HOME CONTENTS: Journals & Papers of Søren Kierkegaard
I - II - III - IV - V - VI - VII - VIII - IX - X - XI
IX A - IX B
63:7
...That it was an age of disintegration, an esthetic, enervating disintegration, and therefore, before there could be any question of even introducing the religious, the ethically strengthening, Either/Or had to precede, so that maieutically a beginning might be made with esthetic writings (the pseudonyms) in order if possible to get hold of men, which after all comes first before there can even be any thought of moving them over into the religious, and in this way it was also assured that in the sense of reflection the religious would be employed with dialectical care. That it was an age of disintegration — that "the System" itself signified, not as the systematicians were pleased to understand, that the consummation had been achieved, but that "the System" itself, as an overripe fruit, pointed to decline. That it was an age of disintegration — and consequently not as the politicians were pleased to think, that "government" was the evil, an assumption which would have been a curious contradiction from the standpoint of "the single individual," but that "the crowd", "the public," etc. were the evil,* which corresponds consistently with "the single individual."
* In margin: Note. And now in 1848 it presumably is well understood, now when the one thing needful, indispensable, can be named in a single word: government.
That it was a time of disintegration — that it was not nationalities that should be advanced but Christianity+ in relation to "the single individual," that no particular group or class could be the issue but "the crowd", and the task: to change it into single individuals.
+ In margin: Note. Even now in 1848, up to the present time, it does indeed look as if everything were politics, but it will no doubt appear that the catastrophe corresponds inversely [changed from: the future will correspond inversely] to the Reformation: then everything appeared to be a religious movement and became politics; now everything appears to be politics but will become a religious movement.
That it was an age of disintegration — all existence as if in the clutch of a dizziness induced and in intensification fed by wanting continually to aid the movement with the momentary, that is, with finite cleverness and with the numerical, which simply feeds the sickness, a dizziness induced and fed by the impatience of the moment demanding to see effects at the moment, whereas what was required was the very opposite: the eternal and "the single individual". That it was an age of disintegration — a crucial age, that history was about to take a turn, that the problem was to have heard correctly, to be in happy rapport with the times and the turn which was supposed to be made: that it was the ethical, the ethical-religious, that should be advanced, but that above all the problem was to watch, with what one could call the self-love of the true or real for itself and its heterogeneity, lest the ethical again get garbled up with the old,++ which meant particularly that it hinged not on teaching the ethical but on accentuating the ethical ethically, on again mounting the qualitative force of the ethical — in qualitative contrast to the system, informational instruction, and everything pertaining to them — and at the same time to support it with personal existing, which, however, at the time meant to hide in the circumspect incognito of an idea.
++ In margin: Note. This is expressed (just to mention one pseudonym), but of course in character, therefore humorously, in Johannes Climacus's standing motto: 'Better well hung [strung up from a noose to die by hanging] than ill wed,' which he himself comments upon, saying: Better well hung than by an unfortunate marriage to be brought into systematic affinities with all the world.
This, all of which is implied in "the single individual" as well as in the use made of this category, places the writing into another sphere, for "that single individual" will become an historical point de vue.
The author does not call himself a "witness to the truth" because of this, even though in view of the fact that the whole authorship, understood as a totality, is as one thought, the thought of the religious, it could be said without falsity of the author that he qua author "in purity of heart has willed only one thing." By such [changed from: "witness to the truth"] is not meant everyone who says something true; no, thanks, then we would have enough witnesses for the truth. No, in a "witness to the truth" consideration must be given ethically to personal existing in relation to what is said, whether the personal existing expresses what is said — a consideration which, it is altogether true, the systematic and informational instruction and the characterlessness of the age have altogether wrongly abolished. The author's life has indeed expressed rather accurately that which was ethically accentuated: to be an individual [changed from: "the single individual"]: he has stood alone, completely alone, whereas in the world around almost everything was the setting up, setting down, and setting aside of committees. He has stood completely alone and labored alone on such a scale that he, the solitary person, was like an epigram over his contemporaries, whose activities in large part consisted in the setting up, setting down, and setting aside of committees. . . .
