Kierkegaard and Levi: Part One

Two of the most interesting and controversial spiritual figures of the nineteenth century were Soren Kierkegaard,and Eliphas Levi: the Theologian and the Magus. At first sight Kierkegaard and Levi would seem to have little in common, but on closer examination it shall be observed that they have similarities as well as contrasts. Let us begin with a brief look at the personal lives of the two; we shall have more to say on both latter. S.K. (Kierkegaard shall be referred to as S.K. hence forward) was born in 1813, Levi (Levi's given name was Alphonse Louis Constant) was born in 1810. Both were western Europeans, and seemed destined for careers in the clergy from a young age. S.K.'s father wanted S.K. to be a Pastor in the Danish National Church, Levi was educated by the Roman Church, with the understanding he would become a Priest. Neither had a clerical career, both became writers on religious or spiritual topics. Both were involved in unsatisfactory love affairs; S.K. with Regina Olson, Levi's younger wife left him. Both lived through the political revolutions of 1848, yet were unaffected by the revolutionary fever of the times. We shall examine the strange political career of Levi later. S.K. decided in 1848 that his vocation was to become a missionary to bring Christianity to Christendom, Levi gave an alternative origin to the Paris Commune. (See "Key to the Mysteries") Both became writers on spiritual subjects, and had mystical experiences. S.K. conversion to Christianity, and Levi's invocation of the shade of Apollonius of Tyana. And most importantly for this essay both were influenced by the prevailing philosophy of the time: German Idealism. It is important to understand that German Idealism had filtered through out nineteenth century society, even into "pop culture" Edgar Allan Poe's tale "The Tomb of Ligeia" mentions both Fichte and Schelling. So it should come as no surprise that German Idealism would influence both religion and occultism. Religion and occultism are two sides of the same coin, and often overlap. The above ground or respectable beliefs are religion. The underground or unrespectable beliefs are occultism. So it seems right that S.K. and Levi should be examined in the same essay. We begin with S.K. To understand S.K.'s use of dialectic, we must go back and examine Hegel's dialectic. I would recommend that readers who have not read my essay "Fichte and Schelling" do so. Also I shall be relying on J.M.E. McTaggart's book "Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic"(Second Edition) in this essay. For fans of McTaggart not to worry if you want to read the above book, there is a lot of McTaggart in the book. The longest chapter in the book is on the dialectic's relation to time. So let us review Schelling and Hegel's use of dialectic. Schelling developed his dialectic from Fichte, but there is a big difference between Fichte and Schelling. For Fichte abstractions(universals) are a creation of the human mind, and not an intrinsic element of the cosmos. For Schelling abstractions (universals) are not only an element in the cosmos, but a controlling element. The cosmos is governed by reason. Hegel take Schelling's position even further making reason into God. We now move to the nature of the dialectic. The dialectic of Fichte, which Schelling and Hegel took up and modified, is one of freedom and necessity, these are the thesis and antithesis.Let us go back to our analogy of a chess game, which I used in my previous essay:"Fichte and Schelling." Beginners at chess are bewildered at the many moves they can make. A master player searches for the right move(the necessary move), the position controls the moves that can be made. The positions are of course analogies for universals. All universals by definition are necessary.It is universal that limit the activity of freedom. As in the chess game, the right move must be made, according to the nature of the position of the pieces. The chess position (universal) limits the freedom of the player. One of the major differences between Schelling and Hegel is the moving term of the dialectic. For Schelling the moving term of the dialectic is freedom, for Hegel it is necessity. This also affects their differing conceptions of God. The purpose of the dialectic for both Schelling and Hegel is to bring about absolute knowledge, which manifests God on Earth. For Schelling it is Fichte's God which is manifested in absolute knowledge. A God that is will and desire, but is not self-conscious. For Hegel it is Spinoza's God which the dialectic manifests; a God that is perfect knowledge and necessary. Let us go to a quote from McTaggart on Hegel: "All knowledge must have immediate data. which are not deduced but given. But it does not follow that knowledge must consequently be left imperfect, and with ragged edges. That which indicates the defect of knowledge is not immediacy but contingency..." And another quote from McTaggart on Hegel's conception of knowledge and God: "We should perceive all reality under the only form which, according to Hegel can be really adequate it-that is, as a unity of spirits, existing only in their connection with one another. We should see that the whole nature of each