WanderingTaoist
8th December 2006, 01:34 PM
This thread is basically about the thought of Soren Kirkegaard and how it and existentialism relates to Eastern thought.
Perhaps it's just me, but I see a lot of connections between Kirkegaard's existentialism and some of the basic premises of many Eastern religions. Since not everyone may be familiar with Kirkegaard (and I'm certainly no expert!), I'll give a brief outline of the points of thought that I think are pertinent. If anyone out there knows more or knows something that makes all of this moot, please, post away.
To begin with, Kirkegaard posits a distinction between what he calls "objective knowledge" and "subjective knowledge".
"Objective Knowledge" is that which requires no effort of "appropriation" on behalf of the knower. This doesn't mean that there is no act of toil in obtaining this knowledge, but rather, that it is knowledge more or less wholly unrelated to who you are. A good example of this would be mathematics.
"Subjective Knowledge" , by way of contrast, is that which cannot be comprehended unless the knower is personally involved. In order to know this, I literally have to be either what I am knowing, or I have to experience something directly to know it.
To use an example, I can learn all kinds of facts and theories about enlightenment. I can accumulate a wealth of knowledge about how people have described Tao. All of this is objective knowledge, and while it is knowledge, it doesn't mean that I am enlightened, or that I know what Tao is. Enlightenment and Tao, taken in themselves, can only be known subjectively, that is, I must literally throw myself into certain experiences to understand them.
Please note here that "subjective" does not entirely mean what is normally meant when we say "subjective". "Subject" here has an almost grammatical meaning, it means "active an primary agent."
Those familiar with Eastern thought will probably already see a connection here, but Kirkegaard goes further:
He maintains that the harder you try objectively to know something like enlightenment, the less subjectively you are. Objective knowledge is concerned with systems, and "Systems are closed, while existance is just the opposite."
The Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao..."he who talks, doesn't know.."
Any thoughts?
Perhaps it's just me, but I see a lot of connections between Kirkegaard's existentialism and some of the basic premises of many Eastern religions. Since not everyone may be familiar with Kirkegaard (and I'm certainly no expert!), I'll give a brief outline of the points of thought that I think are pertinent. If anyone out there knows more or knows something that makes all of this moot, please, post away.
To begin with, Kirkegaard posits a distinction between what he calls "objective knowledge" and "subjective knowledge".
"Objective Knowledge" is that which requires no effort of "appropriation" on behalf of the knower. This doesn't mean that there is no act of toil in obtaining this knowledge, but rather, that it is knowledge more or less wholly unrelated to who you are. A good example of this would be mathematics.
"Subjective Knowledge" , by way of contrast, is that which cannot be comprehended unless the knower is personally involved. In order to know this, I literally have to be either what I am knowing, or I have to experience something directly to know it.
To use an example, I can learn all kinds of facts and theories about enlightenment. I can accumulate a wealth of knowledge about how people have described Tao. All of this is objective knowledge, and while it is knowledge, it doesn't mean that I am enlightened, or that I know what Tao is. Enlightenment and Tao, taken in themselves, can only be known subjectively, that is, I must literally throw myself into certain experiences to understand them.
Please note here that "subjective" does not entirely mean what is normally meant when we say "subjective". "Subject" here has an almost grammatical meaning, it means "active an primary agent."
Those familiar with Eastern thought will probably already see a connection here, but Kirkegaard goes further:
He maintains that the harder you try objectively to know something like enlightenment, the less subjectively you are. Objective knowledge is concerned with systems, and "Systems are closed, while existance is just the opposite."
The Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao..."he who talks, doesn't know.."
Any thoughts?