Last night I attended a fascinating online lecture given by Dr. David Crabtree on the topic of the Danish Gadfly, Soren Kierkegaard. For the last several years, my eldest ds has told me that Kierkegaard was not a bad guy in theology, but that if I would read him, I would agree with him. So this topic further increased my curiosity, and I was treated to some fascinating ideas.
Dr. Crabtree began by stating that many (including Francis Schaeffer) have perpetuated a mythological understanding of Kierkegaard. He pointed out that K. was not concerned with questions of epistemology (how we know) but he was instead trying to counter a national, cultural, intellectual form of Christianity, and challenge his neighbors to heart-belief.
He also presented existentialism as not so much a worldview as an approach to philosophy that can be taken by people of many different worldviews. I tend to associate existentialism with nihilism and folks like Sartre and Nietzsche. But Dr. Crabtree pointed out that existentialism is a human approach to the philosophical questions, rather than an intellectual approach. In this way, Kierkegaard and his concern for the experience of faith is definitely existential but still coming from a Biblical Christian perspective, while Nietzsche and Sartre are definitely approaching the human problem from a foundation of atheism.
*Sigh* So, here is yet another gaping hole in my education. And I stumble through teaching philosophy and worldviews to high school students! Now I must re-think how I present everything to my students, and try to take more care with my definitions and the way I frame both my questions and my answers to them, and for myself. C. S. Lewis said,
"The surest sign of true intellectual acumen is a student's comprehension of what it is he does not know; not what he does know. It is a spirit of humility that affords us with the best opportunity to grow, mature, and achieve in the life of the mind..."
Well, if it only takes knowing what I don't know, I am surely on my way...
1 comment:
Interesting. I always viewed Kierkegaard through the Schaeffer lens, I suppose. You say, "he was instead trying to counter a national, cultural, intellectual form of Christianity, and challenge his neighbors to heart-belief." That makes complete sense, of course. I think it is easy for me to forget that Christianity used to be much more easily coordinated with public/government life. I was just reading that in the early 20th century, many people felt that the government was the instrument of God's redemption of culture--that socialism was not seen as contrary to Christian thought. Although K. predated this, he was no doubt hoping to get people to focusing on their personal spiritual faith in God.
I'm talking about things I no little of, just dabble in, so it's time to stop!
Post a Comment