Skip to main content

Leap of Faith



A friend sent me the other day two articles on Soren Kierkegaard which reminded me of the bicentenary of the Danish philosopher’s birth.  Philosophers, probably, belong to a species that’s becoming extinct.  Nevertheless, it’s worthwhile, if not necessary, to take a glance at some of the old philosophies. 

Kierkegaard’s most famous phrase is “leap into faith.”  The philosopher argued that there is a profound insecurity in human life.  Life is one contingency after another.  The only certainty is death.  The other certainties or truths have to be created by each one of us as we move through life. What is required in the process is the willingness to risk a leap of faith. 

Becoming human is a project, argued Kierkegaard.  Our task is not so much to discover who we are but to create ourselves at every moment. 

Kierkegaard identified 3 stages of life experience.

1.       The aesthetic: This is the stage at which we search for fulfilment in activities such as romance, career building and pleasure-seeking.  This is, however, not ultimately satisfying.  It eventually leads to boredom.
2.       The ethical: This is a remedy for the aesthetic despair. This is a commitment to some arbitrary absolute.  For example, when Mahatma Gandhi committed himself to non-violence, he was choosing this remedy. Similarly Mother Teresa chose compassion.
3.       The religious: Kierkegaard thought that man could find his final contentment only in God.  Kierkegaard would have agreed with Augustine of Hippo that “our hearts are restless until they rest in (God).”

But Kierkegaard’s God would not have been a simplistic god provided by some organised religion.  The philosopher was of the view that most worthwhile truths are subjective rather than objective. There are plenty of objective truths in the world like water boils at 100 degree Celsius under normal conditions, etc.  In human life, however, subjective truths assume a greater significance.  “Truth is subjectivity,” Kierkegaard dared to assert.  “Unless one believes something subjectively and passionately he does not possess the truth,” Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg paraphrased Kierkegaard. 

This subjective truth is found in the concrete, not in the abstract; in the existential, not in the rational.  One places oneself in that truth, even as Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa did, by a leap of faith.  This truth is not arrived at logically but chosen by the individual’s will.

I think Kierkegaard’s philosophy deserves attention in a world where people are encouraged, if not forced, to be satisfied with superficial delights and contentment.  People refuse to go beyond what Kierkegaard labelled the aesthetic stage.  Our civilisation encourages us to stick like barnacles to the rock of superficiality. Kierkegaard invites us to leap out of that superficiality and commit ourselves to some higher, more profound truth. 

Comments

  1. while we have the ability to think but being a specie of animal we also have the basic nature of following our herd.
    thoughtful article !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but how much should we follow the herd - that's the question.

      Delete
  2. For the 3rd stage of life, however, one has to believe in God. What if the person doesn't believe in God but it rather believes in Karma? Now that too is abstract because what is right for one person may not be right for another person. So how does the third stage pan out for the person stuck in the second stage? I am asking this because I have been wondering about this since long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God is also a choice, Pankti. I describe myself as an agnostic. For all practical purposes, like most agnostics, I am an atheist. In fact, I'm almost an atheist except that I leave the question open to possibilities for the sake of a personal satisfaction.

      Isn't Karma a similar intellectual concept? I'm sure Kierkegaard would have no problems with that concept. It's a choice made by an individual's will...

      Delete
  3. Yes the ultimate truth is Self realisation which is the third stage. But very few have achieved it and its rather difficult to achieve as we all are lost in material world and wants. Nvertheless we all must try!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, Kislaya. It's about self-realisation. In fact, Kierkegaard finds ample mention in psychology too while discussing self-actualisation.

      Delete
  4. Philosophies of Kierkegaard have known to influence many and I believe one of the most amazing documentation of these have been in a book called Sidhartha by Herman Hesse. The beauty of man creating his own life and not believing in fatalism (like most hindus) is very beautifully depicted in the book. If you have not read it I would suggest you do. You would love it.

    As for your article its the very that you can understand his philosophies and present them out for us so simply shows your own depth and understanding of life.

    A lovely refreshing read which of course reminded most of us that life after all is ours and ours to lose or gain only :)

    www.subzeroricha.blogspot.in

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was an admirer of Hesse for a long time. I read Siddhartha many times and had a personal copy. I enjoyed Hesse's other novels too, especially Narcissus and Goldmund.

      Thanks for the appreciation. I describe myself as a learner, not a teacher. That's why, I think, I am able to present hard things in a simple way. But some scholars may accuse me of over-simplifying...

