The Sickness Unto Death Part 2 Section B

Overview and Argument

Sin is not a discrete, differentiable process. That is the underlying and main argument of this section of The Sickness Unto Death by Søren Kierkegaard. To get us started, lets first understand what this means. "Every unrepented sin is a new sin" Kierkegaard boldly claims to start the section. In a similar fashion to investing, where a decision to hold an investment is essentially a decision not to sell it, or conversely to buy it again, every sin that has not been repented for is a proclamation of a new sin. It is human to think of sin, or events in general, as discrete, because our perception of life is not as contiguous as we think. We don't remember every single day, and at some points we may just be mindlessly going through the motions. However, this does not exempt us from continuous sin, because "sin grows every moment one fails to get out of it". However, this goes both ways. Suppose there is a person, a believer, whom "is infinitely fearful of the slightest sin" and has, as an effect, never committed one. He "has infinitely much to lose" for as soon as he steps outside of this framework, all of the work he has done has been lost. Now suppose we take his counterpart, a foil character who has continuously sinned. He, in a way, also has infinitely much to lose as his sinning, continuous and internally consistent, has become a part of him. So in the same way a perfect person would not want to meddle with a perfectly imperfect person so as to not tempt him, the perfectly imperfect person would feel the same way. For this imperfect person "only in continuation of sin does he remain himself".

Subsection A: The Sin of Despairing over One's Sin

"To despair over one's own sin is the expression of sin's having become or being about to become internally consistent". The first step into extremity here, similarly to the progression in part one, is the advance to consistent sin as in the example above. For it is said that "sin is itself separation from the good but despair over sin is separation a second time". Kierkegaard pulls from the famous Shakespeare play Macbeth, where after murdering the king, Macbeth says that "for from this instant there's nothign serious in mortality: All is but toys: renown and grace is dead". As he has succumb to despairing over his sin, he has "lost his relation to grace -- and also to himself".

Of course, the nature of despair is fixable, and as this is the shallowest form of despair on the evolution of sin thus far, the fix must be simple: stop sinning. Of course, its not that simple. As discussed in the previous section, one devil may only be replaced by another. A common pattern we see nowadays is that when one rids himself of a bad habit, they are somewhat alleviated and guilt-free. However, upon relapsingIf it happens, they exclaim, "I'll never forgive myself", and therein lies the problem. Kierkegaard tells us why, "in the period of successfully resisting temptation, he became better in his own eyes than he is, he became proud of himself". Pride like this is moving away from God, so what did the person truly accomplish? Or perhaps a question with a less obvious answer is: what should have happened? Well, Kierkegaard would say that the first step in solving this issue would be to credit God as the north star for helping himself resist temptation. Instead of crediting his own excellence and his own discipline, it is credit due to God. Then, upon falling back into sin, one should admit, repent, and return to God. The first scenario is a fulfilling prophecy that will repeat over and over again, as "comfort is the last thing he needs".

Subsection B: The Sin of Despairing of the Forgiveness of Sins

One step further towards true theological belief, Kierkegaard claims that this stage is a result of a "heightened consciousness of the self... before Christ". Similarly to the last section in part one, we see the distinction between despair of weakness versus the despair of defiance. Except, in this case, the descriptions are switch. Defiance in this context is the despair not wanting to be oneself, as they are in defiance of being what they are: a sinner. As a result, they want to dispense with the forgiveness of sins. On the other hand, weakness is wanting in despair to be oneself, where one truly accepts the notion that they are a sinner, and gives up hope in the possibility of forgiveness. These despairs, it should be noted and understood by now, are heightened and more egregious than the previous one, as the heightened sense of self before God is more than ever apparent. This despair is a direct contradiction to God, claiming "No, there's no forgiveness of sins" almost puts pressure on God. This looks almost like a brawl, where the self is in direct opposition to God, except in this brawl, the fight involves distancing yourself as far away from God as possibleCompared to an actual fight.

What frightens Kierkegaard the most, perhaps, is (and was) the increasingly popular viewpoint that to stand against God is noble. The same way "one acquires importance in politics by belonging to the opposition" or similar to how "naughtiness were to be considered a sign of deep nature in the child." The emergence of offense against Christianity, or the reaction of a person who encounters Christian truth but cannot accept it, has led to this glorification of itself in modern times. Even something as simple as "I'm not worthy of forgiveness" to Kierkegaard could be become "I refuse to accept that God could forgive someone like me". This is glorified and "is a sign of genius and a deep nature". The deep irony here lies in the fact that they are honoring God by keeping their distance, a sin that is more terrible and exclusive to Christians. In fact, Kierkegaard has something to say about this, "while paganism mentioned God's name with some awe, with a healthy respect for the mysterious, and most often with great solemnity, in Christendom God's name is the word that occurs most often in everyday speech, and incontestably the word to which least meaning is attached". The unfortunate truth is that Christians don't realize this to be a sin, and even further they don't realize that by declaring themselves to be Christians, they have assumed a greater responsibility and a greater standard to measure up to.

At this point, the argument has naturally evolved from "I am a sinner before God" to "I am a sinner and cannot be forgiven" to what many would consider the climax of the book: "Maybe the problem isn't me" delivered through the argument of the God-man. The idea of the "God-man" is that man and God are one. Through the teachings of Christianity, many have taken, in vain, the idea that man and God are ever close. The word "God" becomes casual as people go to church and talk about Christianity, but the reality standing before them never truly lands. The idea that God sent his son in Christ in human flesh to live among humanity is misconstrued and eased to the extent that many believe that God has become a particular human being. Christians have become so accustomed to this fact that hearing it has lost the complete absurdity. The acclimation of this has led to the "cultural" version of Christianity. What should happen, Kierkegaard thinks, is that when someone genuinely encounters this claim there are two distinct possibilities: faith or offense. Kierkegaard says that it is "as if the same happened to him as to the good-natured man who makes too great concessions and is then rewarded with ingratitude". This has become so bad that "the sensible man would be right were he to say to God: 'It is your own fault; why did you get so involved with man'".

