HOME CONTENTS: Journals & Papers of Søren Kierkegaard
I - II - III - IV - V - VI - VII - VIII - IX - X - XI
V A - V B - V C
14:7
... We shall not be so arrogant as to do everything on a grand scale. We shall speak of a single individual human life in the way it can be lived out here on earth. What holds true of the history of the race holds true of such a person. If one can see God in history, one can see him also in the life of the individual; to think that one can do the former and not the latter is to delude himself by yielding to the historical, to the brutish imbecility which in the observation of nature sees God by being taught that Sirius is 180,000 millions of miles away from the earth. The materialistic man is astounded by this, and when a person has nothing substantial to say it si best to speak of the whole, of the totality, etc. If every single man is not an individual, himself and the race, simply by being human, then everything is lost and it is not worth the trouble to hear about the great world-historical events or the absolute method. But the world wants to be deceived. Now it goes without saying that it is a swindle to get all world history instead of one's own insignificant person — one does not gain in the trade. Yet people are deceived, deceived insofar as they do not come to understand what is made evident by supposing that they have understood the whole world without this....
15:1
What has happened has happened and cannot be undone — only to this extent is the past unchanged, but this change is not a change into necessity, which would indeed be a contradiction, since what was not previously necessary would become necessary (i.e., everything necessary presupposed as necessary); it never becomes necessary, since only that can become necessary which was necessary, but consequently was necessary before it became necessary. Therefore, the necessary cannot come into existence [blive til], for this is the same proposition that nothing by its coming into existence [tilbliven] or in its coming into existence can become the necessary.
What has happened has happened as it has happened, but could it therefore not have happened otherwise?
In what sense is there change in that which comes into existence; that is, what is the nature of the change of coming into existence; for all other change presupposes the existence [at det...er til] of that which changes, even when the change consists in ceasing to exist [at være til]. That which comes into existence [det tilblivende] certainly does not do this by becoming greater or lesser or, if it consists of parts, by way of some change taking place in these, in their relationship, and thereby in the whole, etc.; for if the subject of coming into existence does not itself remain unchanged in the change of coming into existence, it is not this subject of coming into existence which comes into existence but something else, whereby the question is only postponed and is not answered. The subject of coming into existence remains unchanged, therefore, or only suffers or takes upon itself the change of coming into existence, but what is this? Thus if my plan, for example, is changed in coming into existence [in being fulfilled or carried out], it is then no longer my plan and it is another plan which comes into existence, but if it comes into existence unchanged, then it is my plan which comes into existence; this constitutes the unchanged, but coming into existence is also a change. This change is not from being to being [ikke at være til at være]. But this non-being from which it is changed must also be a kind of being [en Art af Væren], because otherwise we could not say that the subject of coming into existence remains unchanged in coming into existence. But such a being which is nevertheless a non-being we certainly could call possibility, and the being into which the subject of coming into existence goes by coming into existence is actuality [Virkeligheden]. Therefore the change of coming into existence is the change of actuality. In coming into existence the possible becomes the actual. But could it not also become the necessary? Not at all, and therefore we still maintain that coming into existence is a change, but that the necessary cannot be changed, that it is always related to itself in the same way. Therefore everything which can come into existence shows in this very way that it is not the necessary. The necessary* is by no means a change in being, as is actuality in relationship to possibility, where the essence continues essentially unchanged. But if the possible by becoming the actual did become the necessary, its essence would become changed, and thus one can understand that it cannot become the necessary, for if it became the necessary, it would no longer be itself.
* Obliquely in margin: Necessity is the unity of possibility and actuality.
The necessary is therefore not a qualification of being, and one says, even though he expresses himself somewhat differently, one says not that it is necessary but that the necessary is; one does not say that because it is, it is the necessary, but that since it is necessary, therefore it is.*
*In margin: Nothing ever comes into existence by necessity, and if, for example, the world must have come into existence by necessity, it would never have come into existence. (This has significance for creation — repentance in ethics.)
