STAGES ON THE LIFE’S WAY: QUEST FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHENTICITY OF A 2011/2012 ASSISTANT FORMATOR OF ST. PAUL’S SEMINARY, UKPOR
1.0. INTRODUCTION
Across the ages scholars have occupied themselves with the ideas on how to bring to actuality the best possible world and the best mode of individuals’ existence therein. In doing this, philosophers pre-occupied themselves with the beings in the world. It was Heidegger who called for a re-focusing on the being of all beings-man (Dasein). The critical study on the mode of existence of man in the world is a task widely attributed to the existentialists.
Thus, the father of modern existentialism, Soren Kierkegaard was concerned not only with the individuals but their mode of existence in the world. Thus, in line with Kierkegaardarian doctrine, an Assistant Formator arrests himself with the following questions: what am I to do? To what can I comit myself? What does my life mean? In bid to proffer solutions to these mind boggling issues, the Danish philosopher, Kierkegaard, projected his doctrine on the “stages on the life’s way.” Further illustrations will illumine my thesis.
2.0. Kierkegaard: Who is Him?
The father of modern existenxialism, Soren Aabye Kierkegaard was born in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1813. He studied in the University of Copenhagen where he was trained in the Hegelian philosophy; though he was not favourably impressed by it. When he heard Schelling’s lecture at Berlin, which was critical of Hegel, Kierkegaard broke away from the Hegelian tradition. What made Hegel a ridiculous figure for Kierkegaard was that this great philosopher tried to capture all of reality in his system of thought, and in the process, lost the most important element, namely, existence. Kierkegaard reserved the term existence for the individual human being.
Kierkegaard revolted against the prevalent system of his days rejecting objectivity or the crowd. In the year 1855, at the age of 42, he died.
3.0. CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
3.1. EXISTENTIALISM: This refers to any philosophy that asserts that the most important philosophical matters involve fundamental questions of meaning and choice as they affect actual-existing- individuals.
Existential themes include choice, freedom, identity, alienation, inauthenticity, despair and the awareness of our own mortality.
3.2. THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE CROWD: Kierkegaard maintains that to exist “implies being a certain kind of individual, an individual who strives, who considers alternatives, who chooses, who decides and makes a commitment.”[i]
Man for Kierkegaard has two modes of existence: authentic and inauthentic existence.
He sees commitment as the modes of existence for an authentic individual who has gone through three stages of existence: aesthetic, ethical and religious stages of existence.
Inauthenticity is the mode of existence for the crowd. The crowd entails being lost in the anonymous they of human existence. No wonder “being in a crowd dilutes ourselves and thereby undoes our nature.”[ii]
3.3. AUTHENTICITY AND INAUTHENTICITY
Authenticity is the subjective condition of an individual living honestly and courageously in the moment, refusing to make excuses and not relying on groups or institutions for meaning and purpose.
On the other hand, inauthenticity is the condition that results when the nature and needs of the individual are ignored, denied and obscured or sacrificed for institutions, abstractions or groups.
4.0. TRUTH AS SUBJECTIVITY
Kierkegaard distinguished between objectivity and subjectivity; the crowd or the individual. Objectivity deals with the general, universal or institutionalized system of beliefs. Objectivity for him is irrelevant; nay, objectivity is untruth.
Thus, he maintains that truth is subjectivity. By this, he meant that there is no prefabricated truth out there for people who make choices. Indeed, the main issue for the Danish philosopher is to understand himself, to see what God really wishes him to do; the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.
Note must be taken that Kierkegaard did not deny the value of objective knowledge, which he refers to as an imperative of understanding, but he pointed out that the ‘objective facts’ of a life cannot account for its existential quality. That subjective individual should be seen in a man who has advanced in Kierkegaardarian stages on the life’s way.
5.0. KIERKEGAARDARIAN STAGES ON THE LIFE’S WAY
5.1. AESTHETIC STAGE:
The aesthetic stage is characterized by the pursuit of pleasure, not just in art and music, but especially in the pursuit of sensuous/sensual pleasure. The aesthete is crafty, seductive and energetic in his or her efforts to find meaning in aesthetic experience. This is a way of life that cultivates easy, uncommitted enjoyment, a life of whim and caprice, focused on the here and now. Its enemies are boredom, frustrations and dissatisfaction. It is a life of childlike immediacy being in potency toward nothing.
Although the aesthetic person chooses, choosing is taken lightly because, it makes no difference. He avoids getting entangled in tedious, boring decisions. Kierkegaard asserts that the aesthete is either superficially easygoing or superficially cynical. The aesthethic person is amoral.
When the aesthetic discovers that he is indeed living in the ‘cellar’ of sensuousness; that life at this level cannot possibly result in true existence; he will now be faced with an either-or decision. Either I remain at the aesthetic level with its total attractions and inherent limitations, or I move to the next stage. Movement to the next stage must be done not by thinking but by commitment.
5.2. THE ETHICAL STAGE:
This stage on the life’s way is the ethical stage, a way of life that involves making a commitment to the norms, rules principles and customs of the society. In this level, moral rules give my life the element of form and consistency. Kierkegaard illustrates the contrast between the aesthetic and ethical persons in their specific attitudes toward sexual behavior. Whereas the aesthetic person gives in to impulses wherever there is an attraction, the ethical person accepts the obligations of marriage as an expression of reason.
As an ethical person, I would have the attitude of moral self-sufficiency. I take firm stands on moral questions and as Socrates argued, I assumed that to know the good is to do the good. I would also consider moral evil to be a product of either ignorance or of weakness of will.
