1

Despair and Faith

A study of Søren Kierkegaard’s The Sickness unto Death (1849)

Stijn Krooshof

26-01-2016

2

“The Greeks with their ‘know thyself’, and Ibsen with his ‘be thyself’, trouble me beyond

words. How can I know my real self if I cannot identify myself, if I cannot isolate the

irreducible center, the ultimate residuum, of my individuality? I am not looking for man, nor

yet for a man; I want myself, just my Self! Who is this Self? And where is he? And what does

he really think? Yet with this Self, bound, dressed, wrapped, cluttered up by others—I must

live, and always live as a stranger. This—but not only this—is the torture of my hard life.”

— Giovanni Papini, The Failure

“Dear incomprehension, it's thanks to you I’ll be myself, in the end.”

— Samuel Beckett, The Unnamable

3

Introduction

In this essay I will discuss the book The Sickness unto Death written by the Danish philosopher

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) in 1849 under the pseudonym Anti-Climacus. This work is

often regarded as one of Kierkegaard’s more psychological works, because in it he examines

the various forms of despair we as human beings can find ourselves in. Kierkegaard claims that

the only way to free ourselves from despair is to adopt the Christian faith. We will see that both

despair and Christianity acquire a somewhat unusual meaning in Kierkegaard’s book. The aim

of this essay is to examine the book’s account of despair and Christianity and to find out in what

way faith is able to eradicate despair.

First I will thoroughly describe Kierkegaard’s concept of despair by accurately summarizing

the first part of the book (The Sickness unto Death is Despair), while also consulting secondary

literature. In the second part of the essay I will examine how Kierkegaard’s type of Christian

faith is able to remove despair by summarizing the relevant parts of the second part of the book

(Despair is Sin) and again using insights from secondary literature. In the conclusion I will

shortly review my findings.

1. Despair

1.1 The self

In order to understand Kierkegaard’s notion of despair, it is first necessary to grasp his concept

of the self. For Kierkegaard, the human being is a creature that is split in two, because he is

both infinite and finite. His infinitude consists in being eternal and free and his finitude in being

temporal and necessitated. Put differently, infinitude corresponds to eternity and freedom, and

finitude to temporality and necessity. Furthermore, eternity is expressed in the immortal soul

and temporality in the mortal body. These opposites, infinitude and finitude, stand in a relation

to each other and the human being is their synthesis. However, so far there is not yet a self.

The self comes into being when the human being – the synthesis – is conscious of himself and

relates himself to himself. Humans are aware of their existence, which allows them to reflect

upon themselves consciously. It is in this conscious reflecting or relating that the self arises.

This means that the self is not a static, fixed substance, but an activity; the self is not a relation

like the synthesis of infinitude and finitude, but a relating of the synthesis to itself. In short, the

human being is a synthesis of infinitude and finitude and because of his self-awareness he can

relate himself to this synthesis – to himself – and the self comes into being in this activity of

relating.1

For Kierkegaard, God is the one who has made it possible for human beings to be conscious of

themselves, to be aware of being a synthesis of infinitude and finitude, to have this “advantage

1 Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness unto Death (1849), translated by Alastair Hannay (London: Penguin Books,

1989), 43; Jan Keij, Kierkegaard anders gezien. Over de denker die het verschil maakt (Zoetermeer: Klement,

2015), 61-63; Alastair Hannay, “Introduction,” in The Sickness unto Death by Søren Kierkegaard, translated by

Alastair Hannay (London: Penguin Books, 1989), 24.

4

over the beast”,2 to be a self.3 Thus, we can formulate Kierkegaard’s definition of the self: “The

self is the conscious synthesis of infinitude and finitude, which relates to itself, whose task is

to become itself, which can only be done in the relationship to God.”4

Explained schematically:

1.2 Despair is the sickness of the self

In Kierkegaard’s definition of the self we received a first hint of what might constitute despair.

