In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusion: Reconstructing Kierkegaard Kierkegaard, I have argued, is compelled to postulate a transcendent standard as the only adequate measure because he thinks that the human desire for existential orientation can mean only ultimate security and final rest in the flux and contingency of everyday life. But what does the human desire for existential orientation and identity come to? My answer has been that humans need an existential identity because they are radically self-transcending selves and so discover that they have no naturally given standpoint, no unambiguous perspective. Humans find themselves existentially homeless and so seek a home; they seek a lifeperspective they can ground themselves in that will orient them morally and spiritually.And by spiritually I mean some meaningful life-purposes, something we can live for that is not simply our given desires or social context, but which we can self-consciously and rationally affirm. The question has been what counts as an adequate answer to such existential matters. It is perhaps necessary, at this point, to mention that although one might think that I am explaining away theism, or Christianity, the thrust of my argument is that Kierkegaard’s efforts to provide a “subjective rationale ” for theism cannot be decisive; there is no way to approach religious matters that ignores the “objective” side: metaphysical and even historical/empirical questions cannot be bypassed in making the case for a religious worldview.The subjective rationale is too subject to incursions from the social and cultural side to be decisive. I do not claim to have pro06 .conc.163-170/Mehl 2/14/05 2:09 PM Page 163 nounced on the truth of theism or Christianity; I have claimed that the truth of theism or the Christian vision of life cannot be settled once and for all with existentially edifying arguments about what makes for human flourishing. It is not that I think a traditional metaphysics must be attempted and made good, for I think this is forever beyond our reach. Rather, I think that even a cumulative case for a worldview, one that employs both existential practical psychological and theoretical metaphysical arguments, will finally be seen as one rationally permissible view among others for our allegiance. For those of us who live and think after Nietzsche, our answer must deal with historical consciousness and the lack of one secure and noncontroversial normative perspective. Pluralism is the final story or, better, the final stories. Traditionally, and for the most part (although there have been dissenters ), theologians and philosophers have sought to discover an Archimedean point, a firm foundation, a God’s-eye perspective. Is there an ultimately secure place for the strong spiritual evaluator to rest? In the strong terms that Kierkegaard lays out, I do not think so. The history of human thought on the matter of the correct ethical and spiritual posture gives us great reason to be skeptical. The current philosophical climate (one of deep and pervasive pluralism) gives even more reason to be cautious in declaring our answer. At least it will lead us to conclude that an attitude that thinks it is philosophically finished is probably only just beginning . Most striking, perhaps, is that Kierkegaard’s own terms strongly suggest that the ultimately secure foothold is unintelligible to us; there is no way we can get to it on terms acceptable to the human understanding . Admittedly we have a desire for it, but our intelligence shows that this desire cannot be satisfied—short of giving up on our intelligence. But then anything goes. We are, Kierkegaard concludes, fallen creatures in need of rescue; the human situation is simply despair. But Kierkegaard did not end up frustrated and in despair, and many others who follow the terms of his Christian existentialism do not. Why not? In the first place I do not think that Kierkegaard or his disciples have followed the terms of his analysis to their radical conclusion; to use Climacus’s terms, they have slipped into the delusions of the positive thinkers, or in grander terms, they have taken the leap of faith. But this leap truncates the tension, the contradiction, that comes with being a synthesis of the infinite and finite, and the wound of limitless self-transcendence is covered over. But to some degree that is as it should be for earthbound creatures. The pragmatist sees our reengagement as suspect, and so never taken too seriously, but also as always the necessary condition for thinking and acting, and so beyond radical...

Share