"Purity of Heart Is To Will One Thing" by Søren Kierkegaard

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "To call Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical "absurd" and "schizophrenic" is to miss the irony of the point that he's trying to make. He's asking, rhetorically, is there anything e..."

I realize he's attacking Hegel. He is also torturing the definition of ethics to mean different things on a human and teleological basis (hence schizophrenic). But this is the same argument the US uses to justify torture of "terrorists". "Yes we have laws and treaties that preclude torture (i.e. ethics)" they agree, "but in this case the stakes are so high that we have to suspend our laws for the greater good and commit torture" (God's ethics). So Kierkegaard proposes a relativist notion of ethics in which God is allowed to suspend his own rules because we as humans may not be able to see the bigger picture.

If the ethics of God transcend human ethics, then human ethics are merely a social construct created by Man for Man. Which leads you to conclude that God has no practical involvement in what Man determines is Good/Evil. The endpoint of that line of reasoning is that human ethics are NOT divinely implemented by an incomprehensible deity. Therefore the belief that God is the arbiter of ethics and morals appears "absurd". (I think Kierkegaard wouldn't disagree with me too much up to this point). Which is why we have to make that leap of faith. To believe in God's supreme knowledge of right and wrong even though it is contrary to human understanding. So you can say of any evil, "God made me do it." And of course people do use this very argument to justify atrocity. Is that ironic, or what?

[John]

That's odd ... in all the commentaries on Kierkegaard that I've read, I've never seen one comparing what he's saying to the US allowing the torture of detainees, or any other human rights abuses. I wonder why that is. As I remember his argument, he never says that claiming divine sanction for any of your actions absolves you from responsibility in a community of your human peers. Does he suggest anywhere in the text that the teleological suspension of the ethical ethically dismisses atrocities? If he does, please cite me a reference because I must have missed that part.

You said that "If the ethics of God transcend human ethics, then human ethics are merely a social construct created by Man for Man." But isn't that what a lot of people - especially atheists - argue anyway? I'm not an atheist, but I recognize that most rules/laws/ethical proscriptions that we follow are social constructs. But he's not arguing for relativism. He's arguing for absurdism. When you used the word earlier, you seemed to say his argument itself was absurd, as opposed to it simply describing an absurdist idea. It's absurd because he owned the label "Absurdist" and would have identified, I think, with irrationalism. But when you called faith a form of knowledge in the ninteenth century, that's what people called you.

[John]

MadgeUK wrote: "He's asking, rhetorically, is there anything else we should have in mind as the ultimate good other than the human good?

And what is his conclusion? What about the good of the animal world and th..."

Who's a post-Kierkegaardian?

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "That's odd ... in all the commentaries on Kierkegaard that I've read, I've never seen one comparing what he's saying to the US allowing the torture of detainees, or any other human rights abuses. ..."

Kierkegaard's reasoning is parallel to those who make similar arguments to justify exempting themselves/the state/the church from ethical constructs. Isn't this precisely what makes his argument absurd?

Whether it's relativism or not depends on your point of view.

[John]

No, it doesn't depend on anyone's point of view. Relativism says that different things are okay for different communities. Where does he say that rape, or torture, or genocide would be okay for ANY human community?

As far as justifying the state/the church, that might be what makes it absurd, but it's not what makes it Absurd. The Absurdity arises from the radical subjectivity and the so-called "leap" of faith. You might think that Aquinas or Augustine's reasoning was absurd, but no one would ever accuse it of being Absurd, since it doesn't require that same leap.

I'd be glad to look up those references if you can provide them.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, the leap of faith is what's absurd. Because if you applied this kind of argument to any other entity but God you wouldn't accept it. That's my whole point. Many others, from individuals to institutions, have made explicitly the same arguments as Kierkegaard and then said "Trust me". And of course, one shouldn't

And certainly at some level you knew what I was saying, otherwise you wouldn't have said "Where does he say that rape, or torture, or genocide would be okay for ANY human community?", because he does say that when he discusses Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ready to murder his son at God's command. He just has to have faith that God's reasons (ethics) transcend his own.

[John]

Of course you wouldn't accept it if applied to anything else. What else would it apply to?

As I've attempted to point out several other times, nowhere does Kierkegaard say that Abraham's killing of Isaac - if he had actually killed him - would have been socially acceptable or excusable. Does he say this anywhere? Again, he's making a rhetorical point.

[[deleted user]]

*stares at John completely baffled* Isn't the whole point that it wouldn't be socially acceptable? But it would be acceptable for God to suspend these socially accepted standards for His own purpose? Ergo God is beyond human ethics. And since God is the source of ethics you have a conundrum which is resolved by an absurdity (the "leap").

I'm pointing out that people (not God) have used an identical form of argument for justifying the unjustifiable and demanded the same kind of leap of faith. Sadly, it's often granted to them by supporters of whatever cause drives them.

So K's leap of faith to resolve an ethical question is identical to other "leaps of faith" engaged in by men to resolve ethical questions. Completely irrational on both counts.

[John]

That it wouldn't be socially acceptable and his ENDORSEMENT of that particular act (or whole class of acts) are two totally different things. You were implying that he would endorse or support crimes and say that they should go unpunished if God "told you to do them" (or whatever). The fact is, he never says that.

You asked "But it would be acceptable for God to suspend these socially accepted standards for His own purpose?" I don't know, since I have no idea what God's purposes are, nor would I ever claim to know the ethical demands that he would have human beings follow.