42
제목원고:
불안의 개념에 관하여
유전죄의 교리문제에 대한 평이하면서도 단순한 심리학적 고찰
M.A.(Magister artium, 문학석사) 키르케고르 지음
43
Pap. V B 42에 첨가
소크라테스-----------------------------하만
+ +
BC 400년 AD 1758년
소크라테스는, 신사 여러분, 아니오였습니다.
[소크라테스의 회상]에서
44
비문의 원고:
좌우명(Motto)
아이러니의 가장 훌륭한 달인이자 가장 위대한 해학가가, 2천 년이나 떨어져 있으면서도, 우리가 생각하기에 모든 사람이 했어야 마땅한 일을 행하고 또 찬탄하는 데 동참할 수 있다는 것은 놀라운 일이 아니겠는가? 만일 이 사실이 반대의 것에 대한 증거가 되지만 않는다면~~
47:13
..... has taken and is taking only an inland journey from his own consciousness to the presupposition of original sin in his own consciousness. .....
49:15
이러한 가능성은, 다른 모든 가능성처럼, 그 여떤 경험적 현실성의 특수성도 지닐 수 없다. 그렇기 때문에 심리학적으로 진지하면서도 단호하게 이렇게 주장하는 것은 매우 중요하다. "하나를 알면 전부를 안다"(unum noris, omnes). 죄의 가능성이 한 사람에게 나타날 때, 그것은 이미 모든 사람에게 나타난 셈이며, 오직 관념적인 관찰의 무대만이 '더 많이'와 '더 적게'에 대한 고찰을 위해서 남아 있을 뿐이다. 삷에서 죄의 가능성이 다른 가능성보다 더 많이 발생하는 것은 아니다.
49:16
여백에 기입한 글: 그런즉 그것의 기분은 심미적인 것의 감촉가 예리한 형태의 관찰력을 (아울러) 지닌, 명상적이며 흥미를 느끼는 주의의 기분이어야 한다.
49:17
만일 이것이 어느 정도 정확하게 고수된다면, 그것이 교의학이라고 하는 절대 정신에 관한 이론과 이어져 있다는 사실이 명백해질 것이다. 그 반면에 윤리학은 객관 정신에 관한 이론인 바, 이는 현실성을 사실적으로 그리고 경험적으로 자신의 영역으로 삼는다.
53:9
내가 아는 한, 자연 과학자들은 동물은 불안이 없다는 데에 동의한다. 왜냐하면 본질적으로 동물은 정신으로 규정되어 있지 않기 때문이다. 동물은 현재를 두려워한다. 두려워 떤다. .. 그러나 불안해하지 않는다. 동물은 예감(presentiment)을 갖고 있지 않다고 말하듯, 더욱 불안을 갖고 있지 않다.
50 n.d., 1844
제1장
유전죄의 전제이자, 유전죄를 그 기원에 의거해서 역행적으로 설명해주는 불안
제1절
교의학에서 역사적으로 규정된 원죄
언어의 용법을 조금만 주의해서 본다면, 우리는 "유전죄"라는 말이 두 가지 의미로 사용된다는 것을 확실하게 깨달을 수 있다. 이런 구별을 수행함으로써, 우리는 가장 정확한 학문적 정의를 내리는 방법을 개척할 수 있을 것이다. 이 밖에도, 우리가 미지의 저 먼 곳에서 온 경계병, 그래서 항상 일상 언어와 충돌하는 경계병, 또한 일상 언어를 잘 알지도 못하고 또 잘 알려고 하지도 않으면서 언어의 정신을 위반하는 경계병, 그리고 언어의 정당한 공동의 소유권자들을 공격하는 망루의 그런 어떤 경계병처럼, 우리 자신이 그렇게 영락하지 않았다는 기쁨, 만족감, 그리고 확신을 지닐 수 있을 것이다. - 이는(그런 경계병과도 같은 현상) 사실 과학자들에게는 가끔 발생하는 현상이다. 항상 언어와 조화를 이루어야 하는, 그리고 언제나 언어와 조화 속에 있어야 하는 과학자에게 이런 종류의 긴장은 가장 바람직스럽지 못한 것일 뿐만 아니라, 우울한 일이기까지 하다.
