Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lev Shestov - Kierkegaard and the Existential Philosophy (1938) With a Book Review by Emmanuel Levinas

Lev Shestov - Kierkegaard and the Existential Philosophy (1938) With a Book Review by Emmanuel Levinas

Ratings: (0)|Views: 213|Likes:
Published by Johanin Mostkin

More info:

Published by: Johanin Mostkin on Sep 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky
(instead of a Preface)
[A paper read at the Academy of Religion and Philosophy in Paris, May 5, 1935.]
You do not, of course, expect me to exhaust the complicated and difficult subject of the work of Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky during the hour allotted to me. I shall therefore limit myself to speaking of how Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard understood original sin; in other words, mysubject will be speculative and revealed truth. But I must say first that in so short a time Ishall hardly be able to give as complete an explanation as you might like of what Dostoevskyand Kierkegaard thought and told us about the Fall of Man. At best I shall be able toindicate
and schematically, at that
why original sin caught the attention of these men, twoof the most remarkable thinkers of the nineteenth century. I might mention here that even Nietzsche, usually thought to be so far removed from biblical themes, considered the problemof the Fall to be the axis or pivot of his whole complex of philosophical questions. His principal, essential theme is Socrates, whom he saw as a decadent man, that is, as the fallenman par excellence. Moreover, he saw Socrates' fall in that quality which history and thehistory of philosophy in particular had always found, and taught us to find, most praiseworthy: in his boundless confidence in reason and the knowledge obtained by reason.When you read Nietzsche's thoughts on Socrates, you cannot avoid being reminded constantlyof the biblical story of the forbidden tree and those enticing words of the tempter: ye shall beknowing. Kierkegaard tells us more about Socrates than Nietzsche does, and he speaks withgreater urgency. What is more surprising is that Kierkegaard considers Socrates the mostremarkable phenomenon in the history of humanity before the appearance on Europe'shorizon of that mysterious book known as the Book, i.e., the Bible.The Fall of Man has troubled human thought since earliest times. Men have always felt thatall is not right with the world, and even that much is wrong: "Something is rotten in the stateof Denmark," to use Shakespeare's words; and they have made tremendous and intense effortsto explain how this evil originated. I must say at this point that Greek philosophy, just like the philosophy of other peoples, including those of the Far East, replied to this question with ananswer directly opposed to what we find in the story of the Book of Genesis. One of the firstgreat Greek philosophers, Anaximander, says in a passage that has come down to us: "Fromthat source whence came birth to individual creatures, thence also, by necessity, shall cometheir destruction. At the appointed time they do penance and accept retribution, one from theother, for their iniquity." This thought of Anaximander's pervades all ancient philosophy: theappearance of individual things (mainly, of course, living creatures, and primarily human beings) is considered wicked effrontery, for which their death and destruction is fit punishment. The idea of 
("birth" and "destruction") is the starting pointof ancient philosophy (this same idea, I repeat, was persistently in the minds of the foundersof the Far Eastern religions and philosophies). Man's natural thought, at all times and amongall peoples, has stopped helplessly, as if bewitched, before fatal necessity which brought intothe world the terrible law of death, inseparably bound up with man's birth, and the law of destruction, which waits for everything that has appeared and will appear. In being itself human thought has discovered something wrong, a defect, a sickness, a sin, and accordinglywisdom has demanded the vanquishing of that sin at its roots; in other words, a renunciation
of being which, since it has a beginning, is fated inevitably to end. The Greek catharsis, or  purification, has as its source the conviction that the immediate data of consciousness, whichattest to the inevitable destruction of all that is born, reveal to us a truth that is primordial,eternal, inflexible, and forever invincible. True being, real being (
ontôs on
) is not to be foundamong ourselves or for ourselves; it is to be found where the power of the law of birth anddestruction ends, that is, where there is no birth and where therefore there is no destruction.This is the point of origin of speculative philosophy. The law, discovered by intellectualvision, of the inevitable destruction of all that has arisen and been created seems to us to be alaw eternally inherent in being itself. Greek philosophy was as firmly convinced of this as wasthe Hindu wisdom, and we, who are separated from the Greeks and the Hindus by thousandsof years, are just as incapable of breaking free from the power of this most self-evident truthas those who first discovered it and showed it to us.In this respect the Book of books alone constitutes a mysterious exception.What is said in it directly contradicts what men have found out through their intellectualvision. Everything, as we read in the very beginning of the Book of Genesis, was made by theCreator, everything had a beginning. But this not only is not seen as a precondition of thedecay, imperfection, corruption, and sinfulness of being; on the contrary, it is an assurance of all possible good in the universe. To put it another way, God's act of creation was the source,and moreover the only source, of all good. On the evening of each day of creation the Lordsaid, as he surveyed what He had made: "It is good," and on the last day, looking around ateverything that He had created, God saw that it was all very good. Both the world and its people (whom God had blessed) were made by the Creator, and it is for the very reason of their creation by Him that they were made perfect, without any defects. There was no evil inthe world created by God, nor was there any sin from which evil could proceed. Evil and sinarose later. Whence came they? Scripture gives a definite answer to this question. God planted among the other trees in the Garden of Eden the tree of life and the tree of knowledgeof good and evil. And He said to the first man: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freelyeat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the daythat thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But the tempter (in the Bible he is called theserpent, the most cunning of all God's creatures) said: "No, ye shall not die; your eyes shall beopened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing." Man succumbed to temptation, ate of theforbidden fruit; his eyes were opened and he became knowing. What was revealed to him?What did he find out? He learned the same thing that the Greek philosophers and Hindu sageshad learned: the "it is good" uttered by God was not justified
