When you first read Kierkegaard's works, you often fall into a myth about what kind of ideas are implied behind the words of the narrative, and what is the connection between the ideas behind the different words. Since Kierkegaard was not a systematic writer, it was extremely difficult to understand and summarize his ideas as a whole.
But it is also like this that Kierkegaard's list of "dark codes" has attracted countless people to crack. An American scholar, Jiang Stu, in his book "Kierkegaard - Socrates in the Golden Age of Denmark", found a way to crack it.
If you can't grasp the overall content, then there must be another way. Jiang Situ took a point from Kierkegaard's early writings, and strung together a clue in many of Kierkegaard's works, although the core content of each work is different, but in general it has a common temperament, that is, irony or Socratic temperament.
This view is hidden in Kierkegaard's doctoral dissertation in Copenhagen, "On the Concept of Irony", and it can be said that when writing the paper, Kierkegaard did not think about how far his thoughts could go, but he should have strengthened a belief in using irony to be a Socratic thinker.
What is Socratic irony?
Socrates lived in ancient Athens in the 5th century BC, and his student Plato recorded his words and deeds in the form of dialogues. In 399 BC, socrates were charged against him by his fellow Athenians, who were eventually sentenced to death. The Confession records his trial, and Phaedo records the last hours of his life and his death from poisoned wine.
Socrates spent most of his life walking around the city of Athens and talking to people. He went to people who claimed to know something and asked them for advice. He professed to be ignorant and begged his conversation partners to enlighten him about anything they claimed to know, and so he began his conversation with them.
The so-called "irony of Socrates" usually appears at the beginning of these conversations, and Socrates asks the interlocutor to explain something to him or give him a definition. For example, in "Tour Suffren", Socrates meets an acquaintance you Suffren and asks him what he is doing in court, and You Suffren says that he is going to accuse his father.
In ancient Greece, respect for fathers was an ancient and inviolable value. Socrates saw directly the obvious contradiction that one should love and respect one's father, but this was not the case with Suffren's behavior. But Socrates does not point out this contradiction, pretending that there is something he does not understand, and that Euphorus must have some special knowledge of its essence.
Socrates exclaimed: Oh my God! Of course, most people don't know, How such a thing can have justice. I imagine that not everyone can make such an accusation ( behavior ) except for this highly intelligent person.
It sounded like a compliment, but YouSyphren didn't hear the irony in it. He replied confidently, "Indeed, Socrates." Every answer given by Yousufern was then refuted by Socrates, and finally Yousufern pretended to be in a hurry and fled. Socrates was disappointed, saying that he had thought he could learn something about piety from Yousfrend.
Socrates declared that he did not know anything, so that Yousufern could boast of his expertise and allow himself to ask questions of Yousuphren at will, pretending to want to learn from him. Since you claim to be an expert, you will be disgraced if he refuses to answer Socrates. Socrates recognized that if a person was flattered with expertise, it was easy for that person to open the conversation.
This is how the Socratic dialogue begins. Socrates' irony is a central element of this process. Initially, his irony involves two aspects: first, he says that he doesn't know anything, but the conversation that follows clearly proves that he actually knows a little bit about those things; Second, he admitted that Yousseveren knew things, or was an expert.
Kierkegaard was drawn to this irony because he saw that in 19th-century Danish society, many people, like You Suffren, claimed to be proficient in this and that matter, but in fact knew nothing. He observed that Socrates' use of irony was to use irony as bait to lure the snake out of the hole. Once the other person begins to explain what he thinks he already understands, he will be refuted by Socrates. Kierkegaard carefully studied Socrates' method, considering in what ways he could apply it, so as to have a unique advantage in the great discussions of his time.
Ironic Circumstances: The Dilemma of Answering
Why is irony useful? Kierkegaard argues that socrates constructed a so-called "dilemma of answering" in his dialogue, in which Socrates substituted Yousfreun and other interlocutors into the dilemma of answering. In this dilemma, the interlocutor may have reflection and questioning of what he knows.
Socrates asked Yousuphren what the definition of "piety" was, and Yousufern gave a definition. However, under Socrates' cross-examination, their unanimous unification of this definition is not satisfactory. Socrates continued to ask if there was a better definition, but the latter definition given by YouSufren was rejected one after another. In the end they don't get a real definition or result either.
Usually, when a person writes something, the goal is to prove a particular topic and establish a specific argument. He would put the topic straight to the point and present arguments in the main part of the paper. In contrast, Socrates' routine is rather unusual, because it does not establish anything at all. Rather, the results are purely negative. All that one learns from this is that a few things about piety have been seen as incorrectly defined, but one still does not know what piety is. Under critical inquiry, none of the definitive definitions survived.
