The Soul of Kierkegaard

Selections from His Journals

Søren Kierkegaard, Alexander Dru

• Publisher: Dover Publications
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9780486146010
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosopher Biographies

"The primary source for any understanding of either the man or his thought." — The Times (London) Literary Supplement
Denmark's foremost philosopher and religious writer, Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) maintained a journal throughout his adult life that amounted to more than 7,000 pages of alternative drafts of published works, biographical events, musings, and outpourings. A precursor of the Existential movement and a major influence on modern Protestant theology, Kierkegaard confided to his journal further reflections on the ideas developed in his philosophical and theological works, and on his tumultuous career as an author.
The English periodical, The Tablet, declared that "there can be few books in English that admit the reader so intimately to a process of thinking on such a scale, at so many levels, so unflinching and direct." Indeed, the journals attest to the philosopher's lively imagination, his poetic powers of self-expression, and the brilliance of his intellect. Students of philosophy and literature are bound to agree with The New Statesman's assessment that, "No biography can take the place of these Journals for the understanding of Kierkegaard’s very peculiar position as a thinker."

1854

Bishop Mynster⁴⁴

March 1, 1854. So now he is dead.

If only it had been possible to persuade him to end his life with the admission that what he represented was not really Christianity, but a mitigation of it: that would have been most desirable, for he carried a whole age along with him.

The possibility of this admission had therefore to be kept open to the last, to the very last, lest he should perhaps make it dying. Therefore he had never to be attacked; and I had to submit to everything, even when he did such desperate things as in the case of Goldschmidt, for no one could tell whether it would not have an effect upon him and so move him to make the admission.

Dead without having made that admission, everything is altered; now it merely remains that his preaching hardened Christianity into a deception.

The situation is also changed as regards my melancholy devotion to my father’s priest; for it would be too much of a good thing if I could not talk about him more freely even after his death, however well I know that my old devotion to him and my æsthetic admiration will always continue to be attractive to me.

Originally I wanted to transform my whole thing into a triumph for Mynster. Later, as I understood it more clearly, my wish remained unchanged, but I had to require this one little admission, though not for my sake and therefore, so I thought, it could perfectly well be done in such a way as to become a triumph for Bishop Mynster. . . .

And yet it almost came to a point where I thought I should have to attack him. I only missed one of his sermons, that was the last; I was not prevented by illness, on the contrary, I went to hear Kolthorf. To me that meant: it must happen now, you must break with your father’s tradition : that was the last time Mynster preached. God be praised, surely that is very like providence.

If Bishop Mynster could have given in (which could have been concealed from everyone, and to them it would thus have become his triumph) then my outward position would have been made easier; for Bishop Mynster, who at the bottom of his heart certainly made me certain spiritual concessions, reckoned cleverly from a worldly point of view that in the end I should have to give way to him in one way or another, because I could not compete with him financially. An expression which he often used in conversation with me was very instructive: it is not a question of who has most strength, but who can last longest.

God’s Majesty—the only thing which interests him is obedience

It is so easy to see that one to whom everything is equally important and equally insignificant can only be interested in one thing : obedience.

Lutheranism

Lutheranism is a corrective—but a corrective made into the norm, the whole, is eo ipso confusing in the next generation (when that which it was meant to correct no longer exists). And as long as this continues things get worse with every generation, until in the end the corrective produces the exact opposite of what was originally intended.

And such, moreover, is the case. Taken by itself, as the whole of Christianity, the Lutheran corrective produces the most subtle type of worldliness and paganism.

“Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also”

Luke 2. 34, 35. Coming as an interpolation, in conjunction with the words about Christ being a sign which shall reveal the thoughts of many hearts, these words must not only be understood to refer to the pain at the sight of the Son’s death, they must be understood to mean that the moment, the moment of pain and agony will come for her when she will—at the sight of the Son’s suffering—doubt whether the whole thing was not imagination, a deceit, the whole story of Gabriel being sent by God to announce to her that she was the chosen one.

Just as Christ cried out : my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me—in the same way the Virgin Mary had to suffer something which humanly corresponded to it.

A sword shall pierce through thy own soul—and reveal the thoughts of the heart, yours also, whether you dare still believe, are still humble enough to believe, that you are in truth the chosen among women, she who found grace in the sight of God.

Oh, Luther

Luther; your responsibility is great indeed, for the closer I look the more clearly do I see that you overthrew the Pope—and set the public on the throne.

About myself

Among those who have been ordered out extraordinarily by providence not a few have had greater abilities, and greater learning, all perhaps greater zeal and ardour—but none, none has had a more difficult task, in all Christendom none.

