Absolute and the Divine
The absolute paradox would be if the Son of God became man, came to the world, went around in such a manner that absolutely no one recognized him; if he became an individual human being in the strictest sense of the world, a person who had a trade, got married, etc. . . . In that case God would not have been God and Father of mankind, but the greatest ironist. . . . The divine paradox is that he becomes noticed, if in no other fashion, then by being crucified, by performing miracles, etc., which means that he is recognizable, after all, by his divine authority, even if faith is required in order to solve its paradox.[1]
[1] From Kierkegaard’s journals as quoted in Garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 265, emphasis mine. C.f. Kierkegaard, Point of View, p. 16.
When I first read this, I missed the difference between absolute and divine. Wow. If this is a real difference, and I think it is, this is an extremely illuminating passage from Kierkegaard’s journals. I only wish that there were better citations in Garff’s biography so that I could find this passage easier for the full context. Although journals are often fragmentary, so maybe there is not much more (?). Those are Garff’s ellipses above though, not mine, so I dunno.
Thanks for pointing this out Eric, this is really a great quote.
Rusty Brian said this on April 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
what do you think ‘to solve its paradox’ means?
ken oakes said this on April 28th, 2008 at 4:32 am
It seems to me that the ‘absolute paradox’ would be equivocal, meaning that there was absolutely no way to bridge the ‘infinite qualitative distinction’ (I am no Kierkegaard expert, but I think he would title the ‘gap’ as such.), thus we would have an unsolvable paradox, or one that cannot come to any resolution. Resolution might not be the best term, perhaps it might be best to say “way of speaking positively about the Divine.” The Divine paradox, then, would be one that is more analogous than equivocal, though I think it would have to be a qualified paradox. This would, in my mind, allow some sort of resolution or positivity.
What do you two think?
By the way, Ken did you ever get the email I sent you a couple of months ago? (Sorry for using your blog like a facebook page Eric!)
Rusty Brian said this on April 28th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Rusty–what do you know of Facebook?
Kaz said this on April 28th, 2008 at 9:31 am
To ’solve’ the paradox in the Kierkegaardian sense means, I think, to live within it, to go deeper into existence as he puts it. The difference is one of standpoint: without faith the paradox is offensive, absurd, and we come to a collision with it; in faith, the paradox is ‘overcome’ in a sense, but it still persists in being paradoxical in another way. In other words, in faith our reason is transfigured. This is the radical (infinite) difference between the Socratic learner and the person of faith: the Socratic learner only recollects while the individual who confesses in faith introduces something radically new, and that is that their entire person (including their reason) has become transfigured and reborn. The faith, as Johannes de Silentio says in Fear and Trembling, is one of reception.
In The Concept of Irony, Kierkegaard talks about irony as as “a riddle to which one at the same time has the solution.” Later on toward his conclusion, he similarly talks about faith like this: “faith is victory over the world, and yet it is a struggle, and when it has struggled, it has won the victory over the world; and yet it had won the victory over the world before it struggled. Thus faith becomes what it is. Faith is not an eternal struggle, but it is a victory that is struggling.” In this sense, the victory of faith is like a riddle to which one already has the answer. [some of this wording is copied from my thesis]
In this sense, the divine paradox of faith is like the victory of faith in which one still struggles. We never ultimately ’solve’ it (at least not until we see God face to face), and it is for this reason that Kierkegaard criticizes the speculative Hegelians (Martensen and Heiburg) so harshly, because we do not stand in a place (sub specie aeterni) to solve it. As Climacus puts it, no individual is speculation but is the individual caught up in existence. To assume that we can really solve it is a misordering of philosophy and theology, subsuming the latter unto the former and then passing that off as theology.
Eric Lee said this on April 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Rusty, yes, I think you are on to something with the qualified paradox. To use Desmond’s terms the divine paradox would probably be something more like the metaxological, as we really do stand in awe and astonishment at the wonder of being within faith. I don’t know enough about Desmond or about theological analogy to know what the relationship is between the analogical and the metaxalogical, though.
Whereas, the absolute paradox could really be seen from any one of univocal, equivocal, or dialectical standpoints. Dialectical because the first assumption would be a unity of the sides in a tension. But this unity, if only within reason, can easily pass into the univocal. I think this is what speculative reason ultimately does. Equivocal because of the divided, unmediated stance of the one in “unhappy consciousness” can’t make heads or tails of the absolute paradox. Or if it does, it deconstructs the paradox until its meaning is only one of equivocal absence.
Eric Lee said this on April 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am
eric - thanks for the quick and cogent reply. i think that it is interesting to speak of ’solving’ a paradox, even still when solving it means ‘living within it’ (nicely put) in faith. i hope that you will start sending that thesis around when you finish it or at least publish it somewhere.
hi rusty! - don’t remember receiving anything. could you send it again?
kaz - tell me more about this ‘facebook’
ken oakes said this on April 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Good explanation Eric. Desmond was sort of floating around in my mind, but not necessarily, I think I just had lots of the things I’ve been reading lately bubble up. I do think you’re right about the ’standing in awe and astonishment at the wonder of being within faith.’ I was simply trying to assert that this allows for a certain positivity, of course while including a negativity, that the absolute paradox would not allow. Of course, the Barthian in me would hope that we would stand in awe of more than just being in faith, but I completely understand and agree with what you are saying!
And yes I do hope to see this thesis too!
Rusty Brian said this on April 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pm