This piece was originally written in 2013. It is part of my archive project, now being revisited and edited in 2025 under my Wattpad series Between Sparks. You can read the poetic version here: [https://www.wattpad.com/BetweenSparks].
Soren Kierkegaard was
indeed a well-rounded philosopher. He would discuss philosophy,
science, religion, theology, psychology and more. An inspiring force
in his life would not only be God, but figuring out what exactly is
God, even though he knew he could never actually know the nature of
God. This inspiring force is what I would like to analyze in a
perspective which lacks 'religious' critique, in a non-Kierkegaard
sense. For me religion is an organized methodology in which an
individual or groups of individuals ritualize and practice in a
satisfying harmony to achieve metaphysical understanding. By my
definition, a religion does not have to believe in God to be
religious; as Buddhism does not, as the religion is atheistic. S.K
believes religion is, one's personal relationship with God, but that
is because he was trying to be Christian (trying as he felt no one
was truly a 'Christian' – except maybe a few since Jesus). S.K had
brought forth an existential version of religion, which I feel
he could have applied to any of the other religion had he been
birthed not in Denmark, and into a non-Christian environment. This
paper will attempt to see if S.K's thoughts can be applied
universally when dealing with: religion (in my definition), group
dynamics and an individualism of religion.
The
majority of Kierkegaard's philosophy was in response to Christendom,
he would have to work within it, in order to reject it. Christendom
is the practice/method of believing everyone around you is Christian
for some reason or another; perhaps the same color of skin, living in
the same neighborhoods, and/or just living around a majority of
Christians. This would be an example of the 'wig parable' S.K denotes
in his Postscript. When a person dictates what is Christianity
if they did not say “the path of Christ” they would most likely
be looking at what Christendom has declared to be Christianity;
baptism, opinion on abortion, a hatred of paganism. . . Or any other
direct association between the church and an individual as being the
defining idea of 'what' it is to be Christian and not 'how' to be.
Yet, ironically, a 'church' is a community, and somehow all those in
Christendom have made the church the source of what it IS to be
Christian. By some paradoxical happening, individuals do not realize
that the church is made up of individuals. So, this allows a
clergyman to dictate the values of individuals who attend church. All
of which contradicts Kierkegaard's idea of Christianity being purely
subjective and a result of individualism of religion.
When
anyone religious dictates they are being 'benevolent' and only
dictate such by means of being a part of a religion, are they truly
religious? Rhetorical question! How can anyone be anything by just
following the group's behavior? This would be what all religions
share, in one respect or another. Kierkegaard's opinion of
Christianity being subjective and religion being a personal thing,
does not have to be restricted to Christianity. Indeed any religion
may fall victim to 'following the wig' and pointing to 'what' instead
of 'how' – or rather – a monk pointing to these men sitting and
referring to it as proper Buddhism, instead of talking about the
state of mind one should be in while sitting – for meditation.
Another example may be a Jewish person not mixing cheese and beef:
“Why do you not mix the two?” “Because” the Jewish person
says “you are not suppose to.” “Why?” “I don't know, never
really questioned it!” How can one truly be an individual of
religious experience, if they just follow tradition blindly and never
reflect on what it is that makes one WANT to be religious? This
aspect of Kierkegaard is not bound to Christianity. As many religions
can be seen as only 'following the wig' and never really asking “why
do I follow the wig?”
Had S.K
been born in India (besides the fact we may never had heard of him in
the West), he would of probably rejected the idea of monotheism and
championed polytheism. I will make this point brief as to not to
deter from my main focus. Polytheism is not necessarily the idea of
many Gods, per say, but many embodiments of the divine objective; for
example, love, hate, creation, destruction, etc. For the many forms
and impressions of trying to be divinely objective there are mindsets
one should be in. . . This is why I feel S.L would champion
polytheism, because it requires many modes of thinking not just one;
namely that 'one' would insist “I am a Christian/Hindu and am going
to heaven/reincarnate, because I am what I am.” You cannot just be
some 'thing' because of the label, it requires thought and reflection
of what that label represents. S.K would of desired many pursuits of
thought towards the divine rather than believing in one (the group
dynamic), and polytheism prevents such a short-sighted view to be
possible. One would be required to look at the world in a lens of
death, a lens of life, a lens of love, a lens of hate, etc. etc. if
they were a polytheist. S.K would not dictate this so directly in
his works, but would inference the above in the ideas in which it
requires an individual to be religious and not just dictate
themselves to be one: by efforts of inquiry and not merely
acceptance. Polytheism is harder to 'accept' therefore there is
automatically more to be reflected on. An individualized pursuit of
religion cannot be done in one lens (a group-thinking lens) and must
therefore be done with many lens of a variety of topics.