After all, he says the task of the self is to become itself. That means it is possible for the self

not to be itself and here we find what it means for a human being to be in despair. Despair

means for the self not to be itself, which is why it is the sickness of the self. The self is not itself

when it ignores its relation to God and/or when it puts too much emphasis on one of the

opposites in the synthesis. In line with the self as an activity rather than a fixed substance,

Kierkegaard views being in despair not as a state to which a person is passively submitted, such

as a regular disease, but as an active, free, individual choice every moment again and again:

“every moment he despairs he brings the despair upon himself”.5

Kierkegaard identifies two forms of despair: not wanting to be oneself and wanting to be

oneself. The former is to be expected, because that is obviously a situation in which the self is

not itself. The latter is more surprising. If the self’s task is to be itself, shouldn’t it want to be

itself? Yes, it should, but Kierkegaard is very skeptical about what people want. Often a person

who wants to be himself does not want to be the person he actually is – a self established by

and in constant relation to God – but some ideal version of himself that he created himself, and

even more importantly, he probably wants to accomplish this ideal without relating to God. He

2 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 45. 3 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 43, 46. 4 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 59. 5 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 47.

5

wants to be his own maker. Thus, ‘wanting to be oneself’ should be interpreted here as: wanting

to be one’s own self without relating to God.

Both forms of despair ultimately amount to the same desire: a person in despair wants to get rid

of his actual self and become a self he is not, “that is, he wants to tear his self away from the

power which established it.”6 Ironically, it is impossible to fulfill this wish. The power that

established the self is infinitely stronger than an individual human being, and “compels him to

be the self he does not want to be.”7 The result is that he is in despair.8

The preceding has already made it clear what it is a person always despairs over: himself. If,

for example, a despairing person tried to become a different self but failed, he is not despairing

over failing to achieve his goal, but over himself as a self that proved unable to get rid of itself.

Or if a person despairs over losing his spouse, he does not despair over the loss or over his

spouse, but over himself as a self without his spouse. He despairs over the self he is destined to

be, and the death of his spouse reminds him of this, because he can no longer lose himself in

his spouse.9

1.3 Despair is the sickness unto death

The inability to get rid of oneself is also why despair is the sickness unto death. Usually, a

sickness unto death is considered to be a sickness “where the end is death and death is the

end.”10 It is not in this sense that despair is the sickness unto death. In fact, to think that death

is the end is to despair, because death is “a passing into life.”11 In Kierkegaard’s Christian

worldview, death equals redemption; death means being saved by God. Now, what prevents

one from being redeemed is precisely despair. So despair is not the sickness unto death because

it leads to death, like one could say of a fatal illness, but because it prevents one from dying as

a passing into life: “the torment of despair is precisely the inability to die.”12 Then, we could

say that the end is despair and despair is the end, because in despair the self cannot get rid of

itself, cannot be itself and cannot die the Christian death, and it is in this rather paradoxical

sense that despair is the sickness unto death.13

1.4 Unconscious despair

The two forms of despair we have been dealing with are cases in which a person consciously

realizes he is in despair. However, there is a much more dangerous form: that of being

unconscious of being in despair, or even worse, being unconscious of being a self. Kierkegaard

claims it is possible for a person to be in despair without knowing it. He compares this to regular

health. A person can think he is healthy and even have good reasons for it, but a physician might

6 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 50. 7 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 50. 8 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 43-44, 46-47, 50; Keij, Kierkegaard anders gezien, 127-128; Hannay, “Introduction,” 4. 9 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 49-50; William Barrett, Irrational Man. A Study in Existential Philosophy (New

York/Toronto: Anchor Books, 1958), 169. 10 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 47. 11 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 47. 12 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 48. 13 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 47-50; Hannay, “Introduction,” 16-17; Barrett, Irrational Man, 169.

