(no subject)
Okay, so the prompt for this one has to do with the individual's relation to the universal through the absolute, and how that's a paradox and all. (Which it totally is, by the way.)
Now, what does that mean, in layman's terms? (Or, y'know, sane-person terms?)
Okay, so you've got a guy contemplating action A. Now, say action A is ethically viable--it's the Right Thing To Do. The prevailing theory at the time Kierkegaard was writing--a theory that still persists to this day, not without justification--is that if action A is the Right Thing to Do, then it must be what God wants you to do.
(Kant argued that if Action A is NOT the Right Thing to Do, it must not be God who wants you to do it. Basically, God is perfect, right? Perfection entails Goodness, specifically moral goodness. You might call it worthiness. In fact, it's the ultimate worthiness. So if God wants you to do it, it must be the right thing to do, and if it's the right thing to do, God must want you to do it. The idea is, moral worthiness is a connection to God. Kant would say--well, he'd mean it, and I'd paraphrase it to say--that God is the little Jiminy Cricket voice in your head telling you to do what's right, and when you listen to the voice, you're obeying God. If this idea isn't clicking, you probably won't get the rest of this, either, so leave a comment and ask.)
Kierkegaard, on the other hand, was reading his Bible and going, "What the fawkes? That's not the God I know!" He takes the specific example of Abraham sacrificing Isaac and points out: That's not exactly ethical. Human sacrifice is not, so to speak, Kosher. Nevertheless, God deliberately called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the mountain. Yes, it was a test of faith; yes, just before the sacrifice God was all, "J/K!" Still, God said, "If you follow me, you will kill," and yes, Abraham was saying, "I will follow you," but he was also saying, "I will kill." God changing his mind later doesn't change Abraham's willingness to say that.
This is what Kierkegaard is promoting: you don't approach the absolute through the universal, you approach the universal through the absolute.
The terms "absolute" and "universal" may be somewhat what-the-fucky to those who haven't been having them drilled into their heads for the last month, so I'll parse those for you. The "absolute" refers to one's commitment to God. It's not a commitment (theoretically) that one can be like, "Meh, I'll do what you want when it's convenient," but it's rather supposed to be a commitment that supercedes all others; it is absolute. The universal, on the other hand, could well be another reference to Kant, this time to the ethics: if you want to know what you should do, choose that path that is most likely to succeed if everyone in the universe does likewise. Thus, the universal is just code for "ethics".
So this is what Kierkegaard is saying: it's not enough to try to approach God by doing what is right. You have to obey God 100%; then, if you can, do what is Right.
That, to the people at the time Kierkegaard was writing, would have been mind-blowing.
I should probably keep going with this, but honestly, I'm really tired. I'm going to get up and write it in the morning.