Metaphysical
understandings of the objective, do not come from simply conforming
to a religion. Similarly to the polytheism over monotheism example. .
. S.K describes God can never be truly expressed in a full and
coherent system, God is thus an object and we are limited to our
subjectivity in order be able to understand God, therefore unable to
know God's nature fully. Religion then must be a personal subject.
Any religion who dismisses or does not encourage individual
meditation of doctrine or gospels, is in effect, no real religion at
all, because it dismisses the individual from being a part of the
religion, which is impossible since religion requires individuals to
be a religion. So in the procedure of NOT encouraging individuals to
seek out subjective awareness of the religion, you ask them to be
mindless; to follow the group over the cliff. Constant reflection is
what it is to be truly religious, not merely conforming or a static
measurement of what the group does.
Since
God is the object, the infinite, and we exist purely a subjective
creature whom is finite. . . What importance is God if there is no
consideration on the individual subject? What good would be worrying
about the infinite if the individual is not being constantly stressed
as to what is the individual? This is where I see Kierkegaard's
philosophy overlapping into more than just Christianity. Many
religions are guilty of creating models of worship which only dictate
the individual is important, significant and precious in the light of
God, but never explaining 'how'. How one would be significant in the
light of God? Well that would be the individual's goal to find out.
But we still have this religion, so should then religion becomes a
methodology which instructs the people to find answers within
themselves? Do we not need to then look at how others behave
'religiously' and figure out what is right for ourselves? Well, then
how do we know who is right or wrong when they practice?
Kierkegaard
believes that the aesthetic perspective is the most immediate part of
an individual's experience in life; what pleases someone is what
interest someone. Religion of the non-individualism sense (my
definition) is aesthetically significant. To be surrounded by those
who share beliefs, friends, family, events and rituals. . . is
pleasing. So, it can be argued, those who practice Christendom (or
any other religion in a similar way of fundamentalism in wigs and
such) are those are only appeasing their aesthetic
perspective/desires in life. By achieving this group dynamic in
consciousness, the individual in the group has sacrificed their
individuality in order to be a part of the group. Consider when a
stranger dictates “Your practice of religion is dumb” the
individual of the group will not respond on an individual level,
therefore they cannot, and be offended on the aesthetic perspective.
This can lead the individual down the road of being unethical, as to
defend what is they believe is aesthetically true. They believe their
religious community is true, that they are beneficial and important –
to dictate the individual's religion to be dumb is insisting that all
of the aesthetic perspectives (the environment) is also dumb. Which
overall is a sign, for Kierkegaard, that the religious practice is
not genuine.
The
individualism of religion (or the existential version of religion) is
to be not reliant on others because they are your family, friends and
neighbors. Although these people are important and should never be
seen as not important, they (through relations) cannot dictate
whether you understand on an individual level anything about your
religion or the topics in which your religion discusses. Only the
individual can prove whether an individual understands their
religion. And if their religious practices are entirely what is
measured by communal factors... Well that individual may only be
practicing religion in the aesthetic perspective; what pleases them
is more important than religious knowledge. They will mask what they
feel is important with religious knowledge, but the knowledge would
be superficial as it only supports the aesthetic values of the
community of the religion.
Kierkegaard's
philosophy of how one is either religious or not on the
individualistic level, is brilliant. The concepts can dictate those
of any religion are more likely 'just saying' they are that religion
when they cannot apply their religious knowledge to themselves. When
a Christian cannot describe how God effects them without the Bible,
they are not a real Christians. When a Buddhist cannot describe how
to find 'self' without Sutras, they are not a real Buddhist. And so
forth. How we relate to the religion (and the community) is a part of
the existential version of religion, but cannot be solely the
difference between being religious or not. The sole dictation of
whether one is religious or not is how well they align their
subjective selves with the infinite thoughts of their religion. Are
you practicing what you preach? Are you walking the path, or, just
reiterating what the path is? The point, I believe, is to
never actually be satisfied with what you know (religious or not) and
that way you will always be able to adapt and respond to world. Never
being satisfied with your words, thoughts or habits would be the best
one can do to finding infinite solutions with a finite body.
“Watch
your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become
actions. Watch your actions; they become habit. Watch your habits;
they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your
destiny.” - Lao Tzu
This content is original to Nicholas Lukowiak
This content is original to Nicholas Lukowiak
