FREE ESSAY ON KIERKEGAARD

KIERKEGAARD

Kierkegaard felt that subjective reflection was more crucial to the individual life than
objective reflection because it focused on passion and human existence instead of logic
and impersonal truth. The objective world is the world of facts and truth independent of
the perceptions of humans. Objective reflection focuses on what actually is, in the
objective world. Objective reflection centers on the things and ideas in the world that
can give meaning to life. The subjective world is the world of human thoughts, feelings,
and perceptions. It focuses on the relationship between people and their thoughts,
feelings, and perceptions in respect to their lives. It centers on how meaning in life is
viewed subjectively, or how humans find meaning in their lives. So, basically what he is
saying is, it is the relationship to what a person values in life. 
One major difference I noticed in the reading, between the objective and subjective
realms, is in regards to 'being' versus 'becoming'. Kierkegaard stated the objective
world is as it is: being. The subjective world is always 'becoming' something else
through internal conflicts and struggle. However, the latter difference then kind of
creates a chain as another difference arises between the two realms. The objective world
is based in reason, while the subjective world is based in passion. 
Kierkegaard believed that subjective reflection was the key understanding meaning in
life. He kind of complains with the objective reflection stating that it is impersonal
and an indifferent relation to existence. As a matter of fact, this terminology as I
shall call it, defines just what the objective world and objective reflection is: being
independent of any human subjectivity. Subjective reflection naturally focuses on human
existence in a personal, inward way without 'detachment' as Kierkegaard put it.
Kierkegaard goes on to use the knowledge of God as an example to show why subjective
reflection is more important. He believes that there is the objective reflection that
states that this is the true God, but subjectively, the relation to God that the person
has, is a God-relation. He makes sure to point out that there really is no truth in the
situation without the relation to God because the relation to God is more important than
the objective proof of God's existence. So with that in mind, to treat God objectively is
to treat Him as an object. However, God is a subject and therefore can only be related to
subjectively in inwardness. 
So it is the HOW which is important to Kierkegaard, not the WHAT. The strongest example
of his reasons for this comes in his idea of the leap of faith when faced with the
'absurd'. I say absurd partially because Kierkegaard is an existentialist, yet different
from those of modern present time. The absurd, with consideration to Christianity, is the
idea that the eternal God could never actually exist in human form as Christ did. It is a
paradox, it just cannot happen. There can be no objective justification for such a
paradox at all. Kierkegaard sees this not too important because what is truly important
is the relationship one has to God. This is where the leap of faith comes into place. One
is faced with complete absurdity and paradox, and one then abandons reason for completely
blind faith. There is no rational justification for it, only inward justification for the
existing individual. For Kierkegaard there really was no point in finding objective
truths, he only truly valued subjective truth. This meant that the truth was in respect
to a person's relations to other things in the world or to God. Because of this,
subjective reflection was crucial and more important for human existence because
subjective reflection embraced passion and faith in existing individuals. This idea was
demonstrated in the leap of faith that one has in relation to God. To Kierkegaard, this
was the highest way of life for the existing individual. The life of faith is the highest
form of human existence.
Bibliography
None