63:8
‘The single individual’ is a category that lends itself to being used in two ways: in times where all is security and life is as though held in an indolent trance, ‘the single individual’ is the category of awakening; when everything is tottering it is the category of conciliation. He who understands how to use this category will in times of peace appear quite otherwise than in times of agitation, yet it will still be the same weapon he uses. The difference is like using a sharp and pointed instrument as a goad, to hurt, and then the very same instrument to clean a wound. But never will this category ‘the single individual’, if properly used, hurt the maintenance of religious truth. In time of peace its role will be, without altering anything externally, to awaken inwardness to a heightened life in the established; in time of rebellion its role will be savingly to draw attention away from the external, to guide the individual towards an indifference to external change and to strengthen the individual in inwardness. The category of the single individual is always related to inwardizing. Earthly reward, power, honour, etc. are not bound up with its proper use, for what are rewarded in the world are of course only changes, or work for change, in externals - inwardness is of no interest to the world, which is indeed externality. 48 IX B 63:8
'단독자'는 두 가지 방식으로 사용되기에 적합한 범주이다. 모든 것이 안정되고 삶이 나른한 황홀경에 빠진 것처럼 느껴지는 시기에는 '단독자'는 일깨움의 범주이고, 모든 것이 흔들릴 때는 화해의 범주이다. 이 범주를 사용하는 방법을 이해한 사람은 평화의 시기에는 동요할 때와는 전혀 다른 모습으로 나타나지만, 그가 사용하는 무기는 여전히 동일하다. 그 차이는 마치 날카롭고 뾰족한 도구를 상처를 내기 위한 도구로 사용하다가 상처를 치료하기 위해 똑같은 도구를 사용하는 것과 같다. 그러나 '단독자'라는 범주가 적절하게 사용된다면 종교적 진리를 유지하는 데 결코 해를 끼치지는 않을 것이다. 평화의 시기에는 외부를 변화시키지 않고 내면을 일깨워 기성의 삶을 고양시키는 역할을 할 것이고, 반란의 시기에는 외부로부터 주의를 돌리고, 외부 변화에 무관심하도록 개인을 인도하며, 내면을 강화하는 구원적인 역할을 할 것이다. 단독자의 범주는 항상 내면성과 관련이 있다. 세상의 보상, 권력, 명예 등은 그 적절한 사용과 관련이 없다. 왜냐하면 세상에서 보상받는 것은 당연히 외적인 변화 또는 변화를 위한 노력일 뿐이며, 내면성은 실제로 외적인 것인 세상에는 관심이 없기 때문이다.
63:13
Except that ‘the martyr’, this ‘martyr of the future’ (‘the missionary’ who uses the category ‘the single individual’ educationally), will have in him and in response to the age (‘the age of reflection’) a superior reflection, and faith and courage besides to venture, will need an infinite task (or preparation) in reflection in becoming or in order to become a martyr. In this he will differ from any previous (i.e. immediacy’s) martyr who needed only faith and courage to stake his life. Unlike all previous martyrs, the martyr of the future will have a superior reflection to serve him in determining (of course in unconditional obedience to God) – in freely determining – what kind of maltreatment and persecution he is to suffer, whether he is to fall or not, and if so where, so that he manages to fall at dialectically the right spot, so that his death wounds in the right place, wounds the survivors. It will not be ‘the others’, as it was previously, who fall upon the martyr, who then simply has to suffer – no, it will be ‘the martyr’ who determines the suffering. […] The first form of rulers in the world were ‘the tyrants’, the last will be ‘the martyrs’. In the world’s evolution this is the movement [In the margin: towards a growing worldliness, for worldliness will be at its maximum, must have reached its most frightful ascendancy, when only martyrs can be rulers. When one person is the tyrant, the mass is not completely secularized; but when ‘the crowd’ wants to be the tyrant, then worldliness has been made completely universal and then only the martyr can be ruler] from worldliness to religiousness. No doubt there is an infinite difference between a tyrant and martyr, yet they have one thing in common: compulsion. The tyrant, himself with a craving for power, compels by force; the martyr, in himself unconditionally obedient to God, compels through his own sufferings. So the tyrant dies and his rule is over; the martyr dies and his rule begins[...]
