CHAPTER I

A THEISTIC ANALYSIS OF MAN AND HIS EXISTENCE:

KIERKEGAARDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Existentialism builds up man’s quest for the meaning of his life. Moreover,

man considers several elements in attaining the truth about his life. In as much as this

paper tries to unveil the true meaning of man’s life, man’s authentic existence, in a

comparative analysis, it is notable that this chapter gives one idea of man and his

existence in a theistic view, particularly the Kierkegaardian perspective. In this

chapter, we can see clearly the salient points a man needs to consider in his search for

the authentic life, being a theist. Accordingly, man sees his authentic life in relating

his own self to God. Herewith, Kierkegaard posits some important ideas and required

means in man’s journey towards his authentic life.

1. Kierkegaardian Notion of Existence

This chapter solely contains the philosophy of a Christian existentialist, Søren

Aabye Kierkegaard. In this chapter, we can see a specific concept of existence which

is “a category relating to the free individual.”1 In Kierkegaard’s presentation, it is

observable that he points out “man’s existence as a free choice depending on the man

as the existing individual. Man exists through his inward passion opting where to live

among the spheres of existence.” Thus, it “denotes the concreteness and individuality

Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. VII: Modern Philosophy

from the Post-Kantian Idealist to Marx, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (New York:
Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1994), 335. Hereafter cited as
Modern Philosophy.
of a life lived in time.” 2 In Kierkegaard’s philosophy, it is good to consider existence

as related solely to human beings. Thus, in anyway, this chapter deals with

Kierkegaard’s view of man and his existence. This sense tends towards man’s search

for meaning of his life through finding one’s particular purpose, willing that one thing

which constitutes purity of heart and becoming a person capable of carrying out that

idea.3 Whence, man’s existence is in a constant striving, a constant becoming… it has

to take the form of a constantly repeated self-commitment. 4 Lastly, Kierkegaard posits

existence as a religious category: the situation of the single, finite, unique individual

who has to make a decision before the One infinite God in his Fear and Trembling.5 In

the next subtopics, we can understand more in details what Kierkegaard conveys about

man, his existence, his choices and his realization of his own self.

2. Kierkegaardian Conception of Man

Kierkegaard‘s existential philosophy presents some considerable elements in

view of man. He posits the idea of who man is and what should be his proper identity

which will enable him to realize his ‘real self.’ Herewith, Kierkegaard explains what it

is to be human, namely to be a true person. Hence, the succeeding subtopics present

2

Robert C. Roberts, Existence, emotion, and virtue: Classical themes in

Kierkegaard, Alastair Hannay and Gordon D Mariano, ed., The Cambridge
Companion to Kierkegaard (Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge, 1998), 178. Hereafter cited as Companion to Kierkegaard.
3

Cf. Ben Alex, Søren Kierkegaard: An Authentic Life (Scandinavia:

Scandinavia Publishing House, 1997), 14. Hereafter cited as An Authentic Life.
4

Ibid, 347.
5

Cf. Manuel B. Dy Jr., Philosophy of Man (Quezon: Goodwill Trading Co.,

1986), 33.
man’s identity i.e. as an existing individual. Thus, man is a subjective being, who

owns his life and one who is able to live on his own decision.

2.1 Man as an ‘Existing Individual’

Generally, existence is the state of being present; the perfection of being.

Everything that which is there is, in a sense, in existence. But, in Kierkegaard’s

philosophy, existence is mostly applied to human beings. Accordingly, he posits the

two states of what it is to be in existence for man, namely: as an existing individual or

as a being in existence. He sets a clear distinction between these two concepts and he

suggests which is proper for man’s search for the meaning of his own life. Hence, in

this topic, Kierkegaard speaks of the importance of one’s decision for his own life.

Moreover, Kierkegaard gives us an analogy of these concepts with the two

charioteers. A man sits in a cart and holds the reins, but the horse goes along its

accustomed path without any active control by the driver, who may be asleep. Another

man actively guides and directs his horse. Both of them are drivers but only the latter

can be said to be driving.6 In view of that, we can post that the former is the ‘being in

existence’ while the latter is the ‘existing individual.’ As for Kierkegaard, the former

is the spectator. He is simply a receiver of the action who is passive. He is affected by

the actor’s action since he does not initiate the action. Furthermore, he goes along the

flow of other’s actions and fulfilling not his own will. As ‘being in existence,’ he is

just happened to be present in the situation but not in the action. He is not the ‘existing

individual’ who strives resolutely towards an end which cannot be realized once and

Cf. Copleston, Modern Philosophy, 347.

for all at a given moment…he wishes to understand everything and commits himself

to nothing.7

The latter, on the other hand, is the actor. He strongly decides for himself and

that which makes other beings act depends on his actions. Moreover, he acts for what

he wills by actively doing what is essential for his sought fate.

