Kierkegaard and the Absolute Paradox

Within the center of the Soren Kierkegaard’s anti-Hegelian philosophy we find the concept of the Absolute Paradox. From the beginning of Philosophical Fragments we find Kierkegaard’s so-called “Thought Project” to be bringing into question the age-old Socratic notion of learning as simple recollection of latent ideas, which Hegel brought to completion in his own dialectic of the movement of Spirit. Kierkegaard offers that learning could actually be a real coming to knowledge of the truth that was not there in the person in the first place. But if this is the case then the human could not possibly find the truth on his own because if he does not possess it then he cannot know to seek or not to seek it. Consequently, if one cannot seek the truth, then someone must bring the truth to them, not only the truth, but also, to put it in Kantian terms, the condition of the possibility of knowing the truth. This is because if the truth was presented one would not be able to understand it because of the lack of the knowledge of the truth in one’s own understanding. And finally in light of all of that, Kierkegaard maintains that the person who brings the truth and the condition, the teacher, is to be understood as a sort of savior because he would bring someone from the state of untruth to truth. This teacher also must be the god because no mere human could bear the truth and the condition of the possibility of knowing the truth because of the state of sin that each human finds themselves in because of themselves.

In light of this thought project we are presented with the Absolute Paradox, which begins as the paradox of human thought: the desire to discover that which human thought cannot think. This for Kierkegaard is the unknowable. He then presents this unknowable as God, not that he is trying to demonstrate the existence of God, which he views as not possible because to set out to demonstrate existence is to assume existence (much like Kant), but rather on the contrary showing that demonstrating God’s existence cannot be done making this God, therefore, the unknown with which our paradoxical understanding constantly clashes with. Now it seems that Kierkegaard’s most important step in this is that in order to possibly know anything about this unknown one must first realize that it is absolutely different from the unknown. This difference is not the opposition of “thesis” and “antithesis” of the popular Hegelian philosophy of the day, which Kierkegaard viewed as really offering no distinction at all because of the lack of “distinguishing mark”, but rather a real, ontological difference between humans. This difference is also very, so to speak, rooted in humans themselves and not in the unknown. For Kierkegaard, that which makes us different from the unknown is sin. This utter differentness ties directly into the necessity of the teacher bringing the condition of the possibility of knowing the truth. How would this knowledge of differentness even come to our minds? It surely cannot come from within us. Kierkegaard maintains that God must teach this to us and indeed this God wanted to teach this to us. But how can this God teach us this truth of our difference with him from a state of “untouched” difference and distance? To Kierkegaard he must come to us in a state of equality, so as to understand the difference first hand for himself, so to relay this truth to us as it really is for us. Thus we find the Absolute Paradox: God, who is absolutely different from us, in order to teach us of our absolute difference comes to us in a state of absolute equality with us; the infinite unknowable becomes the finite knowable.

Kierkegaard’s outworking of his thought project mean major implications for the Hegelian notions of the day. Hegel’s Socratic notion that truth is latent in each individual seems to be brought in question by Kierkegaard’s idea that possibility of a real teacher who actually brings the truth and the condition of the possibility of knowing the truth. As Kierkegaard points out this idea seems to pretty well accepted. This also seems evident in some rationalist thinking on innate ideas. If humans are in a state of untruth, then the truth is not present in them in the first place. More importantly it seems that Hegel’s notion of God is seriously brought under attack. Hegel’s idea of God is that Spirit making the course history move in the ultimate show of his dialectic through Abstract Spirit (thesis) becoming a Concrete single human (antithesis) which in turn returns to itself to become Absolute Spirit (synthesis). Thus, it seems, for Hegel that God is not entirely different from humanity, but rather humanity is the result of the movement of Spirit. For Kierkegaard, this is not the case. God is the Absolute Other who, in Christ, becomes Absolute Equal in order to teach of the truth, especially our absolute differentness. Thus the paradox itself stands is opposition to Hegel’s view of God.