53:15
Here again one sees a proof that this enquiry [The Concept of Dread] is not guilty of any Pelagian soft-headedness, which does not have the power to spin the individuals into the web of the race but lets each individual stick out like the loose end of a thread; but one perceives also that in another sense it protects against the race concept, lest this deprive individuals of power and confuse both individual and race. If by Adam's sin (, Romans 5:12) the sinfulness of the race is posited in the same sense that a species of water birds has webfeet, the concept individual is abrogated and to this extent also the concept human race; for the concept separates itself from the concept animal in precisely this way. Protest is made [sic]
53:23
To suppose that anxiety is an imperfection merely betrays a straitlaced cowardice, since, to the contrary, the greatness of anxiety is the very prophet of the miracle of perfection, and inability to become anxious is a sign of one's being either an animal or an angel, which according to the teaching of scriptures, is less than perfect than being a human being. The additional sensuousness which a woman has is therefore in itself of no consequence and viewed under the orientation of the idea is the expression of perfection, since viewed under the idea it is always regarded as overcome and absorbed in freedom.(불안이 불완전성이라고 가정하는 것은 소심한 겁쟁이라는 것을 드러낼 뿐이다. 왜냐하면 반대로 불안의 크기는 완전성의 기적에 대한 예언이기 대문이다. 따라서 불안해할 수 없다는 것은 동물이거나 천사라는 증거다. 성서의 가르침에 따르면, 천사는 사람보다 덜 완전하다.(고전6:3, 히1:14) 따라서 여자의 감성에서의 "더욱"은 본질적으로(즉자적으로, in itself) 그저 사소한 문제일 뿐이다. 이 "더욱"은 관념(idea)와 관련하여 볼 때, 완전성의 표현이다. 왜냐하면 관념적으로 이해할 때, "더욱"은 자유 안에서 극복되고 자기화된 것으로 여겨지기 때문이다.)
53:25(JP IV 4989)
...... 여자는 남자보다 더 감성적이다. 왜냐하면 여자가 더 정신적이었다면(spiritual), 어떤 다른 것에서 정점에 도달할 수는 결코 없었을 것이기 때문이다. 정신은 진정 독립적인 것이이다.
물론 모든 종교적 관점은 모든 더 심오한 철학적 관점처럼, 이런 차이에도 불구하고 여자를 남자와 동일한 것으로 여긴다. 그러나 이 관점은 그런 이유로 윤리적으로 심미적으로 저 차이의 진실을 망각할 만큼 어리석지 않다.
53:26
In a way it has always seemed remarkable to me that the story of Eve has been completely opposed to all later analogy, for the expression "to seduce" used for her generally refers in ordinary language to the man, and the other related expressions all point to the woman as weaker (easier to infatuate, lure to bed, etc).* This, however, is easy to explain, for in Genesis it is a third power that seduced the woman, whereas in ordinary language the reference is always only to the relationship between man and woman and thus it must be the man who seduces the woman.
*Note. If anyone has any psychological interest in observations related to this, I refer him to "The Seducer's Diary" in Either/Or. If he looks at it closely, he will see that this is something quite different from a novel, that it has completely different categories up its sleeve, and, if one knows how to use it, it can serve as a preliminary study for a very serious and not merely superficial research. The Seducer's secret is simply that he knows that woman is anxiety.