Accordingly, Kierkegaard puts emphasis on man as an individual. His interest

lies neither in the properties of the individual, nor in the knowledge of the world that

might be delivered in from them, but in the sheer fact of the individual existence. 8

According to him, “to exist means becoming more and more of an individual and less

and less a mere part of a group. It means transcending universality in favor of

individuality.”9 He accentuated man’s self-commitment through free choice, a self-

commitment whereby the individual resolutely chooses on the alternative and rejects

another.10 This, obviously, is the work of an ‘existing individual.’ It is a call out of

infinity of the self, for self-definition as an individual, as opposed to self-definition

from the institutions of society, specifically the family. 11 A. H. Maslow characterized

Ibid.
8

Cf. Roger Scruton, A History of Modern Philosophy (London: Routledge,

1981), 182. Hereafter cited as History of Philosophy.
9

Copleston, Modern Philosophy, 335.

10

Cf. Ibid, 336.

11

Cf. Hannay and Mariano, Companion to Kierkegaard, 266.

him as self-actualizing person held with self-esteem and motivation. 12 Herewith,

Kierkegaard explains the importance of being apart from a group or a crowd. For him:

The crowd is the untruth which makes an individual completely impenitent and

irresponsible. It weakens one’s sense of responsibility since the work is being divided

among the members of the crowd.13 Thus, being one of a group or a crowd is being

untrue to oneself. One becomes unfaithful to his own will. This renders the individual

not to be responsible for his own action because he is anxious of the blame he might

receive from others. In addition, he might just be afraid of rejection by others; for this

reason, he just goes along with the decision of the group, the crowd or the majority.

But, this is not proper to individuality, as Kierkegaard says:

Individual is similarly defined in polemical contrast to a life oriented to and by

the crowd. To be an individual is to be so constituted as to be able to act and
feel with a high degree of social independency; that is, not to be subject to the
approval and disapproval of one’s significant peers as to be emotionally
enslaved by them14

Besides, Kierkegaard says that the crowd is, in fact, composed of individuals;

it must therefore be in every man’s power to become what he is, an individual. 15

Therefore, when one learns to be himself, he becomes the true individual who decides

for his own life, striving for his own fate and holds responsible for his endeavors. He

12

Cf. Burton F. Porter, Perspectives on Living, Personal Philosophy (New

York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1976), 445.
13

Ibid, 340.
14

Hannay and Mariano, The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, 175.

15

Cf. William V. Spanos, Existentialism (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co.,

1966), 241.
is what we can call the ‘authentic person.’16 It is applicable in every situation

nowadays especially when deciding for our own selves. It is mostly noticeable in

family and in peer group when one member decides for his fate. If he firmly believes

in his own decision, he can be said of an ‘authentic person,’ not having been affected

by his family and friends’ opinion and emotional affection. This is the concept of an

‘existing individual,’ man must realize in his life. In the succeeding discussions, this

concept will come to its full meaning, especially when we talk of subjectivity.

2.2 Man’s Subjectivity is Truth

In as much as we have learned, man’s authenticity lies within his being an

individual i.e. becoming more of himself. This concept shows the way to man’s

subjectivity. For Kierkegaard, ‘Subjectivity is truth.’ 17 This was understood with the

concept of the crowd. Kierkegaard posits that the crowd is the untruth; thus, truth can

only be found within oneself and it lies on subjectivity. Man realizes himself in his

inward passion i.e. ‘of himself.’ Kierkegaard says: “And for a subjective reflection,

the truth becomes a matter of appropriation, of inwardness, of subjectivity and thought

must probe more and more deeply into the subject and his subjectivity.” 18 He is the

‘existing individual’ who acts for his own depending not on others like the crowd.