individual was expressed in the relations with others. And we should see that that nature, which was what marked him out as an individual, was not to be conceived as something merely particular and exclusive, so that reality consisted of a crowd or aggregate of separate individuals. On the contrary the nature of each individual is to be taken as determined by his place in a whole which we must conceive on the analogy of an organism, a unity manifesting itself in multiplicity. The individual has his entire nature in manifesting of this whole, as the whole is in turn nothing else but its manifestation in individuals." So it seems Hegel agrees with Spinoza that contingency is a flaw, Therefore not an adequate manifestation of God. Of course, S.K. had no interest in Fichte or Spinoza's conceptions of God; it was the Christian God that concerned S.K. So to S.K. we turn. It has been rightly said that S.K. was an Augustinian, and like St. Augustine, S.K. was influenced by neoplatonism. In that S.K. accepted that humans exist in three worlds of realms of existence. We quote from S.K.'s book: "The Concept of Anxiety" (Edited and translated by Reider Thomte): "Man then is a synthesis of psyche and body, but he is also a synthesis of the temporal and eternal. That this often been stated, I do not object to at all, for it is not my wish to discover something new, but rather it is my joy and dearest occupation to ponder over which is quite simple" What S.K. is referring to is the Iamblichean anthropology that humans are a composite of body, mind, and soul. These three realms correspond to S.K.'s three spheres of the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. Each of these realms is quantitative unlimited; the qualitative is the limit. In other words, to make the leap to a higher sphere a qualitative leap must take place. There is also overlap with occultism here. In Cornelius Agrippa's "Occult Philosophy" we are told that humans exist in three worlds. Let us examine each world, before getting to S.K.'s use of dialectic. The body is the realm of the material, it is characterized by appetites and desires; it is a relationship with the physical. The mind or the psyche is the realm of universals or the forms; it is a relationship with other people. The soul (spirit in S.K.'s terminology is the realm of the eternal; it is a relationship with God. Now we can move to S.K.'s use of dialectic. For S.K., unlike Schelling and Hegel, the dialectic is for the enlightenment of the individual instead of society. The dialectic is a ladder for individuals to ascend to a relationship with God. This is why one of S.K.'s favorite pseudonyms was "Johannes Climacus" or "John of the Ladder." S.K. not only theorized about the dialectic being a ladder to God, he also tried to live it in his personal life. We move to S.K.'s thesis and antithesis: the aesthetic versus the ethical. Like Schelling and unlike Hegel, S.K. saw freedom as the moving term of the dialectic. So the first term if the aesthetic, which is desires and appetites; the bodily urges. The is of course, the theme of S.K.'s book "Either/Or" S.K. also live this conflict in his personal life. He was known as a fob or dandy. Not that S.K. ever indulged in vice as we think of it; he did not drink to excess or was sexually promiscuous. Instead he did things like hold a banquet in imitation of Plato's "Symposium." S.K. played the decadent, romantic as he put off taking his theological exams during his school years. This part of S.K.'s dialectic was exemplified in his life by the strange relationship S.K. had with his father, Micheal Kierkegaard. Micheal Kierkegaard seems like a character out of a Dostoevsky novel, he cursed God as a young child, and then became very successful in life. This left him with an overwhelming sense of guilt for the rest of his life. S.K. never mentions his mother in his writings. She is described as being a happy, sensible person by S.K.'s principal biographer (Walter Lowrie). She may have been sensible, but it seems unlikely she was happy having a husband like Micheal Kierkegaard. Whether S.K. did not mention his mother because of her lack of influence, or it was too painful is a mystery. I suspect the latter. Back to S.K. and his father. Micheal Kierkegaard wanted his son to become a pastor in the Danish Church. This action of taking his exams to be a pastor represents the antithesis to the aesthetic which is the thesis. The jump to the ethical sphere, notice each sphere is characterized by a relationship. Like in Schelling and Hegel, the ethical is the universal: the limiting, the necessary. It is Kant's categorical imperative; the duty to universalize one's actions. This of course, the conflict examined in "Either/Or" the person who lives for himself versus the person who has accepted their responsibilities. S.K. in fact did not take his theological exams till after his father's death. Here we observe that in S.K.'s dialectic that there is a jump in quality not in quantity. There is a qualitative difference between the aesthetic and the ethical; it is therefore a leap. The transitional term in S.K.'s dialectic is anxiety. S.K.'s dialectic is very much a ladder instead of a ramp; there are jumps of leaps not smooth transitions. It