Existential anguish in Kierkegaard

In this article we review Kierkegaard’s philosophy, focusing on his existential anguish, understood in the context in which he lived and in relation to faith. Thus, we take a short walk through the thoughts of this very original philosopher.

Kierkegaard, predecessor of authors such as Heidegger, Nietzsche or Sartre, is considered the father of existentialism, and creator of the concept of existential anguish. He was the first to postulate that the most important thing about human beings is their existence in the world.. That essence that Kant, Hegel, etc. advocated. It is something unknowable and therefore would not be an object of knowledge or truth.

Kierkegaard had an approach to the human being that was very focused on self realisation. Let’s think that this author had in front of him the Industrial Revolution, which had turned the human being into something insignificant. An artisan’s work could be replicated ad infinitum by the same machine that would make an effort much smaller than that of the craftsman.

If today we think about activities that we believe are our own, such as writing a poem or representing a painting, and we look at technological advances, We will see that these supposed talents of the human being, the result of their emotions, are perfectly reproducible by machines whose artificial intelligence far exceeds ours although they lack (yet) emotions…

Both the Industrial Revolution and the Technological Revolution put the human being in an indeterminate place where it is not even essential. And it is here where man begins to suffer deep identity crises that lead him towards deep anguish; because, if everything that was “essentially” ours can be done by any machine, What then is consubstantial to man? What are we alive for?

existential anguish

Kierkegaardian existential anguish is based on a marked disillusionment with life. The author felt himself far above the moral precepts and ethical mandates of the time, but, like any mortal, Kierkegaard had fallen into the clutches of heartbreak, a fact that did not help him have an optimistic vision of existence.

Read Also: How to face: “I can't take it anymore today”?

Kierkegaard starts from something that surprised at the time: truth is subjective. It is for this reason that individual truths, although disparate and even contrary, cannot be administered, governed or judged by another subjectivity. Men cannot communicate with each other. The only direct relationship possible is that of man with God.

This way of thinking is much better understood knowing that Kierkegaard was critical of Christianity not as a belief, but as a system that had become politicized and placed at the service of man (especially those who were part of the Church itself). He renounced the idea of intermediaries to talk to God.

In fact, says Kierkegaard, it is totally normal to doubt that God truly exists. We have no certainty. This idea, so repudiated by Christianity, for the author is an inherent element of faith. Faith is faith because it is doubted; If not, it would be knowledge.

The anguish against atheism

“I want to believe because I doubt God; If I really knew that he existed, I would not look for him in all things.

-Kierkegaard-

Kierkegaard’s main argument against atheism is that believing in God is properly a leap towards faith.. It is a decision that is made when there is no evidence or certainty. And the unexplored consequences of that act of faith that we make when believing are what cause existential anguish.

As an example, we will use the innocent Adam, who tasted the apple, tempted by the innocent Eve, who tasted the apple, tempted by a not-so-innocent snake. In a single act, biting the fruit, Adam went from being innocent to being a sinner, How would Adam know that the consequences of his actions would be those?

Read Also: The Weltschmerz Effect: The Sadness of Deep Thinkers

Neither Adam nor Eve had the slightest idea why God had forbidden them to eat such delicious fruit. Therefore, Adam and Eve knew that what they were doing was forbidden, but they lacked the knowledge of why..

Later they learned that the tree from which they had taken the apple was the tree of good and evil and that, when we know, we not only know good, but we also know evil, thus being able to act maliciously.

Conclusion? Anguish precedes the consequences of an ethical decision, and we can make ethical decisions because we are free. This freedom that we enjoy is generated in the moment before taking the leap of faith.

The purpose of Kierkegaard’s philosophy is not to formulate a theory about reality, about the world or about man, but to convince human beings that they have to take charge of their own life, both ethically and practically. The truth that man ignores is not objective in nature, but rather a subjective truth that has to do with each person’s way of existing.