Soren Kierkegaard, Natural Sciences

Kierkegaard, Natural Sciences (Full Text) (The 2006 edition of the Pyramid Project Portfolio was missing part of the text.)

Dielectic: an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue.

What I internalized during those years was the importance of always keeping one's ear to the ground to hear the new questions that are being asked at the grass roots; always combining real struggles with philosophical exploration; always struggling to think dialectically. In other words, always being on the alert for the changes taking place in reality that force us to break loose from the fixed concepts that have come out of earlier struggles; always recognizing that everything and everyone contains contradictions so that what was progressive at one stage can become reactionary at another." -- C.L.R. James

How is anything "dialectically clear"? Is that an oxymoron? Does he mean a result that two people can agree upon? Does he mean that the sides of the discussion (thesis/antithesis) are well-defined?

"Natural Science" is an intermediate step in the transformation of the terminology of what was formerly known as "Natural Philosophy" and is now known simply as "Science".

Does he have an underlying assumption that Philosophy is more important than science? Much of his rhetoric seems to indicate this, although he does give consideration to the alternative in his question, "is it of such importance that theory should be formed accordingly?"

Hic Rhodus, hic salta is Latin, literally, "This is Rhodes, now dance!" From Aesop's fable, called "The Boastful Athlete", it is a challenge to actually show what you claim you can do. "Put your money where your mouth is." "Put up or shut up."

The Logic in the next paragraph is a bit fuzzy. Science is never absolutely certain. A thinker feels that uncertainty. A thinker suffers until he finds his "spiritual certainty".

So the conclusion is: it is incredible (i.e. unbelievable) that after thinking infinitely about himself as a spirit, that a man would choose science (which is intrisically limited and uncertain) as his life's work. The best one can hope for from a scientist is a brilliant mind which can explain all of nature while being oblivious to the morality of his discoveries.

The closing sentences about scepticism are largely tangential. The sentiment that scepticism is a bad thing is not supported in this excerpt, and scientists do not mind being called sceptics anyway.

The main logical fallacy in this work is the false dichotomy expressed in the conclusion. To see it clearly, one must merely use Kierkegaard's own favorite tool, the dialetic, and listen to the scientist's reply (antithesis) to Kierkegaard's thesis.

Scientist: Philosophy has spent 4000 years producing prodigious volumes of verbage, yet in spite of the claims to a "spiritual certainty" attained by individuals, it has produced nothing which is universally acceptable to all men. Hic Rhodus, hic salta! Science has produced the Newtonian physics, Einstein's relativity, and quantum mechanics, three provable and useful pillars of knowledge built on a foundation of mathematics, which are universally accepted and have produced tangible benefits for mankind. A few examples are putting a man on the moon, the industrial revolution, and information age. From the scientist's point of view the obstacle preventing these accomplishments from benefitting all mankind is the continued bickering of philosophers over minor points of doctine, augmented by the greed of those who really don't give a dingo's kidney about either viewpoint.

So if we can understand both the philosopher's and the scientist's viewpoints, we can proceed with the synthesis. (Naturally the philosopher can be just as annoyed with my flippancy as I am with his, pointing to works which are nearly universally admired, if not accepted, such as the Golden Rule, the two great commandments of Jesus, or the United States Constitution. But we are short on time and should proceed with the synthesis...)

Perhaps the synthesis is that thinking infinitely about oneself is insufficient to produce any benefit outlasting oneself, while reasoning about universally applicable but intrinsically uncertain principles is insufficient to produce any benefit for individual spirituality. Thus by seeing the flaws inherent in both points of view we can recognize the need of a more balanced approach incorporating both spiritual self-examination and the search for universal principles. Those scientists who deny the need for the spiritual are merely finding their spiritual center in science itself, for the assertion that science will eventually solve all of mankind's problems is a scientifically unprovable philosophy. On the other hand, philosophers who "hate math" shut themselves off from the possibility of discovering univerally provable principles, and become lost in a quagmire of quibbling over the meanings of words.

Immanual Kant wondered why philosophy could not follow the model of physics in building a provable structure of truth and knowledge on top of a foundation of universally acceptable axioms. His question remains open.