In perhaps my favorite passage from the Phenomenology, Hegel says
that “what is called the unutterable is
nothing else than the untrue, the irrational, what is merely meant [but is not
actually expressed]” (§110). What can't be expressed by universal concepts and
communicated to another cannot constitute a truth, and Hegel seems to have
little interest in things that aren't true. Kierkegaard, like Hegel, also
associates language with universal concepts, saying that "As soon as I
speak, I express the universal, and if I do not do so, no one can understand
me" (110). But unlike Hegel, Kierkegaard seems to find these
incommunicable truths even more fascinating than communicable ones. Which is
perhaps why, on the whole, Kierkegaard takes more interest in Abraham than he
does in Hegel: Hegel (though I'm not sure I would call him a great
communicator) is a very meticulous communicator, while the story of Abraham
leaves a lot unsaid. In fact, Abraham's defining characteristic, his faith, is
incommunicable: he "cannot be mediated; in other words, he cannot
speak" (110). This seems to presuppose (and, in fact, Kierkegaard
explicitly insists on this) that there is "something" in the
individual apart from the universal--"an interiority that is incommensurable
with exteriority" (118).
This is a long way of introducing what really fascinates me
about Kierkegaard’s text: the fact that it was originally published under a
pseudonym. Perhaps Kierkegaard had more practical reasons for using a
pseudonym, but I would like to imagine that this decision has something to do
with the concept of the incommunicable and the unmediated. Maybe his anonymity
has something to do with his idea that some part of the individual is always
separate from the universal and impossible to communicate—that there are some
things about the individual that can’t be spoken. Kierkegaard’s chosen
pseudonym for this text is, after all, Johannes de Silentio. If this is the case—that Kierkegaard uses a pseudonym
because he, like every other individual, can only say so much—it actually seems
to make this text incredibly personal. These are just some preliminary musings,
but I think a sustained reading of anonymity and pseudonymity could shed some
light on incommunicability and the individual.
This is a fascinating point and is something to keep in mind when reading this text. Because the whole issue of speaking and communicating is so important to Kierkegaard clearly his use of pseudonym was intentional. Perhaps because he is trying to say something important, something that could almost not be said by himself.
ReplyDeleteYour second point about Kierkegaard using a pseudonym interests me. When authors use pseudonyms, they often regulate who they are as the voice of the book to a kind of archetype. In Keirkegaard's case the name is eponymous for his thesis. Johnannes de Silentio means John the Silent, obviously, but the name John means 'Yahweh is gracious'. In other words, the pseudonym can be read "The Silence of God's Grace."
ReplyDeleteThe Silence of God's Grace, is an absolutely fascinating concept! Grace implies a relationship with God, which is interesting given the beginning of Problema 2, in which Kierkegaard discusses the fact that every duty, is a duty, because it can be traced back to god, but that duty itself does not imply a relation to god. He gives the example of a duty to one's neighbor, which is a duty because it can be traced to god, but it is a relation to one's neighbor, not to god. But grace somehow implies a direct relation to god, not divorced from duty, because part of god's grace could be duty, but still separate from it. Grace, however, is, like faith, incommunicable. Grace is a feeling in relation to the absolute, and the experience of grace, must be taken on faith. We so often see grace as the experience of god's mercy, but in essence, grace need not be particularly "happy," for lack of a better word. In an environmental theology class, I read a book titled: "Solace of a fierce landscape," in which the author described "grace in the grotesque." he claimed that in fierce landscapes, places which seem to be forgotten by god, we often find god's grace in the most profound way. He described the tradition of the desert fathers and mothers as an example of this. The author also discussed finding god's grace in the grotesque, in the experience of seeing god's grace, regaining his lost faith, even as he was watching his mother be torn apart by Alzheimer's for years and years, only to die of cancer demented, alone, confused and in pain. This experience was a profound struggle of faith for the author, and this author's "battle of faith" seems very similar to the type of faith Kierkegaard discusses, especially in reference to Abraham's struggle.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good jumping off point for examining the text. Kierkegaard's usage of a pseudonym in first publishing his work does seem to infuse, as you note, a "personal" element into the work. Perhaps a deeper message to be found within the text is that the work itself is so much greater than the mind from which it springs - that it stands on its own, in other words. To identify the individual as apart from the universal in regard to this text is insightful in a way that I hope will stimulate deeper analysis of the text in our class today.
ReplyDelete