[MUSIC] So it was here in this building where Kierkegaard wrote The Sickness Unto Death. You can see the plaque up on the wall that indicates that this is where he lived during this time. The Sickness Unto Death was published on July 30th, 1849, that is just a month or so after the introduction of the new Danish Constitution, and with this the completion of the bloodless revolution. In the year 1848, there were revolutions breaking out across Europe. People protested against the rule of absolute monarchy, and demanded that the powers of the kings be limited by a constitution. The revolution began in France and quickly spread to include the German states, the Italian states, the Hapsburg Empire, Poland, Belgium, Romania and so on. There was also a revolution here in Denmark, on March 21st, 1848, the national liberals marched to the royal palace and demanded that the new king, Frederick VII,, create a new democratic constitution. The king agreed, and the work was begun on a new constitution that would limit the rights of the royalty and nobility, and would mark the beginning of a new political order. These negotiations went on for more than a year until the new constitution was agreed upon and signed into law on June 5th, 1849. This was the most radical period of political change in Europe since the French Revolution of 1789. The Sickness Unto Death is known for its analysis of the concept of despair. Kierkegaard introduces a new pseudonymous author by the name of Anti-Climacus, who catalogs the different forms of despair that humans suffer from. He tries to understand despair as a form of sin, and, in the end, points to embracing Christianity as the solution to despair. Although one might think that this work is irrelevant for Kierkegaard's concerns with Socrates, in fact Anti-Climacus also holds up Socrates as a model for what's needed in his own day. In a short section, Anti-Climacus compares Socrates' understanding of sin with the Christian understanding. The discussion of Socrates has to be seen against the background of the political turmoil that was taking place in Denmark at the time. In the course of the negotiations in the constitutional assembly, there were, of course, many different voices which argued for the introduction of different rights and the abolition of the old privileges. Each person seemed to have his or her own clear idea about what was needed at the time. In The Sickness Unto Death, Kierkegaard refers to this in a somewhat odd way. He doesn't evoke some particular political leader or political party or modern cause, but instead, he hearkens back to Socrates. He writes, quote, Socrates, Socrates, Socrates! Yes, we may call your name three times. It would not even be too much to call it ten times, if it would be of any help. Popular opinion maintains that the world needs a republic, needs a new social order and a new religion, but no one considers that what the world, confused simply by too much knowledge, needs is a Socrates. What could Kierkegaard possibly have meant by this? Why would he think that of all the people, the ancient philosopher Socrates was of urgent importance in the wake of the 1848 revolutions in Europe. Kierkegaard suggested what his age needs, is what he calls an ironic ethical correction. This is what Socrates provided for his Greek contemporaries. Socrates corrected the folly of his fellow countryman by his irony, by claiming to know nothing and pretending to believe that other people knew all of the things that they said that they did. In Kierkegaard's time, people were quite convinced that they knew what was needed for the state. They each had their own idea of the nature of the constitution or the structure of the government. Kierkegaard seems to suggests that they're really misguided and that they don't really know. So what's needed is for someone to show that they don't know, by means of some modern version of Socratic irony. He notes that people are anxious to go beyond Socrates and to construct some positive doctrine, or present some concrete solution to the political confusion of the day, but he claims instead of overcoming Socratic ignorance and going beyond Socrates, what's needed, rather, is a return to Socrates, that is, a return to Socratic ignorance. In this context, he talks about the attempts of philosophers and theologians to explain and understand Christianity. Those we've seen, it's goal is to point out that Christianity can't be explained or understood discursively since it's based on a paradox, an absurdity or a contradiction, so to attempt to comprehend it, can only serve to distort it's true nature. Kierkegaard thus writes, and I quote, I consider it an outright ethical task, perhaps requiring not a little self-denial in these very speculative times, when all the others are busy comprehending Christianity, to admit that one is neither able nor obliged to comprehend it. Precisely this is no doubt what our age, what Christendom needs, a little Socratic ignorance with respect to Christianity. So Socrates is thus held up as a corrective to the errors of 19th century philosophy and theology. Socratic ignorance is the means to correct the mistaken conceptions of Christianity. Kierkegaard recalls that Socrates' claim to ignorance, and his ironic questioning of his fellow citizens were a part of what Socrates regarded as a divine command. Socrates believed that by the oracles saying that he was the wisest, he'd been enjoined to examine the purported wisdom of others, and undermine it when it proved to be unfounded. Kierkegaard regards his own mission as a parallel one with that of Socrates, but instead of the issue being one of