Kiekegaard and human dignity

1455 Words3 Pages

In order to understand the role that Socrates played in Kierkegaard’s thought as well as the relevance of this connection to the world today it is useful to understand the immediate background of Kierkegaard’s critique. Specifically, this essay examines the problem that both Romanticists and Kierkegaard grappled with and the novelty of Kierkegaard’s Socratic approach in tackling problems with the Romanticist analysis. Rousseau is discussed as a representative of the Romanticist movement. The central claim of this essay is that modern life leaves the human subject very exposed and that, as a result, Kierkegaard’s application of Socratic irony is even more relevant today than it was during the 19th century when it was conceived.

In the prehistoric times, humankind was faced with the raw brutality of nature. A wild animal could maul and devour a hunter while the hunter’s colleagues looked on in despair. A decayed tooth would cause a person insurmountable pain and suffering for a very long time, and the idea of a secure home where one could raise a stable family --if such a concept could even be sustained amid all the chaos-- was a far-fetched dream. To put it, as Hobbes did, life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" . In the face of all of this, human dignity was pitted against an all-powerful nature and the human stood no chance.

Beginning with the mastery of fire and continuing on to modern computers and engines, a glimmer of hope emerged for human dignity: mankind made remarkable strides, through science, technology and government, in controlling aspects of nature that make life uncomfortable or unstable. In this sense technology came to be seen as a promise of happiness. For the most part, modern humans can live fre...

... middle of paper ...

...subject as the locus of dignity it provides a strong, albeit negative, force against encroachment of modernity. With the ironic stance, the subject refuses to buy in uncritically to the illusory stability of modernity. When unspeakable things happen, the sting is still faced severely, but it is not exacerbated by the feeling of betrayal of the false promise of modernity. Whether close to nature, or in the midst of civilization, to make sense of the inherent chaos one does not resort to a pretend order and instead engages with things as they are. The subject remains protected even as all else may fall apart.

*1 To be sure, this must be qualified, from its onset modernity had dealt with intense criticism from the conservative and religious tradtions, Rousseau was one of the first prominent Enlightenment figure to provide a sustained criticism of the entire project.

Open Document