Am I a Kierkegaardian?

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