While one can't be certain about such things, I have the sneaking suspicion that when people use that argument (if one can even call it that) about some sort of leap of faith, I hardly think it's of the Kierkegaardian strand which has its roots in an existential and angst-ridden faith. I would imagine it goes something more like "Well, I don't care what's legal or illegal, I wanted to do it anyway." Not that that makes it any better or worse, or course.

By the way, I'm not sure if you're using "irrational" to try to dismiss what he's attempting to say. Perhaps you aren't, I'm not sure. But as you probably already know, it's a label he wouldn't try to disown. He saw it as a genuine way of fighting against the middle class Christianity that was dominating the Danish Church at the time and their lemming morality.

It's an odd way to address the problem, but his innovation has always struck a special chord for me. Maybe I'm just partial to, as I put it, his views of stifling bourgeois Christianity

[[deleted user]]

I was using irrational to mean you can't arrive there using reason (in the Hegelian sense).

I also read this many, many (not counting) years ago and am not really in a good position to be demanding my own interpretation since I have forgotten a lot of it, but hey it's GR and I'm not being graded.

Kierkegaard's recognition that acceptance of God required a leap of faith was ground breaking and I've always wanted to applaud him for that. I like your expression "existential and angst-ridden faith". Certainly he and many others were cast adrift as the Enlightenment and the cult of Science swept over European thought. I'm thinking, though, that you just have a fondness for ideological outlaws :)

[John]

You're right, actually. Thinking about my favorite people throughout history, they've tended to be the underdogs, philosophical and otherwise.

By the way, I was just thinking that it's unfortunate that once we actually got to talking about some real ideas that we're the only two talking about them.

Did we scare everyone off? Maybe we should stop using the word "teleological." :)

[John]

You are the one that started us on the Kierkegaard conversation in the first place, you know.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "You're right, actually. Thinking about my favorite people throughout history, they've tended to be the underdogs, philosophical and otherwise.

By the way, I was just thinking that it's unfortunat..."

I don't think intellectual history engages everyone's attention :) And pinning this on Patrice works for me. I'll let her take over my place in the discussion. :>

[John]

Kate Mc. wrote: "John wrote: "You're right, actually. Thinking about my favorite people throughout history, they've tended to be the underdogs, philosophical and otherwise.

By the way, I was just thinking that it..."

I think we nicely discussed all the main points. Without getting into minutiae, I think we covered most of the stuff that can be said. And I was even half-way civil. It must be that Christmas spirit sinking in.

[John]

lol @ "kill rams instead."

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "John wrote: "You're right, actually. Thinking about my favorite people throughout history, they've tended to be the underdogs, philosophical and otherwise.

By the way, I was just..."

Must be the reason. I take that to mean that we are on notice that such civility may be fleeting :P

[MadgeUK]

John wrote: By the way, I was just thinking that it's unfortunate that once we actually got to talking about some real ideas that we're the only two talking about them..."

I'm reading y'all but Kate is making the points for me far more adequately than I could:).

[MadgeUK]

John wrote: "Who's a post-Kierkegaardian?
.."

I don't know but I am assuming that some modern philosopher has been opposing God about giving man dominion over the earth and all its creatures. Maybe a vegetarian philosopher:)

[Nemo]

I started this thread to discuss Kierkegaard's book Purity of Heart, but most of the discussions have been off topic.

Should we move this thread to "Focus on Our Authors" and discuss Kierkegaard's philosophy in general? Now that Kate will be mostly offline, I don't know if other people are interested in carrying on the discussion.

[Nemo]

MadgeUK wrote: "You posted:-

MadgeUK wrote: "Of course, it all depends on the faith I do not have."

'You do have faith. :) The reason you reject an unloving God is because you believe God, if He exists, must be ..."

My apologies if that comment offended you, MadgeUK. I had no idea it would.

[John]

MadgeUK wrote: "John wrote: "Who's a post-Kierkegaardian?
.."

I don't know but I am assuming that some modern philosopher has been opposing God about giving man dominion over the earth and all its creatures. May..."

Whether you "oppose God" or not would be rather beside the point as far as Kierkegaard is concerned. Since his work is all about radical subjectivity, the personal decision you make on whether to make the leap or not probably couldn't concern him less.

[Nemo]

Here is the thread for general discussions on Kierkegaard. To start, I'll respond to Kate's message 112 over there.

[John]

Is there a reason why a second Kierkegaard thread needs to be started? Isn't one plenty?

[Nemo]

John wrote: "Is there a reason why a second Kierkegaard thread needs to be started? Isn't one plenty?"

The other thread is for general discussions on the philosophy, life and works of Kierkegaard, and this is for discussions specifically related to his book Purity of Heart.

[John]

Well, we're already well over comment #100, and the commentary on "Purity" seems to be running sort of dry. As I said earlier, it's not one of his better pieces of writing. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the only one that's read it here.

[Nemo]

John wrote: "As I said earlier, it's not one of his better pieces of writing. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the only one that's read it here...."

That's the reason I recommended it to the group. :)
I thought you read it too, otherwise, how could you judge its quality?

[John]

I've skimmed it. I prefer the more rigorous, systematic work.

[Nemo]

John wrote: "I've skimmed it. I prefer the more rigorous, systematic work."

I think Kierkegaard is at his most rigorous and incisive when he distinguishes purity of heart from all kinds of double-mindedness, mixed and hidden motives in this book.

[John]

That leaves me unsure as to whether you're read things like "The Concept of Anxiety."