Author: a fool

All alone with Jesus

Observer

I have been reading Fear and Trembling and Kierkegaard and Christian Faith. As is the case sometimes with me, both have raised similar ideas. Both have said something to me that I needed to hear.

I was really struck by the first article in the second book, “An Introduction to False Pretenses, Søren Kierkegaard, and Trying on Faith for Size” by Kathleen Norris. (As a small aside, Norris also writes an introduction to a collection of poems by Thomas Merton that I am reading.) In the article she makes the point that she is not a philosopher – not about making distinction. Rather she is a person that makes connections. A lightbulb moment: that is me! Some of the distinctions of academic philosopher make my head spin. But I naturally connect various ideas (without intellectually fully understanding the background or finer points of the argument) into something meaningful for me.

Fear and Trembling is written by Kierkegaard under the pseudonym of Johannes de silentio. In the Preface he makes the point that he is no philosopher because he is not a system builder. He is, rather, an outsider looking in. I have spent my life looking for the perfect system all in an attempt to escape myself. But I have always been the outsider who takes a position within the system not taken by others.

All of this made me think:

  • I need to reject the labels of theologian (which I can claim by academic training and and experience) and philosopher (which I can claim by experience).
  • I am no system builder because I do not think systems can define. Systems have no authority.
  • I am an outsider looking in. I am simply an Observer who sees themes in the world around him.

“Lost” in choices

I think stories and how we tell them are important. Some TV is just escapism. But we cannot ignore that modern questions are sometimes asked in unusual and new contexts. So reflecting on real TV shows is going to be an ongoing theme on this blog – how do these shows reflect the questions we are asking? And, more importantly, what do they say about being a person in a modern age?

I have been re-watching Lost. (Remember when everyone was into it and every podcaster was doing a Lost fancast?) I have been hesitant to watch it again – not much value once you know how it ends. But I have been pleasantly surprised and entertained. Once you get past the whole “island mystery” thing, the characters are well developed. I like the interconnectness and overlap. Yet, as an Australian, the Australian sections are unrealistic and way off the mark – no “hot sauce” or bars in Australia!

Anyway, back to the point. I have been struck by the recurring theme of consequences. The main characters all carry the consequences of their actions onto the island. The flash-backs bring the choices of the individual into focus in the new context of the island. A Catholic may even see the island as an image for purgatory.

So the point: all our actions, and hence our choices, have consequence. Sometimes these are good and sometimes they are not. But every choice we make has a consequence that we have to live with.

So here are the take-aways for me:

  • I make choices and they have consequences.
  • Not all consequences are good or pleasant.
  • But they are my choices and I cannot blame others for the consequences.

recommended future

A personal recommendation: Existential Christianity.

I have been reading through the articles, especially the author’s main thesis. I think his context is different from my experience and I am not as ready to dismiss certain aspects of the church as quickly as he appears to be. (That being said, I am not sure which aspect to hold on to!) It has, however, made me think!

So here are some random points for further discussion and thought:

  • Faith as character.
  • The problem of language.
  • Doctrine and salvation.
  • How to approach authority in a modern age?
  • What is “revealed”?
  • How to read the Bible and “listen to the Church” as a Single Individual?
  • Sin and choice.
  • Abstracted God and authentic being.
  • The paradox of Jesus.
  • Being human before God.
  • Being “me” before God.

Maybe some could be combined?!

character vs personality

Character, on the other hand, takes far longer to puzzle out. It includes traits that reveal themselves only in specific—and often uncommon—circumstances, traits like honesty, virtue, and kindliness. Ironically, research has shown that personality traits are determined largely by heredity and are mostly immutable. The arguably more important traits of character, on the other hand, are more malleable—though, we should note, not without great effort. Character traits, as opposed to personality traits, are based on beliefs (e.g., that honesty and treating others well is important—or not), and though beliefs can be changed, it’s far harder than most realize.

Source: Personality vs. Character

I wonder if in our modern society we often confuse the two.

kierkegaard today

I think Kierkegaard would be horrifed if he knew that a person two hundred years after his birth was writing about him on the internet. The totality of Kierkegaard’s philosophical thought is that one must find the answer that is true for me by acting upon it. (I am no philosopher so tell me if I am mistaken!) I always feel like I am simply adding to the “idle chatter” that is social media.

But I found this article interesting: Is Kierkegaard Still Relevant Today? As an aside, we used to live in a very small country town, hours from anywhere. The local shops stocked Philosophy Now while our suburban middle class shops only do lotto tickets and the like. Different market?!

Anyway, the article finishes with this paragraph:

Kierkegaard does not present us with absolute, objective truths, but challenges us to discover subjective truths for ourselves. He proposes to encourage us to become independent: “The phrase ‘know yourself’ means: separate yourself from the other” (The Concept of Irony, 1841, trans H.V. Hong and E.H. Hong, p.177, 1989). In the end, what Kierkegaard does is dare us to live, by choosing how we live, and by taking responsibility for our lives. Can we rise to his expectations?

I really like the quote: “separate yourself from the other”. No sense running with the crowd going in the wrong direction. But for me it has further implications. I do not speak on behalf of a school of thought, a religious party, or a political movement. I have no authority other than that of speaking for me. And I am the only person responsible for my actions (and speech). That does not mean that “truth” does not exist or is created by me. It simply means that I cannot hang on to the shirt-tails of a movement and except to go in the right direction for me.

I have become more aware that I am simply hiding in the crowd to avoid facing myself. Other people can journey with you but they cannot journey for you.

So maybe the post should really be called “me today”?