6

come to a very different conclusion. The same goes for the self. If an expert on the self’s health,

such as Kierkegaard, “has a definite and articulate conception of what it is to be healthy”14, then

he can show others to be in despair even if they themselves disagree. By allowing for

unconscious despair, the sickness of the self becomes a very general phenomenon, because

according to Kierkegaard, most people live in this form of despair.15

1.5 Despair and self-awareness

If despair means that the self is not itself, how can it accomplish being itself? Even though this

is a very complex process which we will discuss later, Kierkegaard is very clear about the first

step: escaping the unconscious phase and becoming conscious of being a self in despair,

because “he who says without pretence that he despairs is, after all, a little nearer (…) being

cured than all those who (…) do not regard themselves as being in despair.”16

Here we discover an important element of despair: it is related to self-awareness, but not

unambiguously. Despair and self-awareness are related to each other in a paradoxical manner.

As a person becomes more and more conscious of himself, i.e. as he relates himself to himself

with an increasing amount of consciousness, he is forced deeper and deeper into intensified

forms of despair, but at the same time he is closer to curing himself of despair. Put differently,

a person must become conscious of his self and of his despair if he wants to be freed from it,

but increasing his consciousness means his despair will heighten, making it more difficult to

remove. This paradox is comparable to modern psychotherapy: if, say, a depressed person wants

to be cured of his depression, he must admit that he is depressed, but acknowledging this will

depress him even more, making it harder to treat the depression.17

1.6 Imbalances in the synthesis resulting from despair

Before continuing this train of thought about increasing self-awareness and intensifying despair

as a way to eradicate despair, Kierkegaard goes into more detail about various forms of despair.

When a person is in despair, i.e. when he wants to get rid of his actual self and create his own

self, he will often emphasize one of the opposites in the relation between infinitude and finitude

that he is in order to accomplish his goal. This leads to an imbalance in the synthesis and

Kierkegaard identifies four possible imbalances.

1.6.a Infinitude’s despair: lacking finitude

Infinitude’s despair means that a person emphasizes the infinite part of his self. The result is

that he is completely caught up in his imagination and fantasies, instead of living in the concrete,

finite body that he also is. He keeps planning new things and keeps coming up with new ideas

without actually realizing them. Thus he drifts away in abstractions and in the worst case never

again returns to himself.18

14 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 53. 15 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 52-56; Barrett, Irrational Man, 169. 16 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 56. 17 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 56-57, 74-75, 98; Hannay, “Introduction,” 5, 22. 18 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 60-63; Geert Jan Blanken, Kierkegaard. Een inleiding in zijn leven en werk

(Amsterdam: Ambo/Anthos, 2013), 93-95.

7

1.6.b Finitude’s despair: lacking infinitude

The opposite imbalance is finitude’s despair, in which a person retreats into himself and

concerns himself only with worldly matters and other people. As a result he becomes “a copy,

a number, along with the crowd.”19 He never plans anything that might put him in danger and

always stays within the limits of what he knows, which means he is unable to learn from his

mistakes and is therefore unlikely to grow as a self.20

1.6.c Possibility’s despair: lacking necessity

This type of despair is closely linked to infinitude’s despair, but focuses more on the aspect of

possibility. It arises when a person loses sight of the fact that an important part of his existence

is constituted by necessary aspects of being, aspects he does not have the power to change. One

is in possibility’s despair when one lives as if everything is, was and will be possible. There is

no such thing as actuality anymore: everything might happen. The result is living in constant

hope and/or dread.21

1.6.d Necessity’s despair: lacking possibility

This form is closely connected to finitude’s despair and probably the worst of the four, because

Kierkegaard identifies God very directly with possibility, so losing possibility means losing

God and therefore pretty much being lost forever. The person in the grasp of necessity’s despair

submits himself entirely to fate, to a system that does not leave room for the fact that things

might happen that are beyond us. He is a determinist with an almost religious fervor for his

fatalism.22

1.7 The three main forms of despair and the progression of the sickness

After giving this overview of possible imbalances in the synthesis, Kierkegaard turns to the

progression and intensification of the sickness of the self through increasing consciousness.