Time will come when I will realize that I am incapable of fulfilling the moral laws. I thus become conscious of my guilt and sin. Guilt, Kierkegaard says, becomes a dialectic movement that places before me a new either- or. Now, I must either remain at the ethical level and try to fulfill the moral law or I must respond to my new awareness. This movement from ethical to religious stages cannot be achieved by thinking but by an act of commitment- by a leap of faith. Socratic and Kantian moralities are based on the ethical stage.
5.3. THE RELIGIOUS STAGE OR THE LEAP OF FAITH
The religious stage/leap of faith brings one before a God who is a subject, whom I cannot relate with based on objective way or truth. Rather, God is an individual whom I must also relate with based on my individual capacity.
The relationship between God and each individual is a unique and subjective experience. Only an act of faith can assure me of my personal relation to God. As I discover the inadequacy of my existence at the aesthetic and ethical levels, self-fulfillment in God becomes clear to me. Through despair and guilt I am brought to the decisive moment in life when I confront the final either- or of faith.
The Kierkegaardarian leap of faith involves what he calls the ‘teleological suspension of the ethical. Thus, consider the case of Abraham. Had Abraham been an ethical man, he would not have considered sacrificing his son Isaac for the possibility that God had ordered him to do so. As an ethical man, a thinker, Abraham would have concluded that God does not command us to murder and declined from killing his only son.
From any perspective but that of faith, what Abraham did was absurd. Objectively, there were no grounds to justify his choice and this is important-Abraham knew it. He could not consult with his fellow tribesmen nor with his wife Sarah. He knew in advance what they would say. No universal moral code could help him. Rather, he faced an individual predicament as an individual person. Thus, he proved his individual authenticity.
6.0. RELEVANCE OF KIERKEGAARDARIAN DOCTRINE INN THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL 2011/2012 ASSISTANT FORMATOR
Seemingly, one would run into the hasty conclusion that the attainment of Kierkegaardarian religious stage will enable an Assistant Formator to radically break away from prevailing norms, institutions and cultural attitudes. Far be it! Rather, it triggers in each of us, a new awareness. The awareness that we are all in potency towards goals. Kierkegaardarian man was in potency towards the religious stage. We the Assistant Formators are also in potency towards the realization of our goals particular to our mode of being. This task though general, each must derive his in his own individual capacity.
Just like the Kierkegaardarian stages on the life’s way, before we achieve our goals, we must be faced with many either- or. In the aesthetic stage, Kierkegaardarian man faces the antithesis of despair which lifted him to make a choice that lifted him to the ethical stage. The ethical stage carried in it, the seed of its own negation which makes the ethical man to be faced with another either-or. In ethical stage, man realizes his own sinful nature and guilt. Either he remains in this situation or he moves to another level. His choice led him to the religious stage where he realized his authentic individual. Thus, an Assistant Formator must learn how to move forward despite any either- or he meets on his life’s way. This points to Ortegarian doctrine that human life is a “shipwreck constantly seeking anchorage.” We must keep on struggling for the Scripture says we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Again, Kierkegaard, whether he likes it or not, has summoned all of us to an integral/authentic existence. thus in line with Ortega Gasset, man is not a readymade product, nor has he a fixed essence or a given nature man is a self creating being who makes himself as he pleases and freely creates his own essence. Thus, life presents to an Assistant Formator at every step with options which pose the agonizing question not only of choice but also of personal authenticity. By implication, as one makes his bed, so shall he lie on it. Indeed, the happiness an Assistant Formator must be intrinsic; no one should decide that for him. The either –or encountered in our apostolic experience must be geared towards improving our nature since experience is one of the veritable avenue for growth.
Furthermore, an Assistant Formator must not be a spectator but an actor in the formative process of our junior ones, our students. Kierkegaard illustrates his point of spectator and actor with two persons on a horse. One is awake holding the rein and directs the movement of the horse. The other sleeps on top of the horse while the horse moves with no direction. Let no Assistant Formator become a spectator in St. Paul’s Seminary. Despite any odd one thinks he has encountered so far, we must all forge ahead. We must realize our individual authenticity by the way we handle our functions. These students have encountered many Assistant Formators. Someone in SS3 has encountered five Auxiliary Generals while Mr. Nwokedi Felix is the person’s 6th Auxi. Gen. It follows that Mr. Nwokedi Felix will prove his individual authenticity by the way he directs his affairs which must be unique from other Auxiliary Generals.
Finally, the religious stage has arrested many of us who are harboring unbalanced spirituality; those fixated in the ethical stage. Coming to the Chapel which the Seminary and general laws have seen as not only necessary for a Seminarian but also an imperative and saving life which option will be given prompt attention? Considering a student’s health and seizing his provision which one comes first? Observing the letters of the Seminary rules and regulations and upholding the spirit which one is of great value? No wonder Christ asked the perplexing question whether Sabbath is made for man or man for Sabbath? We must strive towards the leap of faith.
7.0. CONCLUSION
Kierkegaard’s philosophy can be summed up in his statement that “every human being must be assumed in essential possession of what essentially belongs to being a human.” This being the case, the task of the subjective Assistant Formator is to transform himself into an instrument that clearly expresses in existence whatever is essentially human. Thus, no one has any excuse to give for not making it in life. Your destiny is on your hand, work it out!
[i] S. Kierkegaard, The PresentAge, trans. A. Dru. (New York: Harper and Row Publishers inl. 1962), p.37
[ii] S. Stumpf, Philosophy and Problems, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill Inc. 2003), p.400