This was attractive to Kierkegaard, who was pleased to see in Socrates a negative thinker in this sense. Socrates' goal was not to establish an affirmative doctrine, but to point out the instability of the foundations on which others depended, thus helping them to reconsider their long-held views.
Kierkegaard commented that although Socrates did only some negative things, he led others to reflection, reconsidering certain established aspects of their convictions and lives. By questioning, Socrates draws his interlocutors into the process of philosophical reflection, because they cannot merely be passive recipients, to be taught by Socrates or someone else. Kierkegaard was inspired to try to imitate this aspect of the Socratic method in his writing.
The nature of irony: knowing and not knowing
In the 5th century BC, Athens had a wandering group of rhetoricians who collected honorariums and gave lessons to boys from wealthy families. These people, known as the Sorcerers, claimed the ability to teach practical skills such as public speaking, logical reasoning, and debate, while also providing general education. In the Athenian democratic society, where political issues were often discussed, these were very important skills.
Although the magician succeeded in attracting students and making a living from them, not all of them welcomed them. Like some lawyers today, sorcerers were a bit infamous at the time because they were adept at playing word games and winning lawsuits for unreasonable or even wrong positions.
They are charismatic and majestic orators who can use words to seduce people. They are said to be more interested in winning or losing debates than in the truth itself. Since Socrates was often seen openly instructing young people in the streets, many Athenians thought that he was in league with the sorcerer, so one of the accusations against him was that he was strong and made weak arguments stronger, which was the reason why the sophisticer was notorious.
However, Socrates strongly protested that people had associated him with the sorcerer, saying that unlike the sorcerer, he did not claim to know anything and did not teach anything. Young people came to listen to his discussions only because they found it interesting to watch him interrogate others in that particular way. Since Socrates claimed not to teach anything, he never charged any form of tuition, and instead the sorcerer charged tuition fees by teaching his students to make a living.
So why go around "irony"? Socrates tells the story of one of his friends who went to the Temple of Delphi to ask for an oracle. In ancient Greek society, temples were awe-inspiring religious sites. It is believed that the god Apollo spoke to people through the priestesses there. Whenever people make important decisions, whether it is a private matter or a major matter related to the state, people are accustomed to going to the temple to ask God to see if their plan will succeed. Socrates' friend asked the god Apollo: Is there anyone more intelligent than Socrates? The god Apollo replied through the priestess: No one is wiser than him.
The friend returned to Athens and relayed the oracle to Socrates, who was puzzled because he could not imagine that he had any special knowledge of anything special. In fact, he saw many people around him who were wiser than him in different ways. So he started asking different people questions to see what they knew.
As a result, he went from one man to another, each pretending to be an expert in a certain field, as Hessue Fren, but in the end, under Socrates' questioning, they were obviously ignorant. Socrates then concluded that he was wiser because he at least knew that he was ignorant, and on the contrary, others falsely claimed that they did know.
This, he thought, must have meant what the oracle meant. Socrates' knowledge is not some kind of affirmative knowledge about a particular field of thought or action, but a negative knowledge. This is such a paradox: Socrates' knowledge is that he knows nothing at all.
Since this insight came from the gods of the temple, Socrates began to believe that he had been given a sacred mission, and that his religious duty was to travel throughout Athens to test the claims of knowledge of others. Socrates used the image of a cattle fly to compare his actions. The constant buzzing of the oxfly around a horse and its rest on the horse infuriated the horse. Socrates saw that he was doing the same to his fellow Athenians. Plato wrote down his words:
"To me, it seems that the gods put me in this city-state in order to fulfill the duty of such a cattle fly; All day long I kept landing here, there, everywhere, provoking, persuading, and rebuking each of you. ”
Thus, Socrates portrayed himself as the cattle fly of Athens, playing a useful role, although infuriating, from falling into complacency, and making them always vigilant against claiming knowledge. He saw his labor as a religious calling: he constantly interrogated people in the streets and alleys, not so much because he enjoyed it, or because he personally thought it was a good idea, but rather because he saw himself following God's will.
It was his religious duty to do so.
This is a picture that Kierkegaard savored, and he began to conceive of his own task, which should be the same as that of Socrates. He believed that through his writings he could in fact become a cattle fly in Copenhagen, freeing his fellow citizens from complacency. He believed that the people of the time had a wrong understanding of the Christian faith and needed a bullfly to force them to critically explore their own views and correct them. His goal was not to persuade skeptical readers with inferential arguments to believe in a set of affirmative doctrines. Similarly, his goal was not to gain fame with his own writings or to become friends with others. Rather, his goal was to follow Socrates' example and somehow provoke and provoke others to see the errors in his convictions.