This means that he elaborates on the three main forms of despair – being unconscious of being

in despair, not wanting to be oneself and wanting to be oneself – which constitute the successive

stages of the sickness. We will see that the various imbalances in the synthesis will return and

find their respective place in the progression of consciousness and despair.

1.7.a Lacking consciousness of being in despair and being an eternal self

As we’ve seen, this is the most common form of despair. Being unconscious of being in despair

means one is not aware of being an eternal self, which in turn amounts to being unaware of the

existence of God. A person in this kind of despair is completely oblivious to who he actually is

and “is totally dominated by his sensuous and psycho-sensuous reactions; he lives in the

categories of the sensate, the pleasant and the unpleasant, poo-poos spirit, the truth, etc.; he is

too sensate to have the courage to risk and endure being spirit.”23 This despair is the least intense

19 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 64. 20 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 63-65; Blanken, Kierkegaard, 95-96. 21 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 65-67; Blanken, Kierkegaard, 96-97. 22 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 68-72; Blanken, Kierkegaard, 97-99. 23 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 73.

8

of all forms of despair, but also the one farthest away from being removed and is therefore the

most dangerous one.24

1.7.b Having consciousness of being in despair and of having a self in which there is something

eternal, and subsequently not wanting to be oneself: the despair of weakness

When a person at some point consciously states that he is in despair, it is not a given that he

automatically has the right concept of despair, and it is also not immediately clear how

conscious he is of his despair. Nevertheless, what is certain is that any increase in consciousness

intensifies the despair but at the same time brings one closer to salvation.

A person who first becomes aware of his despair will start off not wanting to be himself. He

realizes that he is in despair and understands he possesses an eternal self, but wants to get rid

of it all as quickly as possible. He wants to escape, which is why this is called the despair of

weakness. There are two types of this form of despair: despair over the earthly or over

something earthly and despair of the eternal or over oneself.25

Despair over the earthly or over something earthly

This form of despair could be regarded as finitude’s despair and necessity’s despair combined.

It is also called the despair of immediacy. An ‘immediate’ person is someone who lives without

a sense of infinitude and possibility. He cares only for the here and now, for the temporal, for

other people, for what is immediately at hand, and surrenders himself to all of this completely.

He would gladly sacrifice himself without further thought to something worldly if that would

mean he didn’t have to think so much about what it means to be a self. Even though he is

conscious of being a self, he refuses to relate to himself; he would rather not be a self. In a way,

the irony is that the immediate person knows that he is a self, but in fact is not one, because he

is not actively relating himself to himself. Even an external event that forces him into mental

anguish is often not enough to make him become a self. Only increased reflection can make

this possible.26

Despair of the eternal or over oneself (despair over one’s weakness)

If the immediate person has the courage to look himself and his despair in the eye at some point,

he becomes even more conscious of the situation he is in. What will happen is that he becomes

disgusted with himself for being so weak and starts despairing over his weakness. “The

despairer himself understands that it is weakness to be so touchy about the earthly, that it is

weakness to despair.”27 In addition, he will start to realize that he was not despairing over the

earthly or over something earthly at all, but over himself: he despairs of the eternal. He sees the

externalities for what they are: shallow distractions, and notices that he was not so much running

towards them as he was running away from himself.

24 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 72-77. 25 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 77-79. 26 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 80-91; Blanken, Kierkegaard, 100-102; Barrett, Irrational Man, 163. 27 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 92.