16

The term ‘Authentic person’ is used solely for the ‘existing individuals’ who
have something in their lives worth living for and fighting for and they respond to
those values with inward passion.
17

Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy (New

York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1966), 447. Hereafter cited as Socrates to Sartre.
18

Scruton, History of Philosophy, 184.

Thus, self-realization does not count on ‘objectivity’ or the ‘universal.’ Kierkegaard

firmly insists that self- realization is within ‘oneself’ of the ‘existing individual.’

Although Kierkegaard has a strong regard for subjectivism, he does not totally

disregard the ‘objective truth,’ namely the truths presented by sciences as long as these

truths does not purely affect one’s decision. Moreover, as a Christian Philosopher,

Kierkegaard sees man’s subjectivity tending towards an object i.e. God. With God he

is able to realize his own self as it is more understood in the religious state of life.

Since, truth is reflected upon objectively as an object to which the knower relates

himself. What is reflected upon is not the relation but that what he relates himself to is

the truth, the true.19 Thus, truth is within the ‘self’ of man who actually inclines

towards an object to which the truth about oneself is realized .

3. Spheres of Existence as Personal Options

Kierkegaard posits the different spheres of existence in man’s life. He develops

a new trend from Hegel’s dialectic by emphasizing the importance of applying these

ideas into practical sense rather than remaining just ideas. Hence, the application deals

with these spheres which play significant roles in man’s search for his authentic

existence. They set different essential functions in man’s realization of his true self; as

in Kierkegaard’s dialectic, not in a manner of a continuous process of conceptual

meditation but through discontinuity, in the sense that the transition from one stage to

another is made by choice, by self-commitment. 20 Man has the ‘freedom’ which

19

Cf. Hannay and Mariano, Companion to Kierkegaard, 171.

20
enables him to pass from the aesthetic state to the ethical, and ultimately, to make the

leap of faith, the highest act of man’s liberty.21

3.1 The Aesthetic Life

Among the three spheres of existence, the aesthetic life is defined as the

superficial and shallow state. In this state man dwells more on sensual level.

According to Kierkegaard, “the aesthetic man is characterized by self-dispersal on the

level of sense. He is governed by senses, impulse and emotions. He strives after a

sense of bad infinity which is nothing else but the absence of all limitations other than

those imposed by his own tastes.”22 He practices freedom in a way of being dependent

to his own desire. With this, he is centered more in the goods of this world that which

can offer him temporary comfort. This is in a sense that an individual takes pleasure in

everything and commits himself to nothing as Kierkegaard says:

This life is available to romantic consciousness, unites the subject with what is
temporary and fixes the soul in the immediate. The aesthetic consciousness
finds its paradigm of personal life in that which is most determined by the
passage of time – the erotic.23

Aesthetic state can be qualified into two approaches; (1) one who sacrifices

everything just to meet his pleasure and (2) one who totally holds on sensual realities.

For the former, an aesthetic man is likened to an athlete who faithfully dedicates

himself to sports. He makes proper diet and exercise, controlling himself on eating

Cf. Copleston, Modern Philosophy, 344.

21

Cf. Dy, Philosophy of Man, 33.

22

Copleston, Modern Philosophy, 342.

23

Scruton, History of Philosophy, 184.

much and avoiding any vices. Seemingly, he renounces the bodily pleasures but still

he craves for something else that which gives him pleasure i.e. his dedication to sports.

As for the latter, an aesthetic man is likened to a fashion-oriented man who faithfully

dedicates himself to fashion. He discovers new trends of fashion every day. Herewith,

this man sees no contentment of his looks; thus, he continuously strives for it. In this

sense, this man just depends on what he wants without the proper act of choosing.

Both of them show the aesthetic way of life because they commit themselves only to

that which gives them pleasure. They enjoy everything and refuse limitations. The act

of a sensuous man lacks a personal commitment to the objective knowledge. “His

essential principle is that ‘the moment is everything, and in so far again essentially

nothing.”24 Therefore, one must find a means to leave this state in order to look for a

better means of attaining the authenticity of life. As contained in the Either/Or, one

must make a decision in the transition to other state which lies solely on a commitment

through an act of will.