is a jump or leap to get to a higher sphere. The leap from the aesthetic to the ethical occurred in S.K.'s life after his father's death. The question becomes: why did S.K. wait for till after his father's death to take his exams? Here again we observe the difference between S.K. and Hegel's use of dialectic. For S.K. the moving term of the dialectic is freedom.Only after his father's death could S.K. know that he was making a free choice, and not taking the exams to fulfill his father's wishes.This is also why anxiety is the transitional term in the dialectic. It must be hard to make the leap to a higher sphere, this insures it is a free choice. What happens in the qualitative leap from the aesthetic to the ethical is one goes from being a particular to a universal (a citizen of society). That is one takes up the universal duties of the citizen of society. Now we have the thesis (aesthetic) and the antithesis (ethical) so we must move the the higher term the synthesis. The synthesis of freedom and necessity. This is the sphere of the religious. The leap from the ethical sphere to the religious is a much harder leap to explain S.K. brings in the story of Abraham and Issac to explain the leap from the ethical to the religious.The ethical sphere is the realm of universals; a particular person conforms to the universal. Again we observe the dialectic of freedom and necessity, the aesthetic is freedom, the ethical is necessity.Now these two must be synthesized into a higher freedom, this is the religious sphere. S.K. being a Christian believed everyone must confront God as an individual, a particular. There is no collective salvation or collective punishment. the dialectic is a ladder the individual must climb from the body to God. So in the story of Abraham the ethical becomes the temptation. Everyone would agree that a father should not sacrifice his son.this is why the ethical is the easy thing to do. Abraham must pass through the transitional term of anxiety to move to the higher qualitative sphere of the religious. If as Hegel said that the universal was the highest, faith would be a temptation (this may be the reason why progressives despise faith). S.K. also identifies the ethical with resignation. This is because the ethical is the necessary, it is not free, one resigns oneself to the ethical. the anxiety again shows the leap must be made in freedom. One must want to make the leap, one cannot resign oneself to the religious sphere. This is the relationship of love between God and man. As I have said elsewhere("Religion and Abstraction" ) the exchange formula is found everywhere in S.K.'s writings. God became man, so man can become god. This jump to the religious sphere plays out in S.K.'s relationship with Regina Olson. Regina Olson was engaged to S.K. S.K. broke off the engagement and acted much like a "drama-queen" through the episode. Why did S.K. break off his engagement with Regina Olson? S.K. wrote he book "Fear and Trembling" To explain the break. This is the book about Abraham and Issac. So S.K. broke off with Regina Olson for God. Neither S.K.'s admirers or detractors ever said he was humble. He gave up his love relationship with Regina Olson to pursue his love relationship with God. It should come as no surprise after S.K.'s break with Regina Olson that he became an advocate for clerical celibacy. This was the leap to the religious sphere in S.K.'s life. We have only one more issue to deal with in this part. That being S.K.'s support of subjectivity over objectivity. Remember one of S.K.'s most important books was:"Concluding Unscientific Postscript" By "unscientific" S.K. meant subjective. For Hegel the term "scientific" always means objective knowledge. Since the religious sphere is one of unlimited freedom, there is no limit to God's love, this makes the religious sphere subjective. S.K. also seemed close to putting his finger on the flaw in objective knowledge. S.K. compares Hegel's system to a beautiful house, but a house the builder cannot live in. For another view of the flaw in objective knowledge, let us again turn to McTaggart: "And here we see the reason why knowledge can never represent quite accurately that harmony of the universe which knowledge itself proves. We saw above that when knowledge should have reached the greatest perfection of which it is capable there would still remain one question unanswered-Why is the universe what it is and not something else? We may prove the question unmeaning and absurd, but we cannot help asking it. And the possibility of asking depends on the existence of the This, which knowledge is unable to bring into unity with the knowing subject" In other words objective knowledge is always alienated knowledge, The subject is always on the outside looking in, there is never a unity of knowing subject and object. It is interesting to note McTaggart's quote above applies to today's dispute in theoretical physics of the Anthropic Principle: those who advocate directionality versus those who advocate the multiverse. Neither side seems to have considered the possibility that the flaw lies with objective knowledge itself. This takes us to an even older way of looking at the cosmos that of magic. So we move to Eliphas Levi. END OF PART ONE