9

What remains the same, however, is that he does not want to be himself: “As a father disinherits

a son, the self will not acknowledge itself after it has been so weak.”28 From the outside, nothing

will really change, because he remains a ‘normal’ person with a job, a family, etc., but inwardly

he will close himself off from the world and become the opposite of the immediate person, not

caring for what life has to offer anymore. While in this state, his despair will keep increasing,

and even suicide might become an option for him to get rid of himself. What can also happen,

however, is that he “will fling himself out into life” and become a “restless spirit who wants to

forget”; in other words, return to his earlier state of immediacy to stop his “inner tumult”.29

Despair of the eternal or over oneself requires an important increase in consciousness and

accordingly, the despair becomes very intense. It is also a lot rarer than the preceding forms of

despair.30

1.7.c Having consciousness of being in despair and of having a self in which there is something

eternal, and subsequently wanting to be oneself: the despair of defiance.

If the despairing person chooses to reflect on his condition even more, his despair might go

from being weak to defiant. Instead of wanting to escape from being a self, the person defiant

in his despair wants to construct his own self, one that can exist without the power that

established it. He will take matters into his own hands: ‘I am a self in despair? Fine, but I will

eradicate my despair myself, simply by changing myself.’ He tries to use the possibility that he

recognizes in his eternal self to construct his own self, in the hope of his actual existence

conforming to this ideal self. We could say that the self no longer emphasizes finitude and

necessity, as it did in the despair of weakness, but from now on focuses on infinitude and

possibility. The imbalance in the synthesis has completely shifted.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for a person to successfully establish a real self this way. It is

vital to relate himself to God while relating to himself. If he doesn’t, his constructed self

becomes something completely arbitrary, a project he might start over at any given moment

just because he feels like it. There is nothing “eternally firm”31 to prevent this from happening.

Wanting to be his own creator means that he is always living in his own possible construction

and not in actual reality. He might enjoy his creation, but underneath it there is no foundation,

nothing to support him and his ethereal self.

That is why problems will inevitably appear. His plans will keep failing and his life will not

match up to what he wants it to be. He keeps being disappointed by reality. Initially he simply

denies that he is doing something wrong and desperately tries to continue living in his castle in

the air. However, sooner or later he is forced to recognize his problems, and his “infinite,

negative self feels itself nailed to this restriction”.32 As soon as he realizes that he is unable to

escape, he will try to kidnap his problems and use them “as an excuse to take offence at all

28 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 93. 29 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 97. 30 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 91-98; Blanken, Kierkegaard, 103-105. 31 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 100. 32 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 101.

10

existence”.33 He curses life for not living up to his expectations. He locks himself up in his

suffering, as it were, and rejects any help from the outside – especially from God – for that

would force him to acknowledge he is no longer the one in charge of his life. It would mean

ultimate humiliation, so he remains unyielding in his defiance, even if it means living in despair.

At least he is the one who chose to have this life of anguish; he still in despair wants to be

himself. “He began with the infinite abstraction of the self, and has now finally become so

concrete that it would be impossible to become eternal in that sense, and yet he wants in despair

to be himself. Ah! demonic madness; he rages most of all at the thought that eternity could get

into its head to take his misery away from him.”34

2. Faith

2.1 Despair is sin

When a person in despair wants to be himself or in despair does not want to be himself and he

is simultaneously aware that he stands directly before God, his despair becomes sin. In

Kierkegaard’s words: “Sin is before God in despair not to want to be oneself, or before God in

despair to want to be oneself.”35 This is a rather different concept of sin than the common view.

Usually, sin is associated with concrete deeds that are prohibited by God. Kierkegaard makes

sure that these fall within his category of sin as well, by noting that “sin is not the unruliness of

the flesh and blood in itself, but the spirit’s consent to it”.36 Acts such as murdering and stealing

are sinful in Kierkegaard’s view as well, not because they are wrong in themselves, but because

they are a sign of the self not functioning properly, which means that it is in despair, and the

self being in despair is the actual sin. Nevertheless, Kierkegaard’s distinction between the act

and the self’s permission of the act is crucial, because it means that being virtuous is not the

way to live free of sin. One can lead a virtuous life and still be in despair. Consequently, for