How does Kierkegaard's understanding of Socrates relate to life today? Whether it is knowledge, skepticism, or traditional values, these questions are ultimately put to a fundamental question: the nature and status of knowledge, and the role it plays in human life. This is one of the oldest problems in the entire history of mankind. In fact, we can see this in one of the oldest stories known to women and children, and that is the story of the Fall in the Old Testament genesis.
In that version of the story, the first people were Adam and Eve, who lived in a wonderful garden with everything they needed, and their needs were all met. They live in harmony with nature and the world around them. But they lack one thing: knowledge. They live in the bliss of ignorance and ignorance. God told them they could enjoy everything they liked in the garden, but not to eat the fruit of the tree.
As we all know, Adam and Eve in the story were lured by the serpent, violated the ban, ate the fruit of the tree, and gained knowledge. Suddenly, everything changed and they began to see the world differently. For the first time, they realized that their bodies were naked and felt ashamed of each other. They are no longer in harmony with the world, they can no longer be comfortable in the garden, they are driven out of the garden. When God discovered their sins, he expelled them from the garden and sent them to the wider world, the East side of the Garden of Eden.
This story tells us that knowledge is a dangerous thing. God knew this from beginning to end, so He told Adam and Xia not to eat the fruit of that tree. God knows that knowledge will ultimately bring shame, fear, and alienation. Once a person takes this step, the water is far from turning back. The moral of this story is that human beings do not have to have knowledge, and without knowledge, human beings will be happier.
The story of Genesis is constantly being replayed in the process of each individual's growth and maturity. When we are children, we are intimate with family, culture and society. Growing up, we reach a watershed where we naturally question what we took for granted when we were young. We've found that parents and bosses make mistakes, and our culture has its own problems. This knowledge alienates us from the world around us.
People like Socrates, departing from the universally accepted truths of his culture, seek knowledge. But this quest alienated him from the world. Knowledge is a dangerous thing, and defenders of traditional values and institutions fear knowledge. Another perspective on this issue comes from the Enlightenment. Enlightenment thought held that human beings, as Aristotle put it, were born with a thirst for knowledge. Knowledge distinguishes us from animals, and we human beings are human beings in the ability to engage in rational thinking and to examine our beliefs critically.
Socrates said, "Life without rational examination is not worth living." Knowledge has enabled human beings to reshape their environment to make it more suitable for human life, and has also made possible the great technological and social advances of history.
Throughout history, humanity has improved its situation by virtue of its ability to acquire knowledge. For example, humanity has made great strides in different areas of science, substantially improving people's lives, including the eradication of diseases such as smallpox and polio, including advances in dentistry and anesthesiology, and many examples can continue to be given.
Proponents of the Enlightenment claim that it is utterly absurd to deny these advances, and that the entire history of mankind has supported a famous maxim: knowledge is power. According to this view, anyone who wants to disparage knowledge is blinded by backward superstitions.
Today, most of us probably subscribe to the ideas of the Enlightenment. Even when we read books about Kierkegaard, we do so in order to acquire new knowledge that we didn't know before. We believe that knowledge is valuable and that it is important to have it. The ever-expanding amount of information available freely on the Internet proves that not only is there a strong demand for it, but culture also prioritizes the dissemination of information. There seems to be no doubt: everyone should have the opportunity to learn and acquire new knowledge.
These may seem obvious at a glance, however, our modern world makes this picture extremely suspicious. Knowledge is a double-edged sword that has created skyscrapers and vaccines, and modern civilizations that pride themselves on it have also invented concentration camps and biological weapons. Most of the world's environmental problems, such as global warming and ozone holes, are by-products of human technology. It turns out that knowledge and technology are helping us improve the environment at the same time
Destroy the environment efficiently.
Once humanity begins to follow the path of reason, science and technology, there is no turning back. This is a one-way street, and it is a difficult to harvest water. Thinking about it, we can slowly see the gist behind the story of the Fall of Genesis: the world east of the Garden of Eden is a dangerous and disturbing world. Similarly, the story of Socrates is not just a legend of the distant past, that is, the story of the dangerous world of our 21st century.
Ironic enlightenment: man and God
One of the Athenian accusations against Socrates was that he worshipped gentile gods that Athens did not recognize. This accusation involves socrates socrates' so-called "god of destiny." The god of life of Socrates, mentioned in Plato's dialogues, is a personal spirit or inner voice that often gives advice to Socrates.
From a modern point of view, there is something difficult to understand. Some try to interpret it as a voice of conscience, while others see it as some kind of angel-like being. During his trial, Socrates explained his destiny this way:
I often have a divine or supernatural experience... It started at a very early age – a voice came to me; Every time it came, it always persuaded me not to do what I was planning to do, and never encouraged me.
