Kierkegaard on Human Understanding

[Victor Eremita]

Working in a climate of Danish Hegelian philosophy which claims everything could theoretically become knowable, Kierkegaard cherished the age-old notion that philosophy begins with wonder, not doubt. In his Journals in 1847, Kierkegaard writes:

"It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand, and what those things are. Human understanding has vulgarly occupied itself with nothing but understanding, but if it would only take the trouble to understand itself at the same time it would simply have to posit the paradox. The paradox is not a concession but a category, an ontological definition which express the relation between an existing cognitive spirit and eternal truth"

For Kierkegaard, there are two types of questions, questions that have definite answers and which can be understood, and questions that are inherently unanswerable. Questions of the former type include questions like: what is the product of 4x82, when was Rio de Janerio founded, what is the distance from Medicine Hat, Alberta to Rochester, New York. Questions of the latter type include, is there a first cause, what is the Good, what lies beyond the universe.

Questions of the former are important, but once those questions are answered, that's it; the question is rendered inert for the asker. Whereas questions of the latter continually inspire philosophy as wonder, and expresses human awe and creativity (an existing cognitive spirit) with the grand mystery of existence (eternal truth). Even though we may never find a definite answer for any of these questions, Kierkegaard hopes that these questions will never be deemed meaningless and abandoned by philosophy.

As long as there is someone willing to embrace the paradox, philosophy lives.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

Working in a climate of Danish Hegelian philosophy which claims everything could theoretically become knowable, Kierkegaard cherished the age-old notion that philosophy begins with wonder, not doubt. In his Journals in 1847, Kierkegaard writes:



For Kierkegaard, there are two types of questions, questions that have definite answers and which can be understood, and questions that are inherently unanswerable. Questions of the former type include questions like: what is the product of 4x82, when was Rio de Janerio founded, what is the distance from Medicine Hat, Alberta to Rochester, New York. Questions of the latter type include, is there a first cause, what is the Good, what lies beyond the universe.

Questions of the former are important, but once those questions are answered, that's it; the question is rendered inert for the asker. Whereas questions of the latter continually inspire philosophy as wonder, and expresses human awe and creativity (an existing cognitive spirit) with the grand mystery of existence (eternal truth). Even though we may never find a definite answer for any of these questions, Kierkegaard hopes that these questions will never be deemed meaningless and abandoned by philosophy.

As long as there is someone willing to embrace the paradox, philosophy lives.

How does K. know that a question is unanswerable? Questions that have been thought to be unanswerable in the past, turned out to be answerable. For instance, it was once believed that what the stars were made of could never be known. And then the spectroscope was invented.

[Victor Eremita]

Imagine some ancient Greek wondering if there was a way to create a system which transmits data at near real-time around the world. 2500 years later, we've answered it: Internet Protocol. Once questions are definitively answered, then that's the end of the road for that question in philosophy, it's become a science. Questions that are yet to be answered will always inspire. (i.e., is there a better way than the Internet we have now?)

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

Imagine some ancient Greek wondering if there was a way to create a system which transmits data at near real-time around the world. 2500 years later, we've answered it: Internet Protocol. Once questions are definitively answered, then that's the end of the road for that question in philosophy, it's become a science. Questions that are yet to be answered will always inspire. (i.e., is there a better way than the Internet we have now?)

But how does K. know which of the questions are answerable, and which unanswerable? That a question is inspirational (whatever that means) does not make philosophical.

[Victor Eremita]

Kierkegaard assumes that even if everything could be answered, the question why does anything exist in the first place would be unanswerable, which takes place outside of human observation. But there are many things that cannot be observed within the limitations of our own perceptions.

Most of what nowadays flourishes best of all under the name of scientific research is not science at all but curiosity. To say simply and profoundly that we cannot see with the naked eye how consciousness comes into existence is perfectly in order. But to put your eye to a microscope and look and look and look and still not see it, that is comedy.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

Kierkegaard assumes that even if everything could be answered, the question why does anything exist in the first place would be unanswerable, which takes place outside of human observation. But there are many things that cannot be observed within the limitations of our own perceptions.

But for a long time it was believed that we could never observe the constitution of the stars, or the other side of the Moon. Both were wrong. How can such an assumption be confirmed?

[Victor Eremita]

That's our duty to find out what those things we cannot understand are. The sparrow may never know about economics and quantum theory; the human being may be limited in some way as well; we're not perfect after all. The old classics remain like, what's the meaning of life, how should I live, or what was before the Big Bang, if the theory is correct. Kierkegaard thought Kant was on to something when he discussed the noumena-phenomena distinction and Socrates with his discussion on immortality.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

That's our duty to find out what those things we cannot understand are. The sparrow may never know about economics and quantum theory; the human being may be limited in some way as well; we're not perfect after all. The old classics remain like, what's the meaning of life, how should I live, or what was before the Big Bang, if the theory is correct. Kierkegaard thought Kant was on to something when he discussed the noumena-phenomena distinction and Socrates with his discussion on immortality.

But how do we find out what those things we'll never understand are? And how do we separate them out from those we will be able to understand? That was, and is, my question.

[Victor Eremita]

As I said, our human perceptions are finite, temporal, and limited to observational phenomena, and we cannot possibly grasp questions which posit things eternal, timeless, or outside human observation. Telescopes and microscopes enhance our observational range, but still have to pass through human perceptions which are still finitely limited.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

As I said, our human perceptions are finite, temporal, and limited to observational phenomena, and we cannot possibly grasp questions which posit things eternal, timeless, or outside human observation. Telescopes and microscopes enhance our observational range, but still have to pass through human perceptions which are still finitely limited.

So how do you tell that some question is outside of human observation? The constitution of the stars used to be outside of human observation. Not now. In any case, the question, what is the nature of knowledge is not an observational question, at least not in any normal sense I know. Yet philosophers discuss and reason about hypotheses which are answers to it. For instance, that knowledge is true justified belief. And some answers are clearly wrong, at least. Not every question is answerable by observation in any normal sense. Some issues may be conceptual issues.