Kierkegaard, the opposite of sin is faith.37

2.2 The forms of sin

With a conception of God, a despairing person is no longer only a human self, but also a

theological self – i.e. God becomes the “standard of measurement”38 for the self – by which he

gains new levels in consciousness, and this makes it possible for him to heighten his despair on

a whole new scale: that of sin. As a person’s level of consciousness of his theological self rises,

his sin does as well. This increasing degree of sin Kierkegaard calls the continuation of sin. He

makes sure to emphasize that the continuation of sin is not caused by committing particular

sins. These are merely symptoms of a person being in sin, i.e. despairing before God. “In the

deepest sense, the being in a state of sin is the sin, the particular sins are not the continuation of

sin, they are expressions of its continuation.”39 So, how does this continuation proceed?40

33 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 102. 34 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 103; Kierkegaard, Sickness, 98-105; Blanken, Kierkegaard, 105-107. 35 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 113. 36 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 114. 37 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 109-115; Barrett, Irrational Man, 169. 38 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 111. 39 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 139. 40 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 138-141.

11

2.2.a The sin of despairing over sin

The initial sin is simply being in whatever form of despair we discussed above while also having

a conception of God. The first intensification, which ‘starts’ the continuation of sin, is when a

person consciously realizes he is despairing before God, i.e. that he is in sin, and as a result

starts despairing over being in sin. This is comparable to the despair of weakness and over one’s

weakness. Just like the person in weakness’ despair, he is disgusted with himself and closes

himself off of everything that might save him from his despair and sin, and makes an enemy

out of everything that has to do with grace or repentance. Just like there is a paradoxical element

in despair, the person conscious of his sin is a little step closer to being freed from it, while at

the same time sinking deeper into sin, making it harder to rescue himself from it.41

2.2.b The sin of despairing of the forgiveness of sins

So far, sin meant the awareness of standing directly before God, but here the despairing person

even becomes conscious of standing directly before Christ. He has the conception of “the

stupendous concession God made, intensified by the stupendous accent that falls on this self

because, also for its sake, God let himself be born, became man, suffered and died.”42 Even

though the despairing person closed himself off from grace and repentance when he despaired

over his sin, God’s offer of radical forgiveness found its way to him nevertheless. However,

instead of surrendering himself to it, he despairs even of this proposal, intensifying his sin even

further. He refuses to believe that there is such a thing as forgiveness. The idea seems so absurd

to him that he is even offended by it: he envies it without accepting it. We will see in §2.3 that

this ‘possibility of offence’ is a crucial step towards faith.43

2.2.c The sin of declaring Christianity to be untruth

Whereas the previous form of sin was sin against Christ, this is sin against the Holy Ghost, and

it is the ultimate, most intense form of sin, and accordingly of despair. Of this form there are

three subdivisions. First of all, one can declare Christianity to be untruth simply by not thinking

about it and leaving the entire matter for what it is. For Kierkegaard, this is sin because

Christianity does not leave room for being neutral. “That God lets himself be born and becomes

a human being, is no idle whim, something that occurs to him so as to have something to do,

perhaps to put a stop to the boredom that has brashly been said to be bound up with being God

– it is not to have an adventure.”44 One must have an opinion about such a grand event. The

second subdivision is when a person cannot leave Christianity for what it is, but is unable to

have faith as well. He lives with the thought in his head and cannot to come to a final decision.

The third and final form is the sin of explicitly declaring Christianity to be a lie. Here, one

understands the Christian faith fully, but thinks of it as pure falsehood.45

41 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 142-146. 42 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 147. 43 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 146-152. 44 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 163. 45 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 158-165.

12

In this third form we find another form of defiance, like we’ve seen in the last stages of despair,

but now on the level of sin. A person who is in the last stage of defiance’s despair, as I have

described it above, would declare Christianity to be untruth when he is confronted by it. After

all, he wants to be himself, even if it means living in anguish, and refuses to be helped. If such

a person has a conception of God or realizes that he might live before God, he would reject him

and all his offers of help radically. We may call this: despair of sinful defiance. The person in

despair of this kind is closest to reaching faith, because his concept of himself as a self before

God is the most transparent, and his despair is so consuming that he is the one most likely to

surrender himself completely to that which he is fighting against. It is at this point that one is

most likely to say: ‘I cannot do otherwise’, as Luther said.