The tension keeps building from this point forward. Kierkegaard claims that the category of sin is the category of particularity. It is not speculative, it is not abstracted, it is particular to the individual and to the sin. Yet modern philosophy, specifically that of both Descartes and Hegel, encourage this abstraction in some way. Hegel creates systems that can ingest these abstractions that reframe sin as something unavoidable but not severe and Descartes' cogito allows for an easy escape from actuality and into something less concrete. The moment sin turns into a concept like "human sinfulness", "the human condition", or even something like a "developmental stage", you have already changed what sin is. Essentially, Kierkegaard argues that this way of thought and the culturification of Christ have led sin away from the particular, from actuality and have moved it incorrectly into the abstract where it can be diminished and disregarded. The abstract does not align fundamentally with Christianity, as "all these abstractions just do not exist for God; for God in Christ there live only particular human beings (sinners)". Furthermore, "he is present at every point; every instant he is omnipresent... his concept is not like man's, beneath which the particular... for him the single individual does not lie below the concept". God does not encounter "humanity" he encounters each individual human as they come. This is the "qualitative difference between God and man". The difference between a King and his subjects is a social, human construct, but the difference between God and man is that "man is separated from God by the mostt yawning qualitative abyss", and any notion of a God-man is an attempt to cross this uncrossable abyss, an offense. So then to repeat what I said earlier, the claim and notion of Christ, the directive of God: 'Thou Shalt' can only possibly elicit two responses: faith or offense. To each individual God has professed 'Thou shalt believe' and "that is, either you shall be offended, or you shall believe". The error of humanity is to assume then, that judgment cannot be passed en masse. We believe, as humans, that "to judge people like cattle is not possible". This creates a sense of false fellowship, encouraging them to "just stick together, make that this is what priests preach" and to get rid of anyone who dares to speak differently as they cannot possibly be right. Yet this is not how it works with God, as there is no group, there are just individuals in eternity.

Subsection C: The Sin of Abandoning Christianity Positively, of Declaring It to be Untruth

The "sin against the Holy Spirit". At this point, the self is at the height of despair. Not only does the self throw Christianity aside, it turns around and starts a war between man and God. The last form of despair was seen as defensive in some regard, but this is change of tactics to fully offensive. The fundamental possibility of offense in Christianity's teachings of God's kinship with man is that "God makes sure that man does not come too close". Above, it was noted that there lies a "yawning abyss" between God and man. Kierkegaard dives further, declaring an "infinite difference" and that every "doctrine that ignores this difference is, humanly speaking, insane; divinely understood, blasphemy". The "unfathomable grief of love" is so that "the possibility of offense he cannot take away". If there were no offense, Christianity would reduce to paganism. As soon as God reveals himself as the God-man and took on flesh, he needed a sort of protection, and for that reason the possibility of offense remains. It is here where the ideas converge into one. Because God and man differ, because we simply do not operate on the same axis as God when it comes to the abstract the particular, because God sent himself down as Christ to live among humanity and point us towards salvation, there must be offense. So, "in the joy of love, there would nonetheless be sorrow... there looms that dark possibility. And still, had it not loomed over him, his work would not have been one out of true love". "Out of love, God becomes man. He says: 'See, here is what it is to be a human being'; but he adds 'Take care, for I am also God -- blessed is he who is not offended in me'". Out of love, the man he becomes is a lowly servant, so as to note that "what it is to be a man of humble station so that no should feel himself excluded".

"But the possibility of offense guarded and guards him, securing a yawning abyss between him and the person who was closest to him and stood nearest". To maintain Christianity and religion and the notion of salvation and everything that God is and what religion is meant to be, there must be an abyss. There must be a fundamental separation between God and man so as to note assume isomorphism and dismantle the entire structure. So, one that is "not offended worships in faith. But to worship, which is the expression of faith, is to show that the infinitely yawning qualittative abyss between them is secured. The despair is now generally three-fold: complete unwillingness to make a decision between faith and offense, for "the fact that Christianity is proclaimed to you means you are to make up your mind about Christ". The second being offense of the negative, but passive, form. In doing so, one doesn't fully believe but does not disregard Christ. The self stays in paradox and "to some extent it honors Christianity" but "in his heart he is constantly concerned with this crux". Finally, the offense in the positive form declares Christianity to be untruth and a lie, denying Christ either "Docetically or rationalistically, so that either Christ does not become a particular human being, but only appears to do so, or he becomes only a particular human being". It is here where we get back to the beginning, that in relating to itself in itself and in wanting to be itself, the self is grounded transparently in the power which established it". The definition of faith.

Connections

Whilst reading the last section in particular, I was reminded by The Grand Inquisitor in Fyodor Dostoevsky's masterpiece The Brothers Karamazov. I won't recap the entire speech here as it is something that deserves an essay of its own, but the premise is that by giving humanity free will, Christ burdened humanity with a terrifying, impossible choice instead of providing them with what they truly craveWith the three temptations of Christ being what was denied. Its not too hard to draw parallels between this story and the one above. The same way God creates this "yawning abyss" out of necessity, so he does with free will. In both ways, God has given humanity the choice to believe and in doing so has kept Christianity real and alive. Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky would both agree that to have love and truth means to have the possibility of refusal.