Socrates declared that he had an inner voice of his own, preventing him from getting into trouble, because that voice told him not to do things that were not well thought out and could lead to negative results. But like Socrates himself, the God of Destiny never gave any positive advice, telling Socrates what to do.
Socrates believed that the God of Destiny was helping him in his divine mission. When the jury convicted him and sentenced him to death, he declared that he did not care, because throughout the trial his god never objected to what he said and did, and he understood it as if everything that happened was in accordance with God's will. So he concluded that he had nothing to fear.
There seems to be a different interpretation of the god of life from two directions. On the one hand, in terms of a modern conception of liberation, Socrates may have resorted to the "god of life" to rebel against the gods of the ancient Greek tradition and those traditional ideas. The so-called use of God to defeat God, that is, when it is impossible to fully express one's own point of view, it is assumed that there is a god of destiny of oneself, and the god of life promotes the expression of one's own point of view, and uses the mouth of a new "god" to oppose the old "god" rules.
And the re-recognition of the self brought about by this "god of destiny" is also based on the motivation behind Socratic irony, that is, to question everything that exists through reflection, and the protagonist of this reflection is not what it is, but the person himself, everyone. Truth is not supreme, but must be questioned by everyone, and at the same time everyone has the right to obtain the truth through his own thinking, which is a meaning of "destiny".
On the other hand, the firm belief that there is a certain "God" that belongs to the self can also bring the possibility of transcendence in earthly life. If man regains the right to determine the truth from God's hand, then in a short life, man may fall into an infinite verification of truth, and at the same time limit to this workload, causing people to feel nothing, thus losing the meaning of life.
So Kierkegaard agreed with the idea of "god of destiny". In the Christian tradition, people are accustomed to talking about concepts such as providence, such as that God is directing the universe according to a specific purpose in his mind. Kierkegaard reflected on his life and work in His book The Point of View for My Worle as an Author, explaining that he believed his life was driven by an invisible divine "rule."
God has a blueprint for His life, and Kierkegaard unknowingly realizes that blueprint. Although he did not always understand God's plan for himself, he felt that God was guiding his writing in the darkness, just as Socrates' god of destiny guided Socrates. Like Socrates, Kierkegaard saw his work as a sacred mission. He believed that God would guide him in the right direction, just as Socrates believed that his god of life would keep him from damage.
The "God of Destiny" of the self may bring freedom, but freedom may also fall into nothingness, and only through faith in the "God of Destiny" can people be saved from the abyss of nothingness. This is also a kind of revelation that irony can bring.
The Mission of Irony: The Midwife of Truth
Why is irony so important to Socrates and Kierkegaard?
Socrates once said that his mother was a midwife, and he learned "midwifery" from her, and he declared that when he asked questions, his goal was to help them reach a certain truth on their own. He believed that the truth was intrinsically hidden in themselves, but they were unaware of it. This kind of follow-up questioning that Socrates engaged in could break this truth out of its cocoon.
A famous example of this is when Socrates asked an uneducated child slave in Meno, and he asked only questions, and he himself did not offer anything positive, but he led the boy to some of the basic principles of geometry.
Everyone present was astonished: the boy had evidently always been fluent in geometry, though he had never received any education in it. This is in line with Socrates' long-standing claim that he does not teach anything. He simply claims to be a midwife who delivers births for ideas, but he himself does not produce ideas. He simply helps others produce ideas and then evaluates them. Ideas are hidden within the individual, although the individual does not even know their presence. (This leads Socrates to the doctrine of the idea of gifts, namely, that we are born with certain ideas, that we know things before we have any experience of the world.) Therefore, the task of the questioner is simply to help us recall what we knew before but had already been forgotten. ）
Kierkegaard also deliberately used Socrates' midwifery in his writings. He didn't want to make it clear what he thought of Christianity, instead he wanted to help others unearth their own Christian ideas. Kierkegaard wanted to avoid leaving the impression of being a good teacher, as if others just had to follow his teachings. He believed that Christianity had meaning only in the sense that the trusted person himself had experienced it, and that therefore a substitution based purely on the authority of others' teaching was inadequate and even misleading.
In contrast, Kierkegaard insisted that Christianity is only about the inner relationship of each individual, and therefore the goal should be to help others discover this relationship in themselves. Like Socrates, Kierkegaard believed he could move this forward, but ultimately man had to do the task of discovering the truth or the inner relationship within himself on his own.
In contrast to Hegel's synthetic philosophical approach of combining positive and negative dialectics, Kierkegaard preferred to choose, like Socrates, not to output any truth, but to lead man into a "dilemma of answer" through constant denial, and in the embarrassment of the dilemma, to reflect on himself and find the truth for himself.
This is Kierkegaard's way of persevering throughout his life, and it is also a key that people must grasp when trying to read him.