2.3 The absurd, the possibility of offence and the possibility of faith

We have finally arrived at the essential question: how can a despairing person, a sinner, start

having faith? How can he relate himself to himself in a way that he also relates himself to God

and with a perfect balance in the synthesis, so that he may finally be freed from his despair? To

answer this question, Kierkegaard introduces two central ideas: the absurd (also called the

paradox) and the possibility of offence. It is through the possibility that one might be offended

by an idea that is ridiculously absurd, that one can obtain real faith. Kierkegaard explains this

with the help of a metaphor. Imagine the mightiest emperor of all time, and a random peasant

in his empire. What if, one day, the emperor invites the peasant into his grand palace and tells

him that he wants the peasant as his son-in-law. Obviously, this is an absurd idea, and the

peasant recognizes the absurdity of the situation: ‘Why me?’ He thinks the emperor is making

a cruel joke and merely wants to turn him into an object of ridicule. Realizing this, he is even

deeply offended by the offer: ‘Who thinks this emperor that he is, playing tricks on me like

this?’ If the emperor would have given him a small amount of money as an act of kindness, he

would still be surprised, but with some effort he could get his head around it. To become the

emperor’s son-in-law, however, that he couldn’t possibly understand.46

And this is exactly for Kierkegaard where faith comes in. It is only through believing that the

emperor is not making a joke, even though everything points to it, that the peasant could accept

such an offer and actually not be offended by it. Accepting the offer becomes “a question of

whether he had humble courage enough to dare to believe it (…). But the person who lacked

that courage would be offended; for him the extraordinary would sound almost as though it

were a mockery of him. He might perhaps honestly and openly admit: ‘This sort of thing is too

exalted for me. I can’t make sense of it; to put it bluntly, it strikes me as foolishness.’”47 Thus,

the possibility of offence that arises from a paradoxical and absurd offer is the mechanism that

allows for a despairing person to come to faith and free himself from despair. It is the process

through which possibility can become actuality. The moment one is offended by a ridiculous

suggestion is the moment when a person can come to recognize that for God everything is

possible, and to realize precisely that, is to have faith and to actualize that infinite possibility in

one’s existence. One should not need reasons to believe in the truth of God’s offer of salvation.

46 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 115-117. 47 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 117.

13

Reasons should only make one more suspicious and offended. After all, reasons lie within the

scope of rational understanding, and faith should transcend the domain of rationality.48

2.4 Christianity is absurd

Now, we are in luck, because if we are to believe Kierkegaard, Christianity is a religion with a

god who has made us exactly such an absurd offer, namely in the form of Christ. God has let

himself be born as a human being, let himself suffer and even die, as a way to offer help to

every individual human being and to “live on the most intimate footing”49 with him. Obviously,

this is absurd. Why would an all-supreme being like God go through such an experience just to

help us measly humans? That’s exactly what people think, which is why the offer is too elevated

for most people to cope with. “Just a little less and he is willing to go along with it – but ‘too

much is too much’.”50 Instead of having the courage to believe in the truth of the offer, people

are offended by it. They are offended, because they secretly admire so high an ideal, but cannot

accept it for themselves; they admire it, but cannot surrender themselves to it and instead

become envious of it.51

The clue is not to be offended, but to have faith in the reality of the offer and accept it. The

figure of Christ is of central importance here, because he embodies the absurd and the

possibility of offence. He is the paradox. On the one hand he is the way in which God made it

clear that salvation is possible for every individual, regardless of one’s social status or

sinfulness. God ‘degraded’ himself for mankind, so that every individual human being can

come to God through Christ. But on the other hand, he is this lowly carpenter who claims to be

the son of God and performs dozens of miracles, something one might well be offended by:

‘Why would someone of such low status have such an intimate relationship to the divine?’