all is not good in the createdworld. There must be evil and, what is more, much evil, intolerable evil, in the created world, precisely because it is created. Everything around us
the immediate data of consciousness
testifies to this with unquestionable evidence; he who looks at the world with open eyes," hewho "knows," can draw no other conclusion. At the very moment when man became"knowing," sin entered the world; in other words, it entered together with "knowledge"
andafter sin came evil. This is what the Bible tells us.The question is put to us, the men of the twentieth century, just as it was put to the ancients:whence comes sin, whence come the horrors of life which are linked with sin? Is there adefect in being itself, which, since it is created, albeit by God, since it has a beginning, mustinescapably, by virtue of that eternal law that is subject to no one and nothing, be burdeneddown by its imperfections, which doom it ahead of time to destruction? Or do sin and evilarise from "knowledge," from "open eyes," from "intellectual vision," that is, from the fruit of the forbidden tree? One of the most notable philosophers of the last century, Hegel, who hadabsorbed the whole of European thought covering twenty-five hundred years (and in this lies
his significance and his importance), maintains without any hesitation that the serpent did notdeceive man, that the fruit of the tree of knowledge became the source of philosophy for alltime to come. And I must say immediately that historically Hegel is right. The fruit of the treeof knowledge has truly become the source of philosophy, the source of thought for all time tocome. Philosophers
and not just the pagan ones, those foreign to Holy Scripture, but also theJewish and Christian philosophers who recognized Scripture as a divinely inspired book 
have all wanted to be knowing and have not been persuaded to renounce the fruit of theforbidden tree. For Clement of Alexandria at the beginning of the third century, Greek  philosophy was the second Old Testament. He asserted that if it were possible to separategnosis (that is, knowledge) from eternal salvation and if he had to make a choice, he wouldchoose, not eternal salvation, but gnosis. All medieval philosophy tended in the samedirection. Even the mystics offer no exception in this respect. The unknown author of thecelebrated
Theologia deutsch
maintained that Adam could have eaten twenty apples and noharm would have resulted. Sin did not come from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, for nothing bad can come from knowledge. Where did the author of Theologia deutsch get thisconviction that no evil can come of knowledge? He does not raise this question; evidently itdid not occur to him that one may seek and find the truth in Scripture. One must seek the truthonly in one's own reason, and only that which reason recognizes as truth is truth. The serpentdid not deceive man.Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky were both born in the first quarter of the nineteenth century(however, Kierkegaard, who died at forty-four  [1] and was ten years older than Dostoevsky, had already concluded his literary career when Dostoevsky was just beginning to write) andthey both lived during the period when Hegel dominated European thought; they could not, of course, have failed to feel that they were wholly in the power of Hegelian philosophy. It istrue that Dostoevsky is supposed never to have read a single line by Hegel (in contrast toKierkegaard, who knew Hegel through and through), but during the time that he belonged toBelinsky's circle he became familiar enough with the basic statements of Hegel's philosophy.Dostoevsky had an extraordinary flair for philosophical ideas, and what Belinsky's friends had brought back from Germany sufficed to give him a clear picture of the problems posed andresolved by Hegelian philosophy. However, not only Dostoevsky but also Belinsky himself, a"perpetual student" and certainly a man whose philosophical insight was far behindDostoevsky's, truly felt, and not only felt but found the necessary words to express, all that hefound unacceptable in the doctrines of Hegel, which then seemed just as unacceptable toDostoevsky. Let me remind you of the passage from Belinsky's famous letter: "If I shouldsucceed in ascending to the highest rung of the ladder of development, even there I would ask you to render me an account of all the victims of circumstance in life and history, of all thevictims of chance, of superstition, of the Inquisition of Philip II, etc., etc.: otherwise I wouldfling myself headfirst from the highest rung.I do not wish happiness even as a gift, if my mind is not at rest regarding each one of my blood brothers." [2]  Needless to say, if Hegel could have read these lines by Belinsky, he would merely have shrugged his shoulders contemptuously and called Belinsky a barbarian, asavage, an ignoramus, who obviously had not tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge andconsequently did not even suspect the existence of the immutable law by virtue of whicheverything that has a beginning (that is, those very human beings for whom he interceded so passionately) must have an end; and that therefore there is absolutely no one to whom one canreasonably turn with such demands for an account of creatures which, being finite, are notsubject to any protection or defense. These defenseless ones are not just those victims of chance who first come to mind, but even such as Socrates, Giordano Bruno, and many other great, very great men, wise and just; the wheel of the historical process crushes them all

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->