The voyage of philosophy throughout history and across cultures has been a search for an objective absolute truth. While many thinkers have emphasised what this ultimate truth is, others have focused on how we can come to know it. Although most of these intellectuals assumed that there is something objective and absolute to be known, a Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, challenged this very assumption.
Kierkegaard is often regarded as the father of existentialism, a philosophical doctrine that emphasises existence over essence. But arenât all philosophies concerned with existence? I believe that while a lot of them do talk about existence, most philosophers are concerned more with the essence of things, which for Kierkegaard are hollow abstractions that point to nothing concrete. Platoâs universals in the ideal world and Spinozaâs substance are two examples of such abstractions.
Hegel, who ruled the philosophical world in the 19th century, emphasised the universal spirit and how the world develops when the will of individuals is aligned with the universal spirit. According to Kierkegaard, though, Hegelâs system was to be admired for its magnitude and intricacy, the way we would admire a very clever work of science fiction.
Kierkegaard felt that philosophersâ fascination with universals was as absurd as someone analysing a menu in great detail when they were starving and needed the immediate nourishment of a real meal. He argued that most metaphysicians build timeless logical systems which are complete and finished, but no one can develop an existential system as existence is still ongoing. It is beyond humans to capture the totality of existence while it is still unfolding. Kierkegaard has thus been labelled an antimetaphysician by many.
Kierkegaard flipped the Hegelian system emphasising the individual over the universal. Universals are empty abstractions that donât address any concrete features of anyoneâs existence. They are these metaphysical castles in the air that have no bearing on the real world and are completely useless when it comes to dealing with the issues of our existence.
The universals run completely against the individual. We take out the peculiarities and distinctiveness of particulars when we try to fit them into universals. This attempt at extinguishing the individual in the name of universals has been made in Indian philosophy as well. I feel that when Shankaracharya says âAham Brahmasmiâ, essentially equating the individual Atma (self) with the universal Brahman, the diversity and uniqueness of the self (Atma) is subsumed in the non-dual Brahman just like the individual drops are subsumed in the ocean.
Kierkegaard was highly critical of Descartesâ âCogito, ergo sumâ (I think, therefore I am). For Descartes, our existence is proven by the fact that we can think. Our ability to reason, doubt, and question proves that we exist. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, argued that existence precedes thinking. The âIâ precedes the thinking. The âIâ is not a product of thinking but is the source of thinking. It is a basic belief of all existentialists that ontology is prior to and more fundamental than epistemology.
Another issue Kierkegaard had with the metaphysicians was that they attempt to make the absolute truth completely objective. For Kierkegaard, âtruth is subjectivityâ. He distinguishes between two types of knowledge: objective and subjective. Mathematics, logic, science, and other areas which donât affect your development as a person are objective. As an example, 17+6=23 is an objective truth. In assenting to its truth, nothing of who you are as a person is at stake.
But when you confess your love to someone, it does affect you. Whether the other person reciprocates your love or not, it will affect your development as a person. For Kierkegaard, nothing can be understood in isolation from your attitudes, values, beliefs, the degree of self-honesty you have, how you are related to the truth, and how you participate in reality. I find this aspect of Kierkegaardâs philosophy extremely similar to Nietzscheâs radical perspectivism and Jainismâs Anekantavada.
Itâs important here to note that Kierkegaard isnât saying that thereâs no objective truth when he is talking about subjective knowledge. Instead, he is saying that the way an individual relates to this truth is subjective. The truth is not something that can be known in isolation from the individual who is trying to know it. Thus, truth for an individual is always subjective.
In one of Kierkegaardâs best-known passages, he illustrates this:
If one who lives in the midst of Christendom goes up to the house of God, the house of the true God with the true conception of God in his knowledge, and prays, but prays in a false spirit; and one who lives in an idolatrous community prays with the entire passion of the infinite, although his eyes rest upon the image of an idol: where is there most truth? The one prays in truth to God though he worships an idol; the other prays falsely to the true God, and hence worships in fact an idol.
This passage tells us a lot about Kierkegaardâs philosophy. By saying the first person prays falsely to the âtrue Godâ, it is amply clear that Kierkegaard believes that there is a true God. There is an objective truth. However, even though the first person has the correct objective knowledge about this truth, he is not related to it authentically. He is not in the truth. The second person, on the other hand, has a false objective knowledge about the truth but is related to it authentically. He is in the truth. Thus, truth for Kierkegaard is more about the subjective relation we have to the objective truth. Here, being authentically related to truth has the same connotation as what we understand when someone says âBe true to your friendâ.
Another aspect that differentiates Kierkegaardâs existentialism from other philosophical doctrines is his emphasis on becoming rather than being. While Descartes made the self an actual existing entity in reality, part of the furniture of the world, Hume said that thereâs no self to be found and what we call the self is just a bundle of fragmentary perceptions.
Kierkegaard, on the other hand, argued that the self is what we develop and become through our choices and actions. He believed that an inward journey of self-examination is critical to this process of becoming. This inward journey is a lifelong process of self-reflection and self-awareness. It isnât easy, as it entails inner conflict, despair, and anxiety. But the more you struggle with these inner conflicts, the more you move towards becoming a more authentic self. At every stage of life, we are confronted with choices and decisions that shape who we become.
Kierkegaard saw the technological and scientific advancements of his time and felt that all these things were making life too easy. Moreover, individuals are hiding behind the universals provided by the metaphysicians and are not taking responsibility for their own existence. The universal definitions of good and bad, right and wrong, and aligning the will of the individual with the universal spirit are all ways in which individuals have stopped introspecting and taking responsibility for their own existence.
In Indian society, we can see numerous such examples where people have stopped taking responsibility for their own existence. Someone is poor because they did bad karma in their past life and the rich must have done good karma. Someone is suffering because they are being punished by planets and the rich are being rewarded by planets. We have been provided with Brahman, nine planets, multiple deities, dharmashastras telling us what is morally right and wrong, and so on. I agree to some extent with Kierkegaard that these do make individuals complacent. Very few people think about their actions and their existing conditions. When we say âEverything happens due to the will of Godâ, we are simply hiding behind the will of a metaphysical entity which we have never experienced or known first hand.
Kierkegaard saw it as his job to make life difficult. For him, nothing good comes out of comfort and ease. Can we have birth without pain? Can an artist achieve greatness without putting in years and years of self-discipline and practice? He wanted to make people uncomfortable and prompt them to introspect so that they can discover the truth of their own existence. The individual should encounter his existence first hand, and through this encounter, the person will constantly develop their self.
While most people will disagree with me, I believe that Saint Kabir also believed that enlightenment isnât something that happens in a single moment or a flash but is a lifelong process. Through his experiences and experiments with the self and surroundings, he knew that the process of enlightenment has to be sustained by constant effort and perseverance.
Kierkegaard didnât have much impact during his own time compared with the interest and following that developed in the 20th century around his ideas. This might have been a result of a heightened sense of alienation felt by the common man in the 20th century even though their material prosperity had risen far beyond what Marx could anticipate. That alienation is exactly what Kierkegaardâs philosophy speaks to. The central problem of the modern world is not ideological but practical. We donât need more people signing up to a theory; we need people willing to introspect, to take responsibility for their existence, and to own the freedom that comes with it.