[MUSIC] The last decade of Kierkegaard's life was, in many ways, the most dramatic. This was a time of the Revolution of 1848 and of Kierkegaard's public attack on the Danish state church in the final years of his life. As you saw in the last lecture, this period represents what Kierkegaard scholars refer to as the second half of the authorship, namely the period from 1846 after the concluding on scientific post grouped, to Kierkegaard's death in 1855. In this lecture, we want to explore some of Kierkegaard's main works from these years, works such as a Literary Review of Two Ages, of Building Discourses in Various Spirits, the Sickness Unto Death, Practice in Christianity, and the Moment. We'll see how some of the themes and motifs that we've examined so far reappear in these works. In our exploration of these texts, it will be evident that even as Kierkegaard grows older he continues to return to the figure of Socrates as a source of inspiration. Indeed, he never abandons the great hero of his youth. Even in the last text that he never completed before his death, he explicitly states that Socrates was the only model that he used for his work. Our goal in the lecture today, is among other things, to try to understand what he means by this. Although Kierkegaard believed that he was going to die and that the concluding unscientific postscript would be his final work, he continued to live and could not help but to continue writing. Only a month after the postscript on March the 30th, 1846 he published a work called a Literary Review of Two Ages. This short work is a review of a novel by Thomasine Gyllembourg, the mother of Johan Ludwig Heiberg. The novel is entitled Two Ages. Gyllembourg's work contrasts two historical periods. One the period of Romanticism in the Napoleonic era, and the other, the period of the restoration. This contrast is portrayed in the story of a couple of different generations of a family living in Copenhagen. Kierkegaard seizes on this novel to develop some of his own ideas about society. Scholars often point to this work as Kierkegaard's most important statement of social political thought. It can't really be said that Kierkegaard was a major figure in the field of social political philosophy in the way that one could talk about figures such as John Locke, Karl Marx or John Stuart Mill. Kierkegaard never wrote any extensive treaties on political philosophy, and his a Literary Review of Two Ages can hardly be compared with the classics of political philosophy, such as Locke's Second Treaties of Government, or Rousseau's the Social Contract. In some ways Kierkegaard doesn't appear to have been much interested in politics due to his strong emphasis on the inward religious nature of the individual. This emphasis seems in many ways to undermine the social or political theory. But with that said, there can be no doubt that Kierkegaard does have some important insights that can be used in the context of social political philosophy. One of these, is the concept of leveling. This is an important idea that Kierkegaard explores in a Literary Review. Kierkegaard was at heart a royalist, and he was weary of the changes that were beginning to take place and would culminate in the Revolution of 1848. He believed that is was beneficial for society to be organized in a way that the differences of individuals be recognized. This is, in a sense, the case with a society with rigid social classes, since individuals are more or less innately recognized as a member of one class or another. But the fundamental idea of democracy is that everyone has the same rights to vote and to have their say in how the government should be run. Kierkegaard was worried about this development since he feared that this would create a public opinion that would be grounded in the masses. This public opinion would undermine the individuality of everyone since it would be a projection of a larger group. The concept of leveling appears in this context. Kierkegaard was concerned that the rush towards democracy would work against anyone who dared to stand out from the crowd in any way. Public opinion encourages people to be conformist. No one wants to appear different from anyone else. If one does, than public opinion will turn against such a person and expose him or her to ridicule. This was the way that Kierkegaard understood what happened to him in connection with his polemical exchange with the journal the Corsair. He believed himself to be unfairly persecuted by the Corsair which managed to turn the general public opinion against him. Kierkegaard believes that this kind of phenomenon is a pernicious aspect of modern life. Anyone who dares to be different or who possesses great gifts that make the mediocre masses envious will be subject to criticism and mockery. Such a person who towers above others will be brought down to the common level of the masses. This is what Kierkegaard understands by leveling. Instead of encouraging people to cultivate and develop their individual genius, modern democratic culture actively undermines and works against this. In this regard, he believes that the old order of things was better where recognition was given to, for example, nobility. And the public opinion did not carry so much weight. In that world, it was so easier for people to stand out, without being subject to the persecution of the masses and public opinion. Although Kierkegaard was a royalist, he had a reserved relation to the king himself. At the time, the king of Denmark was Christian VIII, who ruled since 1839. The king and his wife were interested in Kierkegaard and the king thus summoned him to a series of three audiences. Kierkegaard's first audience took place here in Amalienborg Palace on March the 13th, 1847. Kierkegaard records these encounters in his journal NB9. It seems that the king was interested in using Kierkegaard as a kind of advisor in affairs concerning intellectual life in the kingdom. He had heard that Kierkegaard had been in Berlin and had attended Schelling's lecture and was interested to hear about Schelling's role in the political developments in Prussia. As we discussed In lecture six, Schelling had been appointed by the kind of Prussia, explicitly to combat what were regarded as the negative progressive influences