He is a paradox even in another sense, for on the one hand he is the establishing link between

God and man, but on the other hand he is what separates God from man. “Christianity’s teaching

is the doctrine of the God-man, of the kinship between God and man, though in such a way, be

it noted, that the possibility of offence is, if I may be so bold, the guarantee by which God makes

sure that man does not come too close.”52 The only way God could reach out to every individual

human being was by becoming one himself, but this idea is so absurd and paradoxical that one

may be offended by it and turn away from it as a result. Christ allows us to reach God, but is

also what could very well make us reject God. The act of God to become man is an act that is

so great, so full of compassion, “that even God cannot (…) make it impossible for this work of

love to turn into just the opposite for man”.53 Matthew 11:6 becomes of the utmost importance

to ensure God’s offer is accepted: “How blessed is anyone who is not offended by me!”54

48 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 68-69, 115-117, 136; Blanken, Kierkegaard, 159-161; Barrett, Irrational Man, 92-95. 49 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 117. 50 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 120. 51 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 117-120. 52 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 159. 53 Kierkegaard, Sickness, 160. 54 Matthew 11:6 ISV, accessed on 21-01-2016,

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A6&version=ISV; Kierkegaard, Sickness, 159-

162.

14

Conclusion

We have seen that in The Sickness unto Death despair essentially means that the self is not

itself, because one does not want to be the self as it was established by God. Despair becomes

sin when one remains reluctant to be oneself even though one realizes that one lives directly

before God. Both despair and sin have various forms and degrees of intensity which are related

to one’s degree of self-awareness, but all of which amount to the same refusal of being oneself

before God. The only way to free oneself from despair and sin is to progress through the stages

of increasing consciousness and intensifying despair. Only this way will one be able to realize

that for God everything is possible, even to make an offer so absurd that one would be offended

by it. It is such an absurd offer that opens up the ability of having real faith, faith that surpasses

rational understanding. Christ embodies this absurd offer, this paradox.

Still it requires an enormous amount of courage and effort to believe in the truth of Christ and

not to be offended by it. Not only because of its absurdity, but also because the removal of

despair is not a single event, but just like despair itself a continual choice one must make every

moment again and again. The truth of Kierkegaard’s faith “is a truth that must penetrate my

own personal existence (…) and I must struggle to renew it in my life every day.”55 Only then

can a person become truly serious about his existence, only then can he lead a life free of

despair. And by doing so, his life gains an ultimate meaning, a meaning before God, instead of

arbitrary social, cultural or historical meanings in relation to other people. He connects himself

to the divine heart of possibility, which allows for the most extraordinary to take place: that he

may stay out of despair for the rest of his days.56

55 Barrett, Irrational Man, 154, 171. 56 Blanken, Kierkegaard, 109-112; Barrett, Irrational Man, 154, 170-172; Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

(New York: Free Press, 1973), 90-91.

15

Bibliography

Barrett, William. Irrational Man. A Study in Existential Philosophy. New York/Toronto:

Anchor Books, 1958.

Becker, Ernest. The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press, 1973.

BibleGateway. “Matthew 11:6 ISV.” Accessed on 21-01-2016.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A6&version=ISV.

Blanken, Geert Jan. Kierkegaard. Een inleiding in zijn leven en werk. Amsterdam:

Ambo/Anthos, 2013.

Hannay, Alastair. “Introduction.” In The Sickness unto Death by Søren Kierkegaard, translated

by Alastair Hannay. London: Penguin Books, 1989.

Keij, Jan. Kierkegaard anders gezien. Over de denker die het verschil maakt. Zoetermeer:

Klement, 2015.

Kierkegaard, Søren. The Sickness unto Death (1849). Translated by Alastair Hannay. London:

Penguin Books, 1989.