Kierkegaard and Hagle do have a fundamental difference. In secondary, we'll be discussing the leap of faith, but not, not quite so much here. To me, there are differing views on subjectivity as a matter of emphasis. And it's not a Gulf between two different opinions. And the reason I say this is that Hagle as we've discussed here before does put subjectivity at the heart of the cosmos. He said, substance is subject. The universe itself is alive and ultimately has one subject. They have the absolute, we discussed this in detail in episode 24. Hey go famously said, quote, everything turns on grasping and expressing the true, not as substance, but equally as subject and quote. And I believe that Hagle does describe the universe as meaningful as having purpose as we discussed in episode 20. Now you might say, well, that's, that's fine for the cosmos as a whole, but what does this have to do with me as an individual? Well, What it has to do is the fact that Hagle puts the subjectivity, not in some far away place or a different dimension, but it's right within us. It doesn't exist anywhere else. And on this both Hagle and cure regard. Agree. The only difference is that Hagle steps back and sees the larger sweep of history unfolding where Kierkegaard stays just with the individual. Now I believe a very good example of what I'm talking about is provided in Hegel's phenomenology of spirit. It is indeed an exploration of individual consciousness and its meaning. And it's master slave dialectic is a brilliant study of when its self-consciousness first meets another. And we discuss this in depth way back in episode 13. And this shows how the difference in Hagle and Kierkegaard begins to show itself for Hagle. There's no true self-consciousness without another self-consciousness one seeing oneself in light of the, of another. For Hagle. True. Self-consciousness must involve another. Now is not that the two self-consciousness is melt into one. each retains its own consciousness, of course, but it's understanding of just who and what it is is based on a confrontation or a meeting of another like consciousness. It was American sociologist, Charles Cooley, who said back in 1902. Quote, I am not who you think I am. I am not who I think I am. I am who I think you think I am in quote. Anyone that was worked through the master slave dialectic portion of the phenomenology of spirit and understand just how important this is. So here's the difference in emphasis? Hagle emphasizes the relationship Kierkegaard emphasizes the individual. Kira guards philosophy and it all of existentialism for that matter. Put individualism at the core. Now one way the Kierkegaard puts it as this. He sees the inner is higher than the outer Hagle actually does as well. Logic reason, the absolute idea is higher than the other, the nature. And here's where Kierkegaard goes wrong. It misunderstands Hagle. In my view, he claims Hagle puts the outer are higher than the inner. But as we know, this is not the case. He goes, not put the world out there higher than spirit. That is clear. Let me quote. Kierkegaard directly here. So you can see what I mean, quote. That the individual is higher than the universal that the individual determines is relation to the universal by his relation to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute by his relation to the universal. And quote. What this means is that the individual has relation with God the absolute first. And by this, they determined their relationship to the world at large, the universal. So this inner relation comes first and is higher than the outer relation to the world. However Kierkegaard takes Hagle is saying that the individual needs their relation to the world first. That being the social relationship. And then that takes precedent over one's individual relationship with the absolute or got, however, this is clearly not what Hegel's philosophy is about in my view. For Hagle. One has their own reason thinking capabilities, their own spirit. This comes first and his highest spirit is highest. And next the individual is influenced and as a part of a larger whole. For Hagle, the individual is both a single unit in part of our relationship at the same time for handling nothing exists separately by itself, everything is in relation. And the early pages of his science of logic, when he first gets to the notion of a something. That there must be another something to even declare a first something in the first place. This obviously for shadows, the emergence of self-consciousness that we discussed earlier, that in order for one to be truly self-conscious, they have to be confronted with another self-consciousness. And the science of logic in order for there to be something there has to be another or something there to identify the first something. For Hagle spirit is within. It can be known. It can provide one with guidance and direction in life. And for Hagle, it's not that the relationship comes. First. Spirit comes first and spirit is found though through the relationship. Jesus said for where two or three gather in my name there am I with them? This is what Hagle is saying. The individual is not an island. So Hagle is in part agreeing with Kierkegaard that the truth is within. Now there's different emphasis provides a very different underlying structure between Hagle and Kierkegaard. So now Hagle is not putting the outer above the inner spirit comes first for Hagle as it does for Kierkegaard. And the difference is For Hagle spirit is manifested through our relations with others for Kierkegaard. It is a matter solely of individual faith. Which brings us to the second theme. Of differentiation between the two, the leap of faith. And this I believe is where a huge difference lies between the two philosophers. Let's first turn to Hagle. Hagle, believe that there is no golfer gap beyond which we can not know things. And this was his major breaking point with current. Concept that we can only know something from our own knowledge and perceptions. What. But what the thing. In itself is an actuality. We could never know. Hazel said that we absolutely could know the thing in itself. Hey, go felt that our knowledge of absolute truth was part of absolute truth itself. There was no barrier. And our goal here is to increasingly recognize this. We are all involved in it, storage process to discover who we actually are. God is not independent from us. God, if you want to use that term is our collective appreciation and understanding of the episode at any one moment in time. But Kierkegaard hill. An entirely different view. It is funny that many existentialists are atheists because the father of existentialism Kierkegaard was anything, but he firmly believed