Soren Kierkegaard's Reconstruction of Epistemology

Here is a short paper I wrote for Philosophy on Kierkegaard, which deals with several other voices as well on the topic of the relationship of faith and reason.

Soren Kierkegaard’s Reconstruction of Epistemology

            Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a Danish philosopher who –in the footsteps of Immanuel Kant- challenged the epistemological presuppositions of the enlightenment. Unlike Kant, however, Kierkegaard was an orthodox Christian and argued for the validity of orthodox doctrines such as the Incarnation through an existentialist lens. Kant had dealt an effective blow to the enlightenment’s optimism towards an epistemology built upon human reason (McGrath 220). But Kant’s blow also crippled any optimism towards the possibility of actually knowing absolute truth. Kierkegaard shows that Kant’s argument for the limit of human reason is precisely the impossibility which Christ the Incarnate teacher and teaching meets in his humanity and makes actual knowledge a possibility (Rose 46).

            Kierkegaard often wrote with pseudonyms, perhaps most notably the name “Johannes Climacus.” Since Kierkegaard himself was a Christian, he was able to write with the penname Climacus to develop a skeptical worldview which proved the limit of human reason alone. Climacus breaks down the Socratic notion that gaining knowledge is a matter of finding knowledge within oneself, that a teacher is one who assists the learner in finding the knowledge within himself; “the problem of acquiring and understanding the truth is purely epistemic, not existential” (Rose 40). Practically, this epistemology bears remarkable similarities to the self-confident epistemology of the enlightenment to which Kierkegaard responded. Kierkegaard brings Climacus to arrive at “The Absolute Paradox” - the Incarnation, the eternal within an historical event –an idea which a skeptic who is reliant upon human reason (like Climacus, and the students of the enlightenment) must reject. Tim Rose comments, “The Incarnation appears to be paradoxical, partly because Climacus does not understand it, and partly because he does not want to understand it” (Rose 59). In other words, Kierkegaard has demonstrated that human reason will arrive at the paradox of the Incarnation and reject it. “The paradox is composed in such a way that reason has no power at all to dissolve it in nonsense and prove that it is nonsense; no, it is a symbol, a riddle, a compounded riddle about which reason must say: I cannot solve it, it cannot be understood, but it does not follow thereby that it is nonsense” (“Journal and Papers” 7).

            Rose shows that Kierkegaard’s argument for the limit of human reason is consistent with several Christian thinkers before him, viz., Martin Luther, J.G. Hamann, and Blaise Pascal. For Luther, the Kingdom of Earth could also be described as the Kingdom of Reason. Human reason alone was entirely impotent to reach the Kingdom of Christ. Luther is careful to show the importance of reason within the context of the Kingdom of God working alongside faith, but like Kierkegaard, Luther asserted that reason had no power to achieve faith.

            Rose also points out the that ironically Hamann uses David Hume’s argument against Christianity to establish the legitimacy of Christianity: “What had for Hue made Christianity implausible, in Hamann’s eyes served to give it greater strength and credibility. Hamann therefore turned Hume’s critique on its head” (Rose 148). This method is similar to Kierkegaard’s approach. Kierkegaard articulates Climacus’ skepticism towards the paradox of the Incarnation precisely to show the miracle which stands above reason. Karl Barth, in step with Kierkegaard, similarly writes, “Without any possibility on our side God’s great possibility comes into view, making possible what is impossible from our side” (Barth 17). And Kevin Vanhoozer likewise uses this same method of turning a “critique on its head” in response to Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction. Derrida asserts that “the age of the sign is essentially theological,” which Vanhoozer takes up as precisely what legitimizes Christian theology (Vanhoozer). Kierkegaard’s method of building up a legitimate skeptic viewpoint and turning it on its head is a consistent historical pattern exemplified particularly in Hamann’s work, which, according to Rose, was a specific influence of Kierkegaard.

            Lastly, Rose demonstrates the similarities between Kierkegaard and Pascal. Pascal likewise argues that reason will reach a point in which man must depart from it in order to embrace faith. Pascal says, “reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it” (Pensées 83). Pascal also, consistent with Luther and Kierkegaard, asserts that reason has a particular function within Christianity: “Submission and use of reason; that is what makes true Christianity” (Pensées 83). Rose argues that Kierkegaard’s thoughts have remarkable similarities to these Christian thinkers “contrary to the frequent claims of his radical unconventionality” (Rose 144—152).

            For Kierkegaard, soteriology and sin are epistemological in nature. The rational autonomy of the enlightenment (and Socrates) functions to prove the depravity of man. The more man ascends intellectually the more he distances himself from the truth, as Climacus articulates, “Indeed, he must not even be a seeker… he has to be defined as being outside the truth (not coming towards it like a proselyte, but going away from it) or as untruth. He is, then, untruth” (“Fragments” 13-14). Climacus has established that the sin and impossibility of humanity is epistemological impossibility; he is completely unable to ascend to God, indeed, the more he ascends intellectually the more certainly he will be unable to reach God. If for Kierkegaard the nature of sin is fundamentally an epistemological impossibility, then soteriology is fundamentally an epistemological possibility created externally. Rose says, “There is therefore an intrinsic link between this subject and Kierkegaard’s soteriology, and it is impossible to separate these two topics in his thought” (Rose 45).

            Kierkegaard does not resist the blows of Kant, but rather lets the limits of reason be clearly shown in Climacus’ writings, and then rebuilds the legitimacy of Christian faith by pointing to the Incarnation of Jesus, the teacher and teaching. Salvation is not achieved through an intellectual ascent of man; it happens externally through the reality of the person and work of Godman Jesus, the revelation of God.