53:4
. . . . 왜냐하면 저 최초의 죄는 죄성이기 때문이다. 그리고 저 최초의 죄로 인해서 죄성은 아담에게로 들어왔다. 그리고 똑같은 방식으로 그것은 모든 사람들에게 들어온다. 아담의 최조의 죄로 인해서, 죄성은 아담에게로 들어와서 그에게서 실제적인 죄들을 낳았다. 두번째 인간의 죄로 인해서, 죄성은 두번째 인간에게 들어와서 그의 죄들을 낳았다.
53:5
. . . . . 왜냐하면 죄성에 대해 심미적으로 슬퍼한다는 것은 일종의 모순이기 때문이다. 순결한 데도 불구하고 죄성에 대해서 슬퍼한 단 한 사람이 바로 그리스도였다. 그런 까닭에 그가 죄성에 대해서 심미적으로 슬퍼한 것처럼 보일 수도 있다. 그렇지만 그밖에도 그는 세상의 모든 죄를 짊어졌으며, 그렇기 때문에 그는 죄성에 대해 윤리적으로 슬퍼했던 것이다.
53:6
. . . . 얼마나 많은 박학한 신학자들이 원죄에 관한, 철학자들의 가르침은 말할 것도 없고, 성서의 교회의 교부들의 교회 신조들의 가르침을 설명하는 방법을 알지 못했던가? 자기 자신의 의식 안에서나 혹은 다른 사람의 의식 안에서 원죄의 결과를 추적하는 데 몰두한 적도 결코 없으면서 말이다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 이것은 모든 사람에게 할당된 하지 않으면 안되는 제일의 과제이다. 그리고 사람들은 누구나 다, 만일 주의 깊게 자신을 살펴본다면, 자신이 위와 같은 방법으로 획득하는 모든 지식의 총합(summa summarum)보다 훨씬 완전한, 인간적인 모든 것에 대한 어떤 표현을 자신의 내부에 소유하게 된다.
53:8, 1844년
이후의 인간의 죄책(guilt)과 관련해서조자, 이 언명은 윤리학에서 일종의 비유니적 전향이 이루어져 죄책이 어떤 그저 양적일 뿐인 규정을 통해서 나타날 수 있다고 추정하고 있는 것으로, 또는 최책이 일종의 듀스 엑스 마키나(deus ex machina, 절박한 장면의 해결책)으로 나타날 수 있다고 추정하고 있는 것으로 생각된다. 물론 개인은 결코 결백한(순진한, innocent)적이 없었지만 말이다. 그렇지만 그 언명을 아담의 순진함에 적용시켜서 그를 전복시키기 위해서 고용된 비밀정보원으로 삼는다면, 아마도 그것은 허세를 훨씬 더 부리는 짓일 것이다.
55:4
If men had pursued further the ancient idea that man is a synthesis of soul and body, which is constituted by spirit, men would long since have thought more precisely with regard to sin and original sin, its origin and its consequence. Though it can be said that the spirit takes lodging in a defiled body*, and this is the most extreme expression one can employ, yet it does not follow that the spirit itself is defiled, unless this defilement is again a consequence of that relationship. But even here there is the likeness and unlikeness to Adam, together with the more detailed consideration of the possibility of freedom in the individual.
*In margin: Is this not found in Ecclesiastes or in the Psalms?
55:10
It is quite possible to show that a very precise and correct usage of language links anxiety and the future together. Of course, generally language usage is not particularly scrupulous, presumably because speculation has gradually acquired a language of its own which is not spoken by people other than philosophers. At the same time the art is to be able to use the same words which everyone else uses. Then one can appropriately show his authority as thinker through the clarity of thought in his use of language. The word anxiety [Angst] has until now been territory open for the taking; we shall attempt to prescribe to it a definite meaning or, better, to affirm it in its definite meaning.
As a new expression, anxiety is to designate basically the discrimen (ambiguity) of soft subjectivity.
Thus far one easily sees that the future and the possible correspond to it. But when one speaks of being anxious about the past, it seems to conflict with my usage, for the ambiguity of subjectivity has no past. If I now bear in mind that subjectivity is never complete once and for all and that to this extent a recurrence of this ambiguity could be spoken of, it would still not support me if it is really defensible to say: anxiety about the past. But if we now inquire more precisely in what sense we can speak of anxiety about the past, then everything will become clear.