knowledge, it's one of the nature of Christianity. Kierkegaard goes around Copenhagen and explains the different conceptions of Christianity which he believes to be mistaken. In his works, he tries to point out the contradictions and problems with these conceptions in order to undermine them, just as Socrates did with the different claims to knowledge that he encountered. Kierkegaard resists the urge to prop up a different positive conception of Christianity in contrast to the one's he's criticizing, just as Socrates refuses to present any positive doctrine of the truth itself. Instead they're both content to remain in negativity. Kierkegaard thus uses Socratic ignorance to guard Christianity against the mistaken positive claims of philosophy and theology of his own day. In 1850, Kierkegaard published the work Practice in Christianity under the pseudonym Anti-Climacus, the same pseudonym that he used for the author of The Sickness Unto Death. The work is divided into three sections or numbers. The first of these treats the passage from Matthew, Chapter 11, verse 28, where Jesus says, come here all you who labor and are burdened and I will give you rest. Kierkegaard had previously given a sermon on this passage here in the Church of Our Lady for the Friday communion on June 18th, 1847. He then published this in 1848 as in part four of Christian Discourses. A part of Kierkegaard inspiration for this analysis might well have come from this sculpture of Jesus by the famous Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen. The statue stands here at the altar of the Church of Our Lady. In the second part of the work, Kierkegaard draws attention to another passage in Matthew, namely, Chapter 11, verse six. Jesus says, blessed is he who is not offended in me. Why does Kierkegaard take this to be such an important passage? Through his pseudonymous author, he tries to bring us back to the time of Jesus and to capture the experience of the people who saw him and heard him preach. He points out that they didn't see a God, but rather a humble man. There was nothing triumphant about Jesus as he was going around the countryside with his flock of disciples spreading his message. Most importantly, Kierkegaard emphasizes that many people were offended by the idea that Jesus was the son of God and the savior. They couldn't reconcile this with his humble and meek appearance, so instead of believing they were offended by the idea. Kierkegaard's point here is that this is an important and essential part of Christian belief, that we can`t forget if we hope to maintain a veridical picture of Christian faith. In short, we must maintain what Kierkegaard calls the possibility of offence. When Jesus is portrayed as a powerful and triumphant figure, this is a distortion of the historical Jesus. This is not what his contemporary followers saw, but yet, they chose to believe anyway. In other words, many more people would presumably have believed right away if they could immediately see that Christ was a powerful, superhuman figure. Such portrayals, however, eliminate the possibility of offense since no one would be offended at the idea of a triumphant, powerful figure being regarded as a savior or son of God. But this constitutes a misunderstanding and distorts the nature of faith. Kierkegaard's point is that we must be like the contemporaries of Jesus, and believe in spite of his humble appearance. We must believe, even though others are offended. But if there's no possibility of offense, then there's no belief. In connection to this, in part two of the work, Kierkegaard refers to Christ as what he calls a sign of contradiction. He explains that the idea of Christ is both human and divine or, as the God man, is a sign of contradiction. In other words, our common sense tells us that something must be one thing or the other. We can well understand the idea of a God and the idea of a human being, but the idea of both together is a contradiction. The fundamental idea of Christianity is this, something that's contrary to our understanding. Kierkegaard's claim is that this contradiction needs to be maintained since this is what is required for faith. Kierkegaard departs from the long tradition of Christian apologetics which tries to make the idea of the double nature of Christ more comprehensible and understandable. Such attempts have traditionally been made in defense of Christianity. Their goal is to make it easier to understand this key Christian doctrine. But Kierkegaard stubbornly insisted this is a mistake, true Christian faith involves not explaining or dissolving this difficulty, but rather cultivating it and emphasizing it. Here we can again see the influence of Socrates on Kierkegaard's project. With ideas such as offence or the sign of contradiction, one can see that his goal is not to make faith easier, but rather more difficult. These are not positive doctrines that explain things, rather they're negative. They show us the limits of our understanding and our explanations. So just as Socrates questioned people and made knowing more difficult by exposing the mistaken views of his interlocutors, so also Kierkegaard makes Christian faith more difficult by exposing the mistaken conceptions of Christian faith. But Kierkegaard Socrates says that he himself is ignorant and doesn't present a solution to the problem. So also Kierkegaard, through his pseudonyms, doesn't present a solution by giving his own theory of the incarnation or the nature of Jesus. Instead he simply says that it is a contradiction that can't be grasped by the understanding and leaves it at that. During the last years of his life, 1854 to 1855, Kierkegaard