Living with Kierkegaard

Enrahonar 29, 1998 7 37 4 Living with Kierkegaard Agnes Heller New School for Social Research K i e rk e g a a rd meant something ve ry similar to the philosophers and to some significant poets of the 20th century as Feuerbach meant for those second half of the 19.century. The name of feuerbach means «f i re cre e k ». The philosophers of the second half of the 19 century desired to leave behind both the philosophical tradition (metaphysics) and the artistic tradition (classicism) with a re vo l u t i o n a ry gesture. Kierk e g a a rd himself was one of those thinkers, as was also Ma rx, Wa g n e r, or Nietzsche. Feuerbach's thinking was/symbolically/ not a waterfall or a broad river to be crossed, but a creek. He was not significant as a philosopher, but just as a forru n n e r. W h o e ver crossed the creek re c e i ve d baptism by fire. But after they have crossed the creek, the creek lost its significance for the giants who crossed it. The philosophers and artists re c e i ve d their baptism through fire, but afterw a rds they had to become themselve s . They went far beyond Feuerbach; yet, they have never forgotten their Feuerbachian inspirations. Still, they constantly re p roached Feuerbach with having stopped at the beginning and never having finished the work he firt s b e g u n . One among those who crossed the feuerbachian creek, Kierk e g a a rd, became himself one of the significant sources for the thinkers and for (some) poets from the turn of the century onwards. Kierk e g a a rd's name means «c h u rc h y a rd/ churc h g a rden/». A churc h y a rd is a peaceful garden, one can sit t h e re, contemplate, rumiate. Yet it is also a grave y a rd. The most significant m e m b res of a community are normally buried there. The re p re s e n t a t i ve thinkers of 20th century do not cross the fire c reek any longer. If they still do it, they will abandon «baptism» by Kierk e g a a rd. Still, this churc h y a rd / g r a vey a rd, just as a century before the fire creek, exc e rted a never fading influence e ven on those who have left it behind. Philosophers sit there are thinking, they interpret also tradition, the significant philosophers who are buried there . Heidegger writes that three spiritual events exc e rted the greatest influence on his youth. Fi rts, the German publication of Kierk e g a a rd's works, second, 7 4 Enrahonar 29, 1998 Agnes Heller the collected poetry of Hölderlin, third, the publication of Nietzsche's (spatious) book The Will to Powe r. Lukács —before he became inspired by Ma rx — was deeply touched by Kierk e g a a rd. He wrote one of his first essays on K i e rk e g a a r d's story with Regine Olsen and its philosophical implications. Fro m Weber to Wittgenstein, from Kafka to Ingmar Bergman, one can hardly see influential authors who would have never been touched by the fresh which b i ew from the churc h y a rd of Copenhagen. C o n t r a ry to Feuerbach, Kierk e g a a rd was one of the greatest and most significant thinkers of the previous century. None of the modern thinkers we n t b e yond him. Still, the story of his influence resembles ve ry much on that of Feuerbach. He had no students, no «followers» in a strict sense. He inspire d independent thinkers and not epigons. T h e re was never a Kierk e g a a rd / s c h o o l , e ven less a kind of Kierk e g a a rdianism. Fre q u e n t l y, even his debtors did m i n i n i z e his influence. Heidegger borrowed several great ideas fro m K i e rk e g a a rd without admitting it or, perhaps, without even realizing it. At one point he said that Kierk e g a a rd was not a philosopher, rather a «re l i g i o u s author». In fact, Heidegger's essay «The end of philosophy and the task of thinking» was sent as a contribution to a conference on Kierk e g a a rd in Pa r i s , 1968, which was one of the most significant conferences in the postWW2 in Eu rope. Great thinkers of our century, among others Sa s t re, Ricœur and Lévinas, paid here tribute to Kierk e g a a rd and to his legacy. K i e rk e g a a rd himself would be most happy with his development. For him philosophy was identical with Cartesian metaphysics, and with Hegel and Schelling, the last philosophy with the recollection of the mere spectator. T h e task of thinking was thinking existence. He pre f e r red to speak of the «existing thinker», of the «exister» who is thinking existence. The exister can be a religious thinker, but is not necessarily religious in a traditional sense. T h e writer speaks about his thougts. Thinking religion can be religous practice, but is cannot be communicated. One cannot describe (communicate) the Go d - re l a t i o n s h i p. Thinking means to think the three practical attitudes of men/women, the aesthetical, the ethical and the religious. Yet, among them only the ethical can be communicated, although only indire c t l y, because the religious and the aesthetical can be only approximated. It was Kierk e g a a rd ' s deepest conviction that truth is subjectivity. And if truth is subjectivity there can be no positive «teaching», even less can there be a system, except for Go d , in the divine theater. Eve ry «ism» is the misunderstanding of a paradox . K i e rk e g a a rd's influence cannot be an «ism». The misunderstanding of K i e rk e g a a rd is always the understanding of a paradox. Kierk e g a a rd belongs to us, and we to him, without following him. We are just living with him. This is why, so it seems to me, the influence of Kierk e g a a rd, or rather his inspiration, is not limited in time. He expresses, not in the content of his thinki ng —albeit often also in the content— the paradoxicality of the modern/posmodern philosophical world. His voice will be heard also in the next century.