55:17
불안*
*주. 스피노자의 실체(substance)가 다른 무언가를 의미한다는 것은 확실하다. 왜냐하면 그의 실체는 뜻밖의 것(우연적인 것)이 언제나 사라지는 내적 필연성이기 때문이다. 진실로 그의 실체는 기독교적 섭리에 대한 형이상학적 표현에 불과하다. 이 섭리는 다시 우연적인 것과 필연성의 통일이라는 점에서 운명과 일치한다. 따라서 우연적인 것은 섭리를 위해 존재한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 섭리에게는 어떤 것도 우연적이지 않다. (<불안의 개념> 한글 판 278쪽 참고하라.)
55:18
이 이야기에서의 법은 그 어떤 인간도 발견할 수 없는 그 무엇이다. 왜냐하면 그 누구도 운명을 이해할 수 없으며, 오직 인간 자신을 이해할 수 있을 뿐이기 때문이다.(영역본 <불안의 개념> 100쪽 45번 각주를 참고하라.)
72:22
As far as I am concerned, I am safeguarded in this respect by my own experience in another direction; for although I have never been accustomed to making little summaries in order to carry all my scholarly learning in my head, although I always read widely and then turn this over to my memory, although I can be totally engrossed in my own production, and although together with all this I am doing seventeen other things and talk every day with about fifty people of all ages, I swear, nevertheless, that I am able to relate what each person with whom I have spoken said the last time, next-to-last-time, not to mention someone who is the object of particular attention — his remarks, his emotions are immediately vivid to me as soon as I see him, even though it is a long time since I saw him.
147
Continuation of the Preface
All of us have a little psychological insight, some powers of observation, but when this science or art manifests itself in its interminable amplitude when it abandons minor transactions on the streets and in dwellings in order to scurry after its favourite: the person closed up within himself — then men grow weary.
148:5
My interest is not to be a poet but to make out the meaning of the religious. That it will not be thought that the religious is for striplings* and stupid people — that is my aim in this story.
In margin: * and unshaven.
148:17
Hitherto, the imperfection in the tragic is that it had to be about great men and great events historically certain. Disbelief in the idea — therefore hitherto the comic has had a higher ideality. We are more inclined to believe that a man is ridiculous than that he is great (see notes on esthetics in tall cupboard nearest the door).
Likewise with the religious prototypes. One who in this connection does not understand ab posse ad esse valet consequentia does not at all understand ab esse ad posse valet consequentia either, but imagines that he does. Only ideality is the true norm; actuality and historical accuracy are nonsense as a norm.
148:25
He [is] essentially* closed up within himself — she could not be that even if she wanted to (why not? A woman cannot express dialectical reduplication, just as she cannot express many consonants preceding one vowel but only the vowels).
*The significance of the portions entered the fifth of each month.
128:29
What his self-inclosing reserve contains he never says.
Let us simply assume that his melancholy has no content at all. He who is melancholy can name many cares which hold him in bondage, but the one which binds him he is unable to name. Or let it be guilt. Or mental instability.
196
하나님을 필요로 하는 것이 인간의 최고의 완전성이다(To need God is man's highest perfection.)
본문(Tex
Among those born of women none is greater; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
If man did not have absolute need of God he could not
- know himself — self-knowledge.
- be immortal
198
인간의 최고의 성취는 하나님이 그를 도울 수 있게 하는 것이다.
Man's highest achievement is to let God be able to help him.
232:1
To the typesetter. The entire book is to be printed in the same types used in 1843 for Two Upbuilding Discourses and with the same number of lines per page.
'Journals and papers > V' 카테고리의 다른 글
| V C (0) | 2020.06.03 |
|---|---|
| V A (0) | 2020.06.03 |
댓글