Faith Standing on its Head

From the basis of the ‘ethical’ or ‘Atemporal’ fallacy, it is possible to understand Kierkegaard’s work from a true perspective. This new perspective is contra-Sartrean Existentialsm, or perhaps, parallel.

The problem with mid 20th century existentialism and it’s retroactivation upon Kierkegaard’s ethical universe, Is that through mid-20th century existentialism (indeed, what we automatically consider when even the term “existentialism” is mentioned) what is absurd is understood as an impassable boundary. Sartrean Existentialism is based on an understanding of Kierkegaard, ironically, in a manner that is not true to Kierkegaard’s point when one takes all of K’s works as a single statement of purpose.

This is to say that Satrean retroactivation and then the various philosophies of phenomenal existence which appear subsequently, All tend to reify an absolute limit that is marked by what is  absurd. What is human from that point is assumed as a common philosophical category (or critical category) under and thus within, constituent of, the sign of the absurd. The repercussions of this misinderstanding of absurdity does mark the end of philosophy as we find that philosophy as an assumed common effort, has ended.

When we say “ended”, what we are really saying is that we have defined a parameter of a thing that up till that point was assumed as ubiquitous, extending into infinity, and or otherwise without knowable limits.

Such is philosophy a “process”, but not a thing, not an object of the universe. It is a Discipline, or a method, but never a “particular method”, or a type. Philosophy Is understood automatically to be indicating some particular thing, but this thing is excluded from being identified. Philosophy is linked or somehow “sutured” onto what is human freedom and a conglomeration of category which includes thought, reason, idea, agency, etc., —  all the components of a priori subjects — as if those represent an unboundable situation.

However, it is this assumption of an “unboundable” situation under which the very concept of freedom becomes merely a theological dogma. Which is to say, by the very fact that we must call it “unbounded”, we have found a parameter of its ontological foundation.

It is within this theological dogma that we can we begin to re-orient Kierkegaard’s points as to what constitutes the ethical as the universal. Faith becomes that by which the universe is upheld as another name for what is reality and able to be true. The method by which veracity is upheld universally is excluded from it being identified to a particular method axiomatically to that way of knowing. 

The mid 20th century discussions about “irrationality” and existentialism was merely a way to avoid the actual situation of absurdity. “Irrationality” is the particularly modern mode of theological apology, A way to “prove” the existence of rationality (“God”) through the apodictical opposite, what is not true (not-God): it is irrational.

(I feel like I’m using the wrong word there, “Apodictic”; somebody please correct me if you know what it is.)

And this is to say that The argument that is never spoken out loud because it is assumed omnipresent and ubiquitous, is that what is rational is true by the fact that we can talk about what is irrational rationally. And this is to prove self evidently that what is absurd is the limit of reality.

Yet when we begin to understand what I am calling the “atemporal fallacy”  or the “ethical fallacy” points to a specific way of knowing, a specific way of understanding what discourse is “meaning”, then something different arises. No longer is there a uniform plane of knowledge which discourse elucidates, represents or communicates components of. Rather than the equivocal understanding of rationality which argues towards a multiplicity of ways that language and meaning can be used and applied, outside of which only absurdity and nonsense arises; to the contrary opposite and parallel, discourse, Language and meaning become bifurcated along two vectors only. The idea of rationality as a singular and universally directed component of thinking, is bifurcated, such that two vectors of rationality arise which do not communicate to each other; rather, one includes the other, and one excludes the possibility of the other. 

…And this is where Laruellean Nonphilosophy gains it’s ontological footing.

x