3.2 The Ethical Life

This is the second stage among the spheres of existence. In this level, man

commits himself more than all pleasures. The ethical man accepts determinate moral

standards and obligations, the voice of universal reason and thus gives form and

consistency to his life. He is morally conscious; renouncing the sensual attractions…it

has its own heroism which Kierkegaard calls as the ‘tragic hero.’ 25 He renounces

24

Ibid.
25

Copleston, Modern Philosophy, 342.

himself to express the universal.26 One good example of this man is Socrates who

renounces himself for the good of all.

The ethical man is similar to a father who works hard for his family or a

faithful caregiver who devotes himself in caring for his patient. Both of them put their

own selves to work to the extent of not giving much attention for their own pleasure.

This is in a sense that they work not because it gives them pleasure like the athlete in

the aesthetic sphere but because they solely do it for others; a call of moral obligation.

In this fashion, man begins to sacrifice his own pleasure for the sake of others.

But still, an ethical man takes human weakness which he in turn thinks that can

be overcome by strength of will. But, he acknowledges the need for a perfect virtue

which can be fulfilled in God, since he is aware of his lack of self-sufficiency, of his

sin and guilt.27 Thus, there is still a need for a higher level proper for the authenticity

of life. This involves an awareness of one’s own finitude and estrangement from God

to whom he belongs from whom he should derive his strength. 28 As also contained in

the Either/Or, one must make a commitment within this sense by the leap of faith.

3.3 The Religious Life

26

Cf. Spanos, Existentialism, 247.

27

Cf. Copleston, Modern Philosophy, 343.

28

Cf. Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 449.

 In as much as we have discussed the first two stages in man’s existence, we

realized that they are unsatisfactory in the individual’s search for authentic life. And

so, man moves to the highest state among the spheres of existence, the religious state.

This state surpasses every pleasure and is even beyond universal laws. This level is

also above human reasons. In this sense, the concept of the infinite God comes into

man which is realized only by ‘leap of faith.’ As Kierkegaard says:

The religious man affirms his relationship with God, the personal and
transcendent Absolute, through affirming himself as spirit. This is founded on
faith. Being finite, man is separated and alienated from God. Being infinite he
is not indeed God but he is striving towards God through faith.29

Although there is a set of difference between man and God in terms of

infiniteness, man is able to share in God’s infiniteness by becoming God in the

‘spirit’30 i.e. acknowledging one’s act in God’s will. In as much as we have learned,

Kierkegaard posits that the subjectivity of man as an existing individual is directed

towards an object who is God within the objective uncertainty. This is not in a rational

way but only by ‘leap of faith.’ It means that this act of man’s being a subjective

existing individual is in a relation to God’s subjectivity since “God’s is the subject;

therefore, man exists only for subjectivity in inwardness.” 31 Hence, the object is in

man’s subjectivity. It is truth according to Kierkegaard, because God himself is truth

29

Copleston, Modern Philosophy, 343.

30

“Man is a ‘Spiritual being’ in his own self. The self is a relation that relates
itself to itself or is the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation; it is not the
relation but is the relation’s relating itself to itself in a synthesis of the finite and the
infinite.” Alex, Authentic Life, 90.
31

Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 449.

and who is also subjective. Thus, man relates himself to the truth as to share in the

subjectivity. Kierkegaard calls this as an object in relation to the objective uncertainty.

Kierkegaard, as one of the theistic existentialist, is a devout Christian since

childhood through his father.32 Christianity brought much influence for him to realize

his own life in the religious state. Hence, Christianity for Kierkegaard is truth.33 In

general, religion possesses truth since man develops his personal commitment with

God through it particularly in prayers.

Moreover, the paradox enters when man does not see the hidden plan of God.

But as a religious man, he willingly and totally submits himself to God, whatever he

may risk. God remains to be important for him. Furthermore, in Kierkegaard’s

existentialism, “existence precedes essence.”34 Human action depends on human

essentiality; essential-self. This essential-self is fixed by the very fact that man must

inescapably become related to God.35 Thus, man becomes capable of realizing his

authentic existence through variety of self-commitment in the Either/Or until one

comes to the highest state in man’s life, the religious state, which can only be realized

by ‘leap of faith.’

32

Cf. Alex, An Authentic Life, 19.

33

Cf. Ibid. 48
34

William S. Sahakian & Mabel Lewis Sahakian, Ideas of the Great

Philosophers (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996), 167.
35

Cf. Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 447.