in a God that is holy other from humans. And that there was a gap, a gap that is impossible to surpass between us and God. And that we must make a leap of faith here in our religious conviction. And this leap of faith is a paradox. It is not to be understood. It cannot be understood. It rests on faith alone. So you see the difference here. Heiko presents a completely different picture. God, the absolute, and he can be understood. This is what this is why we're here. Now. Let me read an interesting passage from Hagle, where he describes faith as a unity of both. An eternal awareness, something similar to cure regard, and also a formal creed or belief system. The passage is this quote. I understand by faith, neither the merely subjective side of belief, which is restricted to them form of certainty, leaving untouched, the nature of the content, if any. Of the belief, nor on the other hand, only the credo, the church's confession of faith, which can be recited and learned by rote. Without communicating itself to man's inner most self without being identified with a certainty, which a man has of himself. With his consciousness of himself. I hold that faith. In the true ancient sense of the word is a unity of both these moments, including the one no less than the other and quote. So Hagle is saying here that faith is not just an internal sense. And also it's not just a bang, the doctrine of some church or religion. He's saying that both the internal and external are needed together. It is in this internal sense that validates the individual. What is being taught that what is being taught is correct. Otherwise it is blind faith obedience. And this blind faith is precisely what Kierkegaard is calling for. Let's consider the Christian religion. Halo proposes his own unique way of viewing it in Hegel's narrative. God, the other was negated when God became incarnate in the finite person of Jesus. And upon Jesus, his death spirit, the infinite was now available to all the community of believers and we discussed Haydel's non-traditional take in episode five. No miracles, no physical resurrection, Hegel adapted the Christian narrative to mirror his own tripartite system of logic, nature, and spirit. Where the absolute idea, haggles God, others itself in nature, and then comes to know itself in reality, as spirit in the world, through art, religion, and philosophy. In a sense, Hagle has moved the Christian narrative from just picture thinking, representational thought to philosophy to rationality. And Hagle puts great emphasis on Christianity as being the revealed religion. He sees Christianity and his version is revealing. God. Just the same as he does his own philosophy. Can you speak to this as follows? Quote. God has revealed himself through the Christian religion. That is, he has granted mankind, the possibility of recognizing what he is So that he is no longer an impenetrable mystery. The fact that knowledge of God is possible also makes it our duty to know him. And that development of the thinking spirit, which proceeds from this foundation. There revelation of the divine being must eventually produce a situation in which all that was at first present to spirit and feeling, and representation can also be comprehended by thought and quote. So Hagle here is explaining. That, what was. Previously accepted emotionally through narratives pictures, stories can now be known. It could be accepted intellectually through reason. And it is our duty to understand this. This is our mission. If you will. And angel felt that the time had come for this new understanding, this new revealed religion. He said that the spirit of the age quote has developed to a stage where thinking in the way of looking at things, which goes together with thinking has become for consciousness and imperative condition of what did shall admit and recognize as true. And quote. So the enlightenment, the new focus on rationality and reason had developed to a point among some individuals. That the Christian religious narrative needed to be lifted to a higher plane, to the end of reason. And rationality. Not this Hegel's philosophical, rational take on the Christian narrative Does not invalidate the story, the narrative. To those who are not yet ready to accept it on a more rational understanding. It must be recognized, and this is important than many back then. And even today are not ready for a philosophical understanding of life or religion. Faith is enough and faith is good in those situations. However. It is this new rational understanding of the Christian narrative that Hagle provides Kierkegaard violently disagrees with. Hagle believes that the rational can bridge the emotional without totally watering it down. And in essence, changing it. Kierkegaard, however, sees the Christian narrative is entirely irrational. To Kierkegaard God who is infinite, can not rationally, reasonably become Holly finite in one finite person. This is irrational and it is meant to be, so we are not meant to understand how this could happen. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead is not rational. And it is not meant to be rational. Kierkegaard describes the incarnation as quote a break with all thinking and quote. In other words, the only way to understand the incarnation is that it can not be understood. So much for Hitler's reason and rationality procure her guard. Kierkegaard says this truth is ultimately unknowable and we must build our life on faith. So in Kierkegaard's view, it is this paradox, this absurdity. Is what distinguishes the Christian religion from all others. And Kierkegaard goes even further and saying the doubt intellectual doubt is absolutely necessary in order to have this true faith. Without the doubt, there is no faith. If it is rationally obvious. If there is no doubt than it does not. I need a leap of faith, which is where he puts all his chips in terms of what true religion is. So the doubt must be held inside as well as the faith. They go together. So for Kierkegaard, this holding of doubt and faith together must be emotional. It must be passionate. It must be passionately strong. And this is where truth is found. According to him, he says, quote, the passion of the infinite is for the truth in quote. The passion he felt was higher than reason for him. Christianity. Generates this passion. For Kierkegaard, what matters is what something means to me, meaning that I can get passionate about. And he believes his passion is required to get things done is not a matter of knowing things, but doing things. He summarizes his very well in the following quote, let me read this. Quote. The thing to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do. The thing is to find a