There are really only two parties to choose between: an either/or. Indeed, it goes without saying, in the bustle of the world there are several parties, there are liberals and conservatives, etc., all the way to the most remarkable combinations, rational liberals, rational conservatives. In the large country of England there were once four parties, and they say the same was once true of little Odense. But in the deepest sense there are really only two parties to choose between, and this is where the category of the ‘individual’ comes in: either obedience to God, fearing and loving him, siding with God against men so that you love men in God, or siding with men against God so that you defraudingly humanize God and ‘savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’ (Matthew 16:23). For between God and man there is a struggle and it’s a matter of life and death – wasn’t the God-man put to death? About these things alone, about what seriousness is, about ‘the single individual’, about what the demonic is, whether the evil or the good, about silence pertaining to evil and silence pertaining to good, about ‘deceiving into the truth’, about indirect communication, about how far this is treason against what it is to be human, an insult to God, about what one learns of the demonic by considering the God-man –about these things alone whole volumes could be written, even just by me, a kind of philosopher,35 let alone by him, when he comes, ‘the philosopher’, who will have seen ‘the missionary to Christendom’ and will know of all this at first hand, what I myself have only little by little learned to understand but to a small degree. 48 IX B 63:13
'순교자', 이 '미래의 순교자'('단독자'라는 범주를 교육적으로 사용하는 '선교사')는 그에게서 그리고 시대('성찰의 시대')에 대한 응답으로 뛰어난 성찰과 모험 외에 믿음과 용기를 가질 것이며, 순교자가 되기 위해 또는 순교자가 되기 위해 무한한 성찰의 과제 (또는 준비)가 필요할 것이다. 이 점에서 그는 목숨을 걸기 위해 믿음과 용기만 필요했던 이전의 (즉, 직접성의) 순교자와 다를 것입니다. 이전의 모든 순교자들과는 달리, 미래의 순교자는 자신이 어떤 결정을 내리는데 그를 섬길 수 있는 탁월한 성찰을 갖게 될 것이다. 물론, 이것은 하나님께 대한 무조건적인 순종이다. 어떤 종류의 학대와 박해를 당할 것인지, 쓰러질 것인지 아닌지, 쓰러진다면 어디에서 쓰러질 것인지, 결정을 내릴 수 있는 성찰을 갖게 될 것이다. 그리하여 변증법적으로 올바른 지점에 쓰러질 것이다. 그의 죽음이 적재적소에 상처를 입힐 것이며, 생존자들에게 상처를 입힐 것이다. 이전처럼 순교자를 쓰러트리고, 그에게 고통을 주는 자는 '다른 사람들'이 아닐 것이다. 고통을 결정하는 것은 '순교자'가 될 것이다. [...] 세상의 첫 번째 형태의 통치자는 '폭군'이었고, 마지막 통치자는 '순교자'가 될 것이다. 세계의 진화에서 이것은 세속성에서 종교성까지의 운동이다.[여백에서 : 세속성이 커지는 방향으로, 세속성이 최대가 될 것이기 때문에 순교자만이 통치자가 될 수있는 가장 무서운 상승에 이를 것이다. 한 사람이 폭군일 때는 대중이 완전히 세속화되지 않는다. 그러나 '군중'이 폭군이 되기를 원할 때는 세속성이 완전히 보편화되어 순교자만이 통치자가 될 수 있다]
폭군과 순교자 사이에는 무한한 차이가 있지만 강박(compulsion)이라는 한 가지 공통점이 있다. 폭군은 권력에 대한 갈망으로 무력으로 강요하지만, 순교자는 하나님께 무조건적으로 순종하는 마음으로 자신의 고통을 통해 강요한다. 그래서 폭군이 죽으면 그의 통치는 끝나고, 순교자가 죽으면 그의 통치가 시작된다[...].
실제로 선택할 수 두 개의 당파만 있을 뿐이다. 즉, 이것이냐 저것이냐의 양자택일이다. 사실, 분주한 세상에는 여러 정당이 있고, 진보와 보수가 있으며, 가장 놀라운 조합으로 합리적 진보, 합리적 보수에 이르기까지 말할 필요도 없다. 영국이라는 큰 나라에는 한때 네 개의 정당이 있었고 작은 오덴세도 한때 마찬가지였다고 한다. 그러나 가장 깊은 의미에서 선택할 수 있는 정당은 실제로 두 가지뿐이며, 여기에서 '개인'의 범주가 들어온다. 즉, 당신이 하나님 안에서 사람들을 사랑하도록 사람들을 거스르며 하나님 편에 서서 그분을 경외하고 사랑하면서 하나님께 순종하든가, 당신이 하나님을 속여 인간화하고 "하나님의 일을 생각하지 아니하고 도리어 사람의 일을 생각하도록"(마16:23) 하나님을 거스르며 사람 편에 서든가.
하나님과 사람 사이에는 있고, 그것은 삶과 죽음의 문제이다 - 사람되신 하나님(God-man)이 죽임을 당하지 않는가? 이러한 것들만으로도 심각성이 무엇인지, '단독자'에 대해, 악마적인 것이 무엇인지 대해, 악이든 선이든, 악에 관한 침묵과 선에 관한 침묵에 대해, '진리로 속이는 것'에 대해, 간접 소통(전달)에 대해, 이것이 사람이 되는 것에 대한 얼마나 큰 반역인지에 대해, 즉 하나님에 대한 모욕에 대해, 사람되신 하나님을 생각함으로써 무엇이 악마적인 것인지를 배우는 것에 대해, -이것들에 대해서만 일종의 철학자인 나는 전체 책을 쓸 수 있다. 하물며 그분은 말할 것도 없다. '철학자'인 그분이 올 때 '기독교 세계에 파송된 선교사'를 볼 것이고, 그분은 이 모든 것을 직접적으로 알 것이며, 내가 겨우 조금씩 조금씩 이해하게 된 것을 전부 알게 될 것이다. 48 IX B 63:13
67
"Phister as Scipio"
Fair Copy
Written the end of 1848
Can be signed
Procul
68
Mr. Phister
as Captain Scipio
(in the musical Ludovic)
A recollection and
for recollection. . . .
December, 1848 Procul
'Journals and papers > IX' 카테고리의 다른 글
| IX A (0) | 2020.06.03 |
|---|
댓글