of left tagalianism. Many of Hegel's students became active politically, and came to play an important role in the revolutions of 1848. Christian VIII was presumably interested to hear if the appointment of the conservative, Schelling, had managed to stem this development, which was, of course, perceived as a direct threat to the monarchy. Christian VIII was also interested in appointing Kierkegaard to an academic position at the Academy, presumably with a similar strategic idea in mind. But Kierkegaard refused to be drawn into politics in this way. Indeed, he was reluctant even to meet the king and was fearful of any closer contacts with him For example, when the king made it known that he wanted to see him, Kierkegaard initially used an excuse that he did not have suitable attire and could not come. But the king insisted and Kierkegaard was obliged to visit the palace. During their discussion, the king, without asking Kierkegaard, simply informed his servants that Kierkegaard would be staying for dinner. For most people, this would of course be regarded as a great honor. But Kierkegaard rather brazenly refused, insisting that it was impossible for him to stay for dinner. When the King continued to make overtures to Kierkegaard, inviting him to a closer contact, Kierkegaard simply stated that he was a private person. Thus implying that such a contact was not desirable. So while we can say that politically speaking Kierkegaard was a royalist, this statement should be qualified. Kierkegaard did not have an uncritical disposition towards royal power or nobility and he enjoyed making fun of people who held high positions and enjoyed noble titles. While it's true that he was deeply worried about the democratic developments that led to the Revolution of 1848, he did not want to be drawn into any direct political role. He wanted to keep his primary focus on the inward life of the individual. In the years following the publication of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript and a literary review, Kierkegaard continued to publish prolifically. While we can't look at all these works in great detail, we can at least mention them briefly. In 1847, Kierkegaard published two major works in his own name. First Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, and then Works of Love. In these works Kierkegaard refers to Socrates not by name but rather as the simple wise man of antiquity and the simple wise man of old. In Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits Socrates has held up in a positive contrast to what Kierkegaard calls the crowd. As we've just seen, Kierkegaard was concerned about the political ferment taking place at the time where people were demanding democratic reform. In a democracy, what's important is the voice of the majority and so in politics it's natural that when trying to discuss policies with others and thus build a consensus. Kierkegaard has a negative view of the idea of people as a collective unit such as a political party, a political lobby or interest group or political opinion. He believes that this distorts, or even destroys the voice of the individual. One dares not oppose the voice of the majority for fear of being subject to it's criticism. For this reason, Kierkegaard hails Socrates who stubbornly insisted on the individual. The truth is to be found in each particular person, not in the collective group. On May the 18th, 1851, Kierkegaard gave a sermon here, at the Citadel Church. The theme of the sermon was the Letter of James, Chapter 1 verses 17 to 21, where God is referred to as, quote, the father of lights with whom there is no change or shadow of variation. Kierkegaard later published this as a discourse entitled the Changelessness of God. In Works of Love, a book that Kierkegaard published in his own name, he attempts to develop a theory of Christian love. Here he explores in some detail the meaning of the biblical command to love one's neighbor. In one passage, he tries to compare Socrates's practice with Christian love. He claims that true love is to help the other person to be free, to stand on their own. Socrates does this with his questioning. The goal of the Socratic method is to show the that in fact he doesn't know the things he thought he knew. Thus the view of the other persons are reduced to absurdities and contradictions. Socrates attempts to show this not by telling the other person what the truth is but rather by extracting it from the other person by means of his questioning. As we learned this is what Socrates refers to as his art of midwifery or maieutics. In this way, Socrates can claim that he wasn't the author of any new knowledge or information, but rather, merely assisted in its coming to the world, just like a midwife assists in delivering babies. Kierkegaard emphasizes the point here, that while Socrates is helping the other person in this way, he must remain as unselfish and as anonymous as possible. Indeed, this can even be conceived as an act of self-sacrifice on the part of Socrates, who's helping others in this way, even though it often leads to them being angry with him. No one likes discovering that the things they hold to be true are in fact, confused and mistaken. And the sense of humiliation that this causes was a source of great hostility against Socrates in ancient Athens. For this reason, Socrates can't make a great show of helping other people but instead must play down his own role and play up the fact that the other person is reaching the truth on their own. Kierkegaard refers to this in a somewhat odd way as, quote, deceiving the other into the truth. What he means by this is that Socrates' interlocutor doesn't really know what's happening when he's talking with Socrates. He doesn't really realize that Socrates is helping him by eliminating his false beliefs and illusions and leading him to stand on his own feet afterwards. In the end, he has Socrates to thank for being free, but he's unaware of this. This seems clearly to be the model for Kierkegaard, for being the model for what he's doing with his own writings. On the negative side, he's combating what he takes to be the mistaken conceptions of Christianity that come from the church, academic theologians and philosophers or mainstream culture generally. Then