Deconstruction of Conceptual Reason:
Transcendental Immanence and Faith
Introduction
In Climacus’ writing, the relation of faith and knowledge is dialectical. On the one hand, knowledge is not a necessary condition for faith. But on the other hand, the reason behind knowledge is a sufficient condition for faith. To have faith, one can advance upon the Socratic reason and go beyond: philosophize, limit to paradox, and cease to think. But this is not unwilling passivity, because the subject actively returns to immanence and transcends the unknown. Therefore, the subject unifies the paradoxical opposites and has faith in the faith itself, despite the existence of any object or ultimate other, i.e. God. In this paper, I will respectively discuss the Socratic reason, paradox and faith in three sections. And they are arranged in a logical sequence: construction of knowledge, deconstruction of knowledge, and happy passion.
1. Socratic Reason: Base of Climacus’ Philosophy
Climacus’ project of thought starts with a Socratic question:” how far does the truth admit of being learned?” (3) Meno’s paradox then appears. If one cannot seek both the known and the unknown, then one needs recollection instead …show more content…
If reason is fundamentally paradoxical, then knowledge will be totally self-contradictory and empty. And is there still meaning in Climacus’ project? My answer is positive. Reason in conceptual sense is paradoxical. It is born from paradox, leads to paradox, and the paradox deconstructs knowledge. The remains of knowledge are coherent as a system, but still paradoxical in their fragments. They are knowledge about the mere existence. Once the subject lets go of the conceptual reason and knowledge, the prudential reason and knowledge will become the successor. And as I will discuss in the following section, the result is a mood consisted of active passivity, happy passion, and
Transcendental Immanence and Faith
Introduction
In Climacus’ writing, the relation of faith and knowledge is dialectical. On the one hand, knowledge is not a necessary condition for faith. But on the other hand, the reason behind knowledge is a sufficient condition for faith. To have faith, one can advance upon the Socratic reason and go beyond: philosophize, limit to paradox, and cease to think. But this is not unwilling passivity, because the subject actively returns to immanence and transcends the unknown. Therefore, the subject unifies the paradoxical opposites and has faith in the faith itself, despite the existence of any object or ultimate other, i.e. God. In this paper, I will respectively discuss the Socratic reason, paradox and faith in three sections. And they are arranged in a logical sequence: construction of knowledge, deconstruction of knowledge, and happy passion.
1. Socratic Reason: Base of Climacus’ Philosophy
Climacus’ project of thought starts with a Socratic question:” how far does the truth admit of being learned?” (3) Meno’s paradox then appears. If one cannot seek both the known and the unknown, then one needs recollection instead …show more content…
If reason is fundamentally paradoxical, then knowledge will be totally self-contradictory and empty. And is there still meaning in Climacus’ project? My answer is positive. Reason in conceptual sense is paradoxical. It is born from paradox, leads to paradox, and the paradox deconstructs knowledge. The remains of knowledge are coherent as a system, but still paradoxical in their fragments. They are knowledge about the mere existence. Once the subject lets go of the conceptual reason and knowledge, the prudential reason and knowledge will become the successor. And as I will discuss in the following section, the result is a mood consisted of active passivity, happy passion, and