[MUSIC] While Kierkegaard was writing the articles for The Fatherland and The Moment, he lived here in this building across the street called right across from the Church of Our Lady and the Bishop's Palace. He was living literally just a stone's throw away from Bishop Martensen's residence. While he was here, he published nine issues of The Moment and had just completed the tenth and final issue when he fell ill. So this was the last text that he ever completed in his life. The Moment Number 10 is an interesting work since Kierkegaard reflects on his own strategy and his attack on the church, and here once again we can see some interesting hints of the figure of Socrates emerge. In the section called My Task, Kierkegaard reminds his readers that he's not called himself a Christian and that this is of the utmost importance that people bear in mind. This might come as a surprise to some people since every introductory text or encyclopedia article on Kierkegaard begins by saying that he is a Christian writer. What then can he mean to say that he never called himself a Christian? In the history of the Christian church, there have always been different sects and factions which claim to know about the truth of Christianity and criticized others for not knowing it. They thus took a kind of moral high ground by claiming to be the true Christians while others fell short of the mark. Kierkegaard is anxious to avoid this kind of relation where he props himself up as the moral authority, claiming to be the true Christian and criticizing his enemies for being false Christians. If he were to assert that he were the true Christian, then he would open himself up to criticisms of his opponents who could claim that he was a hypocrite. In order to avoid this, he simply says that he doesn't call himself a Christian. However, he paints a picture of New Testament Christianity that's so difficult to live up to that it ends up being a kind of ideal that no one can attain. This ideal allows him to criticize what he takes to be the corrupt and false Christianity of his contemporaries without him having to commit himself to saying that he personally embodies the idea. In short, the ideal does the critical work for him, and he simply has to point it out to people. This is similar to the strategy of Socrates who never claims to know the truth. On the contrary, he claims to know nothing. He then goes around and asks others what they know just as Kierkegaard explores the Christianity of other people in Golden Age Copenhagen. Socrates then discovers that although other people claim to know certain things, they are in fact ignorant. Just as Kierkegaard sees that although his contemporaries claim to be pious Christians, they have, in fact, a mistaken understanding of Christianity. Socrates, however, keeps driving at the truth and continues to ask people what they know in the hope of one day finding it. It's as if he has a conception or ideal of the truth that he can never manage to attain, just as Kierkegaard has an ideal of Christianity but yet says that he does not call himself a Christian. Neither Socrates nor Kierkegaard claim that they have reached this ideal, but the critical part of their task demonstrates clearly that other people have not attained it either. Even though these same people probably boast that they have done so. Thus, Kierkegaard writes, the only analogy I have before me is Socrates. My task is a Socratic task, to audit the definition of what it is to be a Christian. I do not call myself a Christian (keeping the ideal free), but I can make it manifest that the others are that even less. This makes it clear that Kierkegaard used Socrates, a pagan philosopher, in his attempt to criticize what he took to be the mistaken conceptions about Christianity in his own time. When Socrates was confronted with the words of the oracle that there was no one wiser than he, he interpreted this to mean simply that while everyone else claimed to know something and yet was ignorant, he knew at least that he was ignorant. And on this sole point he was wiser than the others. Similarly, Kierkegaard can point out that the version of Christianity that the others are following is mistaken, although everyone else believes that they are pious Christians. The difference between Kierkegaard and them is simply that he realizes that he's not a Christian while the others continue to believe themselves to be so. Thus, like Socrates, he avoids making the positive claim about his own status, but instead his project is the negative one of exposing the problems with the views of others. The analogy goes even further. Socrates struggled against the sophists in his own time. They taught for money, and they had no problem in presenting something as true. Kierkegaard sees a pendant to the sophists in his own day in the clergy and professors of theology. They, too, teach for a fee, and they're financially supported by the state. They claim to teach the truth of Christianity, but according to Kierkegaard, the conception of Christianity that they produce is deeply problematic. So for Kierkegaard, these are the modern sophists while he is the modern Socrates. The public conflict with the Danish church doubtless took it's toll on Kierkegaard who never really enjoyed robust health even in his best days. Perhaps due to stress and overwork, Kierkegaard became seriously ill and after collapsing was admitted to Frederick's Hospital on October 2, 1855. Today, this is the Danish Museum for Design. Kierkegaard apparently suffered from a paralysis that immobilized his legs and lower body. His condition gradually worsened to the point that he could hardly hold up his head or even move on his own. He was visited regularly by some of the members of his extended family, for example his nephews. But he refused to see his elder brother Peter Christian when he came to visit him. Kierkegaard was angry with his brother who had given a speech at the Roskilde Ecclesiastical Convention on July 5, 1855 in which he took a critical stance toward Kierkegaard's attack on the church. Kierkegaard was however regularly visited by his friend Emil Boesen who left behind an account of Kierkegaard's final days. As Kierkegaard's condition continued to deteriorate, hope began to slip away. Boeson asked if he would take holy communion, but Kierkegaard refused. He claimed that he would only take it from a layman but not from a pastor, but this was of course not legal in Denmark at the time since only ordained pastors were permitted to perform such ceremonies. So Kierkegaard declared that he would die without the communion. He rejects receiving the communion from a pastor since he tells Boesen, quote, the pastors are civil servants of the crown and have nothing to do with Christianity. Kierkegaard became weaker and weaker with each day, and towards the end he fell into a comatose state, not being able to recognize anyone or even to speak. Finally, he died here on the evening of November 11, 1855. Kierkegaard's funeral took place on Sunday, November 18, 1855, here in the Church of Our Lady. The situation was an awkward one given Kierkegaard's violent attack on the church. For this reason, none of the clergy dared to show up for fear of being perceived to be sympathetic to Kierkegaard's cause. The only exceptions were Kierkegaard's elder brother, Peter Christian Kierkegaard, who is the only remaining relative in Kierkegaard's immediate family. And second the Archdeacon Eggert Christopher Tryde, who was the presiding pastor. It was a difficult proposition for Tryde, since, on the one hand, he could hardly criticize Kierkegaard's attack on the church, but then, on the other hand, he could hardly ignore it completely since it was an ongoing controversy that had attracted a great deal of public attention. Kierkegaard's brother Peter Christian took up the difficult task and gave the eulogy. He began by explaining the sad family background, recounting the life of his father, the loss of his siblings such that only he and Soren remained. He could not avoid completely the issue of the controversy surrounding the attack on the church, although he said that the funeral was not the appropriate place to discuss it. Nonetheless, he emphasized that he thought that his brother had gone too far in his criticism, and he emphasized that much of what Soren Kierkegaard said in the context of the articles in The Fatherland and The Moment could not be accepted. A large number of people came to Kierkegaard's funeral. Indeed, there was standing room only in the church, but it was said that there were only a few members of distinguished society present. But rather, most of the people who came were from the lower social classes. This might be taken to imply that Kierkegaard's works were popular among ordinary people who weren't trained scholars or academics. Or it might be explained by the fact that Kierkegaard was a well known public figure who was seen regularly on his daily walks through Copenhagen. There was also doubtless an element of sensationalism involved since people were keen to see how the official church establishment would deal with this awkward and sensitive situation. [MUSIC]