mounted an unforgiving attack on the Danish State Church and its most distinguished representatives. He issued his attack in a series of polemical articles in the newspaper, The Faedrelandet, and in his own pamphlet, which he called The Moment. He violently criticized the priests and bishops of corruption, hypocrisy, and distorting the Christian message. This attack was scandalous for Danish society, and even years after Kierkegaard's death, it was considered impolite even to mention it. What was Kierkegaard so upset about? The immediate occasion for Kierkegaard's attack was a sermon that was given by his old rival Hans Lassen Martensen who had just been appointed as Bishop of Seeland in the head of the Danish State Church. In his sermon, Martensen referred to his predecessor, the recently deceased Jakob Peter Mynster, as a witness to the truth. This outraged Kierkegaard and he wrote an article entitled, Was Bishop Mynster a Truth-Witness, which he published on December 18th, 1854 in the journal, The Fatherland. This is the occasion for Kierkegaard to develop his conception of what he calls New Testament Christianity, and to show how radically it differs from the lives of Mynster and Martensen. This is the Church of Our Lady, the church where both Mynster and Martensen served as Bishop of Seeland and head of the Danish State Church. By New Testament Christianity, Kierkegaard seems to mean the form of Christianity that was practiced by its first followers as recorded in the New Testament. He points out that Christianity at that time, when the religion was just being born and starting to spread in the world, was a very difficult kind of faith. The early Christians lived in poverty and were ridiculed and detested by the mainstream Roman society. Kierkegaard emphasizes that back then Christians were very often martyrs for their faith. They were subject to persecution, ridicule, and humiliation. They lost their jobs, their property and, indeed, their lives. At that time, in the ancient Roman world, to stand up and say, I am a Christian, was to risk one's life. Christians had to meet in secret to hold their church services. In the face of this, belief was a very difficult matter. One had to believe in the divinity of Christ which, according to Kierkegaard, is even on its own terms by no means an obvious or straightforward matter. And this, in the face of great negative external pressure from the surrounding society, often including ones own family and friends. Thus, for Kierkegaard, the true Christian is a witness to the truth of Christianity and the way that he or she is prepared to be persecuted, tortured and suffer for their belief. He sets a very high standard indeed. In this context, Kierkegaard sees Socrates as a parallel situation. The true Christian was one had to be prepared for martyrdom, to be tortured, and even killed for his beliefs. Socrates was in a sense a martyr for philosophy. Socrates unrelentingly sought the truth even if it made him enemies. People came to resent him since he exposed them for their arrogance and ignorance. Even at the time, he never recanted or regretted his actions, but instead, stuck steadfastly to his beliefs. This kind of resolve is needed for the true Christian to return to New Testament Christianity. Like Socrates, the person like Kierkegaard, exposes the hypocrisy and corruption of the clergy of the day will be exposed to ridicule and hatred. From the conflict with the Kierkegaard learned what it was like to experience this and he regarded himself as a martyr. He then compares this picture with what he sees in the Danish State Church. He looks at the highest officials of the church and sees not martyrs but rather well fed, comfortable bourgeois citizens. They're in no danger of being persecuted. There is no chance they will ever have to risk their lives. On the contrary, they are among the most respected members of society, and they receive a regular salary from the state. Kierkegaard argues that this is holy incontinent with the true nature of Christianity as one finds it in the New Testament. Instead of losing their living in their livelihood by being Christians, the priests are earning their living with it. Instead of being detested outcasts of society, the priests are the leading pillars of it. Kierkegaard believes that this is a fundamental distortion of the true nature of Christianity. It demands that the priests either reform themselves in order to come more in line with the hard demands of New Testament Christianity, or give up calling themselves Christians. Also at the individual level, Kierkegaard finds it absurd that one can be a Christian simply by virtue of the fact that one has been born into a Christian country. One is never asked about it but one is automatically a member of the State Church. This again is, according to Kierkegaard, not in keeping with the true nature of the Christian doctrine which demands a conscious act of belief on the part of the individual. If no conscious choice has taken place, then one can't call oneself a Christian. With these views, Kierkegaard issues a very difficult challenge to his contemporaries, and warns against religious complacency. To be a Christian is an infinitely difficult matter. It's something that one needs to work at every day and every hour. It requires one to make all sorts of sacrifices with regard to normal bourgeois life. His warning to the future was clearly for people to be attentive to this and to always keep in focus the difficult demands of New Testament Christianity and not to allow themselves to be seduced by a lukewarm version of it that is to his mind a grotesque distortion. [MUSIC]
