|
|
|
|
|
|
 arl Rogers was influenced by Kierkegaard. We used to talk and joke about him with Carl during Carl's days at Center for Studies of the Person. We would say that Kierkegaard would be happy about this happening or unhappy about the other. That is not to say that we didn't take his seriously. We did. It was Kierkegaard's ideas of the person, of the self, that were most influential. I will say more about that later.
First, a few things about SK himself and his work. He lived about 150 years ago in Copenhagen. His life's work is a single woven cloth. Although he wrote many books, letters, journals, documents and papers, it is one work. He is regarded many different ways. Some see him as the father of existentialism. I see him as a personal philo-sopher .
His first work, The Concept of Irony, is about the way the self withdraws from its milieu and views what is happening from a detached point of view. From there he moves into looking into various ways of living, from the aesthetic, through the ethical and moral into religious levels of living. He looks at these lifestyles from the inside of each of them. He does not degrade them. He looks at the very best they have to offer. If you read, Either/Or it will be unsatisfying in the sense that you will not be able to tell whether he prefers the life of the aesthetic or the life of the bourgeoisie. Later in his work he finds that the very best they have to offer is inadequate.
In Sickness Unto Death he describes most succinctly his concept of the self: "The self is a relation which relates to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
itself, and to that which established it." To understand this statement is fundamental to Kierkegaard as well as to Rogers. SK railed against the dialectic as proffered by Hegel. Some today suggest that SK was himself a dialectic. This is to sell him far short. SK hated the dialectic.
The dialectic says that there exists a thesis and an antithesis that are at opposite ends of a continuum. The dialectic says that the task of the self is to find a harmonious resolution of these opposites - the synthesis. If you consider, for example, the thesis as the individual and the antithesis as the state, it is easy to see why Hitler and Lenin loved Hegel when the latter's synthesis is that the fullest expression of the self is service to the state.
SK says, "No! It is Either/Or!" He asserts that the thesis and antithesis are forever in hostile conflict. There is no harmonious resolution of the opposites. It is the task of the self to relate to both of these eternal opposites and to carry the resulting anxiety . This relating is the "relation which relates to itself" noted above. To abandon either the thesis or the antithesis results in a reduction of anxiety, but at the loss of the self. One of SK's quotes, - "The loss of self will pass away unnoticed. Every other loss, an arm, a leg, a spouse, or five dollars, will be noticed." In his Concept of Anxiety he writes that anxiety is the price of human authenticity.
The eternal and the temporal, the finite and the infinite, the necessary and the possible are examples of thesis and antithesis. If I spend all my time doing what is necessary, [paying my bills and keeping
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my two feet planted firmly on the ground] and ignoring the possible [realizing my potential, pursuing what it is possible for me to become], I lose my self. In the same way, if I spend all my time dreaming about what it is possible for me to become and ignore what is necessary, I lose my self. The authentic self must relate to both. This then is the "Self is a relation" part of SK's definition.
The self then, can gaze deeply into its own eyes in a mirror and regard itself. This then, is the "relates to itself" part.
Then the "that which established it" part . . . If the self is self-established, then the self relates to itself at another level. If the self is other-established, [ for example, by parents, society, the absolute, of God] then the self relates to this.
Kierkegaard stands out as a towering figure. He revolutionized our concept of the human condition. He leads us through the fundamental pitfalls and potential of human existence. He is far more profound than the shallow questions and easy answers provided by current "self help" nostrums. He points to the vast depths within us. He makes us confront our own cowardice and self deception. He challenges us to explore our depths and become all that we can be and ought be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