To battle against princes and popes—and the nearer we come to our own times the truer this is—is easy compared with struggling against the masses, the tyranny of equality, against the grin of shallowness, nonsense, baseness and bestiality.

Outside Christianity Socrates stands alone—noble, simple and wise, you were indeed a true reformer.

On Arthur Schopenhauer

A.S.⁴⁵ is unquestionably an important writer, he has interested me very much and I am astonished to find an author who, in spite of complete disagreement, touches me at so many points.

I have two objections in particular to his ethic.

His ethical point of view is: the individual succeeds in seeing through the wretchedness of this existence either through the intellect, and consequently intellectually, or through suffering (δευτερος πλονς), and then decides to deaden or mortify the joy of life; this is where asceticism comes in; and so, as a result of complete asceticism we reach contemplation, quietism.—And this the individual does out of sympathy (here we find A.S.’s moral principle), out of sympathy, because he sympathises with all the misery, which is existence, and consequently sympathises with the misery of others, which is to exist.

Against this I would urge: that I am almost tempted to reverse everything, also be it noted—out of sympathy. Now whether a man reaches asceticism as a result of a profoundly personal intellectuality, because he sees through the misery of everything, or better still the misery of existing, or whether he is brought by suffering to the point where it is relief to let the whole thing come to a rupture, to a break with everything, with life itself, i.e. with the joy of life (asceticism, mortification), and where all the small and ever new miseries are concerned this may bring much relief, like breaking into a sweat compared with the painful heat one endures when one cannot begin sweating : in each case I should reverse the question; might it not be that it is this very sympathy which should hold him back, prevent his going so far, sympathy with all the thousands and thousands who cannot possibly follow him, thousands upon thousands who live in the happy illusion that life is pleasure—and whom he would therefore merely disturb and make unhappy without being able to help them up to his level. Cannot sympathy also put the question in that way, though I readily admit it easily conceals a swindle, by not daring to go to the bitter end itself, and so merely gives the appearance of sympathy?

Secondly, and this is the main objection. After reading through A.S.’s Ethic one learns—naturally he is to that extent honest—that he himself is not an ascetic. And consequently he himself has not reached contemplation through asceticism, but only a contemplation which contemplates asceticism.

This is extremely suspicious, and may even conceal the most terrible and corrupting voluptuous melancholy, item : a profound misanthropy. In this too it is suspicious, for it is always suspicious to propound an ethic which does not exert so much power over the teacher that he himself expresses it.

A.S. makes ethics into genius—but that is of course an unethical conception of ethics. He makes ethics into genius, and although he prides himself quite enough on being a genius it has not pleased him, or nature has not allowed him, to become a genius where asceticism and mortification are concerned.

Here I come to a point which S. scornfully dismisses, namely this: Thou shalt, item: eternal punishment etc. The question is whether that kind of asceticism and mortification is really possible for a man if he does not respect the “Thou shalt,” and is not determined by the motive of eternity, not by genius however, but ethically. S. who really gives up Christianity always praises Indian Brahminism. But those ascetics, this he must himself admit, are determined by considerations of eternity, religiously, not by genius; it is put to them as a religious duty.

As I have said, A.S. interests me very much. And so of course does his fate in Germany.

S. has quite rightly learnt and felt that (like the parsons in religion) there is a class of men in philosophy who under the guise of teaching philosophy live by it . . . S. sees quite rightly that these respected gentlemen are the dons: On this point his rudeness is unsurpassed.

But here we have it again; S. is not a character, not a moral character, not a Greek philosopher in character, still less a Christian polite-official

If I could talk with him I am sure he would shudder or laugh if I were to show him the standard.

S. has seen quite rightly that this donnish meanness consists mainly in using one method: ignoring whatever is not of the faculty. S. is really charming, admirable and unequalled in effective rudeness.

But then look how S. lives! He lives a retired life and once in a while sends forth a thunderbolt of rudeness—which is ignored. There we have it.

No, tackle the problem differently. Go to Berlin, force all those swindlers down into the street, endure being famous, known to everyone. Endure personally a sort of intercourse and understanding with the rascals so that people see one together in the street, and so that if possible everyone knows that they know each other. That is how to undermine their mean way of “ignoring.” That is what I have done, on a smaller...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• INTRODUCTION
• CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
• THE GREAT EARTHQUAKE
• 1835 - THE JOURNAL
• 1836
• 1837
• 1838
• 1839
• 1840
• 1841
• 1841
• 1842
• 1843
• 1844
• 1845
• 1846
• 1847
• 1848
• 1849
• 1850
• 1851
• 1852
• 1853
• 1854