on the positive side just like Socrates the midwife is enjoining each individual to find their own individual way to the Christian truth. In this way he believes that he's helping other people to stand on their own and be free. On April the 26th, 1848, Kierkegaard published Christian Discourses. In this work, he takes specific biblical passages and expounds on them. In a couple of places in part three of the text he refers to Socrates as before as the simple wise man of antiquity. Again it's striking that Kierkegaard makes use of Socrates, a pagan philosopher in the context of a Christian work. That attempts an parts of the Bible. At the end of July of 1848, Kierkegaard published an extended article with the title, The Crisis and the Crisis in the Life of an Actress. This work examines the acting of the most celebrated actress of the age, Johanna Luise Heiberg, who was the wife of the poet, critic, and philosopher, Johan Ludvig Heiberg. In Kierkegaard's article, he explores the actress's portrayal of the character of Juliet from Shakespeare's famous tragedy Romeo and Juliet. She had played this role at the age of 15 and then again at the age of 35. Kierkegaard investigates what this means for the artistic rendering of the character. His account is highly flattering to Johanna Louisa Heyburgs skills as an actress. He praises her nuanced portrayal of Juliet, even though she was two decades older than the character she was playing. In 1849, he published The Lily in the Field and the Bird of the Air, and three discourses at the communion on Fridays, both in his own name. Along with two ethical religious essays and The Sickness unto Death, under pseudonyms. Kierkegaard's productivity continued to be astonishing. And all the while, one can see the figure of Socrates in the background of his works. Even works where one would not expect it. In the last lecture, we mentioned Kierkegaard's posthumously published book, The Point of View for My Work as an Author. This work is a highly insightful one with regard to how Kierkegaard conceived of individual works, and his mission as an author in general. Of particular importance in our context is the fact that he refers to Socrates several times. And makes it clear that he's following the Greek philosopher in certain aspects. For example, in the introduction to the work, Kierkegaard explains to the reader that the point of view is not a defense of his writings. And he compares this with Socrates' behavior at his trial. He writes, if in nothing else, on this point, I truly believe I have something in common with Socrates. He recalls that at the end of his trial, Socrates mentions that his daemon never try to prevent him or stop him from speaking or acting in the way he did at his trial. And so Socrates took this to mean that he was in no danger. Since if you were doing something wrong, his daemon would have warned him, as it always did. Kierkegaard interprets this to mean that at his trial, Socrates never really tried to defend himself. Or rather, that his divine daemon had prevented him from defending himself. Kierkegaard believes that such a defense would have been a contradiction, presumably since Socrates' work was always negative. And to defend himself would have amounted to stating positive claims. We can discuss the validity of Kierkegaard interpretation here, since it does indeed seem that Socrates tries to explain and thus defend his actions to the jurors. But then in Kierkegaard favor is the fact that when Socrates had the opportunity to propose an alternative sentence, he didn't really make any serious attempt to get a lighter punishment. But rather proposed that he receive free meals at the Prytaneum. In any case, Kierkegaard draws the parallel, just as Socrates refused to defend himself. Quote, so also there is in me and in the dialectical nature of my relationship something that makes it impossible for me and impossible in itself to conduct a defense of my authorship. So in this score, it seems that Kierkegaard clearly identified with the fate of Socrates. And regarded himself to be persecuted unjustly by what he called the crowd. Moreover, he followed the model of Socrates by refusing to give any straightforward defense of his works. In another passage, Kierkegaard is disturbed by the rising demands for democracy. Which he believes, in some ways, destroys the individual. In democracy, what's important is not the individual as individual, but rather the collection of people in larger groups, that is, in political parties. When his voice as an individual is only heard when the voice is shared by a number of other voices. Kierkegaard develops a number of concepts, such as the crowd, the masses, public opinion, which he takes to be pernicious new developments in his own age. One of the main goals of his work is to point in just the opposite direction. Namely, to the absolute, irreducible value of the individual as individual. He believes that even if one has an opinion that's not shared by others, and thus is obliged to stand alone as an individual, this should be respected, and should be regarded as something having validity. But in a democracy, it can never have any real weight until it's shared by a larger group. Also on this point, Kierkegaard believes that he shares something in common with Socrates. He explains how he developed the idea of the single individual, and that people found this notion somewhat eccentric. Kierkegaard then notes that Socrates, who also focused on the individual, was also regarded in his time as eccentric. Here, Kierkegaard refers to Hegel's analysis of Socrates as the inventor of ethics, in the sense of being the inventor of the idea of subjective freedom. Kierkegaard sees himself as reintroducing this idea of subjective freedom in his own day. In the age of modern democracy, it's the crowd that's evil. And so he takes of a part of his texts to be to struggle against this tendency by focusing on the individual. In these reflections on his work, Kierkegaard reserves a special place for Socrates, whom he acknowledges as his teacher. This confirms that Kierkegaard's appreciation for Socrates was not just a fleeting youthful interest in his master's thesis. But rather was an absolutely determining factor in his work as a whole. [MUSIC]