truth, which is true for me to find the idea for which I can live in die. What would be the use of discovering so-called objective truth that working through all the systems of philosophy and of being able, if required to review them all and show up. The inconsistencies with any system, what good would it do me to be able to develop a theory of the state and combine all the details into a single hole? And so construct a world. In which I did not live. The only held up to the view of others. What good would it do me to be able to explain the meaning of Christianity? If. Ed, no deeper significance for me in my life. But it must be taken up into my life. And that is what I now recognize is the most important thing to be clear in my mind what I'm, what I am to do, not what I am to know. End quote. Now. This brings up the question you hear over and over again about philosophy. That philosophy is just kind of plenty things that bear no relation to one's life. Not relation to action. Mental masturbation. But I disagree strongly with this objection. I believe that Hagle is true. Infinity of going beyond the finite, given is a powerful message for personal achievement. And it's not based on blind faith. Hegel's project gave me a rational basis for believing his philosophy. And I could then take it to heart and use it to provide direction. For my life. I do think that thinking is the greatest gift we have and it should not be discarded. The Russian. So terrorist is. George Gurdjieff said. That there were four ways to enlightenment. the first is the way of the faker F a K I R. The second is the way of the priest. The third is the way of the Yogi. And the fourth is the way of the slime man. Let me elaborate a little bit. The first was the way of the faker. And he's referring here to the Hindu term of the aesthetic who finds enlightenment through depriving the body. It's a purely physical method of gaining control of her body, of her physical needs. The second way, the way of the priest and the monk is one who finds enlightenment through faith alone, through prayer and worship alone through their emotions. The third way is the way of the Yogi and other Hindu term for finding enlightenment through study and philosophy. And the fourth was the way of the slime man who combines all three other methods for success. Gurdjieff's. Interestingly said that the problem with the first method was the finger can get their body totally into control, but they don't know what to do. They don't have any passion for anything after that control is reached. The problem with the second method Gurdjieff noted is that the month, the person of faith has very strong feelings. They're very passionate. But they can accomplish nothing. They don't have the physical stamina of the faker nor the intellectual prowess of the Yogi. So nothing gets done. In fact, essentially they cannot act on their faith alone. The problem with the way of the Yogi is that although they know everything, they have no passion and no control of the body to get things done. It was only the fourth way, the way of the slime man who combines all three to accomplish things in the world. And it seems to me that Kierkegaard belongs firmly in the second method, the way of the monk. Whereas Hagle is clearly to me advocating the fourth way, the way of the slide person. Kierkegaard incorrectly claims that Hagle is only the third way, the way of the Yogi. His argument is that the way of the monk is superior to the way of the Yogi. But Hagle his unique take on spirit. And if you take this whole system, this tripartite system. It's an historical struggle for improvement and freedom. It is clearly the way of the SLI man to use Gurdjieff's term. This is what the cunning of Geist is all about. Yes, passions and emotions are very important, but so is judgment. And often seems a judgment and emotions are at war. The old head versus heart battle thing is both head and heart should have a seat at the table. The body, the emotions, the thought on need a seat at the table and it's up to us. To work with all three to manifest spirit. This is what separated Hagle from Kierkegaard. So let's summarize. Kierkegaard was considered a fierce critic of Hegel's philosophy. If viewed it as an interesting intellectual achievement that really had no bearing on the individual, he felt that Hagar was reworking of the Christian narrative removed all real substance from it. Kierkegaard emphasis on the personal, on the will and finding ones, meaning. And this outlook. Grew into a major philosophical movement of the 20th century existentialism. Finding one's meaning in an otherwise unknowable and meaningful. Universe. And Hagle stood for exactly the opposite of this for him all can be known. And this knowledge of the truth is historical and evolutionary. It is a struggle. Yes, the individual is important and one individual can change the course of history. As we've seen, it was Socrates Plato, Aristotle, Aaron Alexander, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Jesus, George Washington, Nepalian Gandhi, and so many others. But humans are not isolated by their own actions. And by combining with others, they can bring the infinite. To the finite and change the world. This is what a Gaylene ism is all about. So that's a wrap for this episode. Once again, thanks so much for listening. References will be posted at the podcast Facebook page at cunning of Geist in a day or two. So please be sure to follow that page. I often post things. Um, after an episode is released. And, uh, people comments, uh, please join. Join that page. In comment away. And if you're not already a member of the Hagle study group on Facebook, please consider joining. I'd love to have you. You can also follow me on Twitter, Gregory Nowak. And then the handle is coming of Geist. And one of the thing. I recently set up a Patrion page, which it allows those who choose to do so to support this podcast. And there's no minimum amount to become a patron of the podcast. And as you know, there are expenses involved in producing this, this podcast and I'm exploring different ways to help recoup some of these costs. I will plan to provide some special communication for patrons of the podcast at the Patrion site. I'm just getting started in this. It's in development, but I'll keep you posted. And you should be able to find a link to the Patrion page wherever you listen to this podcast. It will be under something like support the show or something like that. One more thing. Please, don't forget to tell your like-minded friends about the cutting of Geist and feel free to share links to this episode on social media. So that's it. This is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist CNX time.