      Delete
    2. believe me many would agree the art of writing is simplifying it. Complicating comes natural to most. Whenever I write my number motive is to simply what I want to express and at times that is what takes more time.... inspired by you I am planning to write something on fatalism will keep you posted :)

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. Thank you so much. You are always there with a word of encouragement.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pranita a perverted genius

Bulldozer begins its work at Sawan Pranita was a perverted genius. She had Machiavelli’s brain, Octavian’s relentlessness, and Levin’s intellectual calibre. She could have worked wonders if she wanted. She could have created a beautiful world around her. She had the potential. Yet she chose to be a ruthless exterminator. She came to Sawan Public School just to kill it. A religious cult called Radha Soami Satsang Beas [RSSB] had taken over the school from its owner who had never visited the school for over 20 years. This owner, a prominent entrepreneur with a gargantuan ego, had come to the conclusion that the morality of the school’s staff was deviating from the wavelengths determined by him. Moreover, his one foot was inching towards the grave. I was also told that there were some domestic noises which were grating against his patriarchal sensibilities. One holy solution for all these was to hand over the school and its enormous campus (nearly 20 acres of land on the outskirts

Machiavelli the Reverend

Let us go today , you and I, through certain miasmic streets. Nothing will be quite clear along our way because this journey is through some delusions and illusions. You will meet people wearing holy robes and talking about morality and virtues. Some of them will claim to be god’s men and some will make taller claims. Some of them are just amorphous. Invisible. But omnipotent. You can feel their power around you. On you. Oppressing you. Stifling you. Reverend Machiavelli is one such oppressive power. You will meet Franz Kafka somewhere along the way. Joseph K’s ghost will pass by. Remember Joseph K who was arrested one fine morning for a crime that nobody knew anything about? Neither Joseph nor the men who arrest him know why Joseph K is arrested. The power that keeps Joseph K under arrest is invisible. He cannot get answers to his valid questions from the visible agents of that power. He cannot explain himself to that power. Finally, he is taken to a quarry outside the town wher

Levin the good shepherd

AI-generated image The lost sheep and its redeemer form a pet motif in Christianity. Jesus portrayed himself as a good shepherd many times. He said that the good shepherd will leave his 99 sheep in order to bring the lost sheep back to the fold. When he finds the lost sheep, the shepherd is happier about that one sheep than about the 99, Jesus claimed. He was speaking metaphorically. The lost sheep is the sinner in Jesus’ parable. Sin is a departure from the ‘right’ way. Angels raise a toast in heaven whenever a sinner returns to the ‘right’ path [Luke 15:10]. A lot of Catholic priests I know carry some sort of a Redeemer complex in their souls. They love the sinner so much that they cannot rest until they make the angels of God run for their cups of joy. I have also been fortunate to have one such priest-friend whom I shall call Levin in this post. He has befriended me right from the year 1976 when I was a blundering adolescent and he was just one year older than me. He possesse

Kailasnath the Paradox

AI-generated illustration It wasn’t easy to discern whether he was a friend or merely an amused onlooker. He was my colleague at the college, though from another department. When my life had entered a slippery slope because of certain unresolved psychological problems, he didn’t choose to shun me as most others did. However, when he did condescend to join me in the college canteen sipping tea and smoking a cigarette, I wasn’t ever sure whether he was befriending me or mocking me. Kailasnath was a bundle of paradoxes. He appeared to be an alpha male, so self-assured and lord of all that he surveyed. Yet if you cared to observe deeply, you would find too many chinks in his armour. Beneath all those domineering words and gestures lay ample signs of frailty. The tall, elegantly slim and precisely erect stature would draw anyone’s attention quickly. Kailasnath was always attractively dressed though never unduly stylish. Everything about him exuded an air of chic confidence. But the wa

Nakulan the Outcast

Nakulan was one of the many tenants of Hevendrea . A professor in the botany department of the North Eastern Hill University, he was a very lovable person. Some sense of inferiority complex that came from his caste status made him scoff the very idea of his lovability. He lived with his wife and three children in one of Heavendrea’s many cottages. When he wanted to have a drink, he would walk over to my hut. We sipped our whiskies and discussed Shillong’s intriguing politics or something of the sort while my cassette player crooned gently in the background. Nakulan was more than ten years my senior by age. He taught a subject which had never aroused my interest at any stage of my life. It made no difference to me whether a leaf was pinnately compound or palmately compound. You don’t need to know about anther and stigma in order to understand a flower. My friend Levin would have ascribed my lack of interest in Nakulan’s subject to my egomania. I always thought that Nakulan lived