Введение
«Построяющие речи в различных духах» (Opbyggelige Taler i forskjellig Aand, также известный как Укрепляющие беседы в различных духах) – книга 1847 года, написанная Сёреном Кьеркегором. Книга разделена на три части, как и «Или-или» в 1843 году и многие другие его проповеди. Кьеркегор стремился найти место для понятий вины и греха в совести отдельного человека. Он обсуждал идеи, выдвинутые Иоганном фон Гёте и Фридрихом Гегелем относительно разума и природы. Эта книга является его ответом на утверждение о совершенстве природы и разума. Первая часть книги бросает вызов тем, кто утверждает, что они ни в чем не виноваты. Кьеркегор задает вопросы на протяжении всего текста, например: «Что такое терпение? Разве терпение – это не мужество, которое свободно принимает на себя неизбежные страдания?» «Живете ли вы сейчас так, чтобы осознавать себя как отдельную личность и, следовательно, осознавать свою вечную ответственность перед Богом?» «Разве зло, как и злые люди, не противоречит само себе, не разделено ли оно внутренне?» «Что значит стыдиться перед другими больше, чем перед собой, если не стыдиться кажущегося, а не настоящего?» «Неужели Тот, кто насадил ухо, не слышит? Но разве не столь же прекрасен и убедителен противоположный вывод: не должен ли тот, кто приносит в жертву свою жизнь ради любви, верить, что Бог есть любовь?» «Какие средства вы используете для выполнения своей работы; так ли важны средства для вас, как цель, настолько же важны?» Вторая часть посвящена идее о совершенстве природы. Он возвращается к Иову, как он делал в своих «Четырех укрепляющих беседах» 1843 года. Он говорит: «Тихие друзья не сравнивали Иова с собой – это произошло лишь тогда, когда их уважение (которое они хранили в молчании) угасло, и они нарушили молчание, чтобы нападать на страдающего речами, но их присутствие побудило Иова сравнить себя с самим собой. Ни один человек не может присутствовать, даже молча, так, чтобы его присутствие не имело никакого значения для сравнения. В лучшем случае это может сделать ребенок, который действительно имеет некоторое сходство с полевыми лилиями и небесными птицами». «Бог изолировал человека, сделал каждого человека отдельной и самобытной личностью, что подразумевается в безусловном характере этих первых мыслей. Отдельное животное не изолировано, не является безусловно отдельной сущностью; отдельное животное – это число и принадлежит к той категории животных, которую самый известный языческий мыслитель назвал толпой. Человек, который в отчаянии отворачивается от этих первых мыслей, чтобы погрузиться в толпу сравнений, делает себя числом, считает себя зверем, независимо от того, отличается ли он в сравнении или ничтожен. Но с лилиями обеспокоенный находится в изоляции, вдали от всех человеческих или, возможно, более точно, бесчеловечных сравнений между людьми». Третья часть посвящена понятию абстрактного и конкретных примеров. Кьеркегор писал о людях, известных только как А и Б в своей первой книге «Или-или». Затем он сделал их менее абстрактными, превратив А в Молодого человека в «Повторении» (1843) и Б в его проводника, психиатра Константина Констанция. В тот же день, когда он опубликовал «Повторение», он опубликовал «Страх и трепет», который показал Авраама как человека, который был один с Богом, когда он размышлял о том, следует ли ему повиноваться Его заповедям. Он продолжал писать, пока не пришел к конкретному человеку по имени Христос и не написал о радости следования за Христом. Он не против этики Гегеля или эстетики Гёте, но считает, что следование за Христом – единственное необходимое. И двойственность мышления – начало болезни духа для одинокого человека.
Edifying Discourses in Diverse Spirits (Opbyggelige Taler i forskjellig Aand, also known as Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits) is an 1847 book by Søren Kierkegaard. The book is divided into three parts just as Either/Or was in 1843 and many of his other discourses were. Kierkegaard had been working toward creating a place for the concepts of guilt and sin in the conscience of the single individual. He discussed the ideas generated by both Johann von Goethe and Friedrich Hegel concerning reason and nature. This book is his response to the ideas that nature and reason are perfect. The first part of the book challenges those who say they are not guilty of anything. Kierkegaard poses questions throughout the text, such as, "What is patience? Is not patience the courage that freely takes upon itself the suffering that cannot be avoided?" "Are you now living in such a way that you are aware of being a single individual and thereby aware of your eternal responsibility before God." "Is not evil, just like evil people, at odds with itself, divided in itself?" "What is it to be more ashamed before others than before oneself but to be more ashamed of seeming than being?" "Should not he who planted the ear hear? But is not the opposite conclusion just as beautiful and convincing: Should not he whose life is sacrificing love believe that God is love?" "What means do you use to perform your work; is the means just as important to you as the end, just exactly as important?" The second part has to do with the idea that nature is perfect. He goes back to Job as he did in his Four Upbuilding Discourses, 1843. He says, "The silent friends did not compare Job with themselves—this did not happen until their respect (in which they silently held him) ceased and they broke the silence in order to attack the sufferer with speeches, but their presence prompted Job to compare himself with himself. No individual can be present, even though in silence, in such a way that his presence means nothing at all by way of comparison. At best, this can be done by a child, who indeed has a certain likeness to the lilies of the field and the birds of the air." "God isolated the human being, made every human being this separate and distinct individual, which is implied in the unconditional character of those first thoughts. The individual animal is not isolated, is not unconditionally separate entity; the individual animal is a number and belongs under what that most famous pagan thinker has called the animal category: the crowd. The human being who in despair turns away from those first thoughts in order to plunge into the crowd of comparisons makes himself a number, regards himself as a beast, no matter whether he by way of comparison is distinguished or lowly. But with the lilies the worried one is isolated, far away from all human or, perhaps more correctly, inhuman comparisons between individuals." The third part deals with the concept of the abstract and the concrete examples. Kierkegaard wrote of individuals known only as A and B in his first book, Either/Or. He then made them less abstract by making A into the Young Man in Repetition (1843) and B into his guide, the psychiatrist Constantin Constantius. The same day that he published Repetition he published Fear and Trembling which showed Abraham as an individual who was alone with God as he considered whether to follow his commands. He continued writing until he came to the concrete human being named Christ and wrote about the joy there is in following Christ. He's not against the ethics of Hegel or the aesthetics of Goethe but thinks that following Christ is the one thing needful. And that double mindedness is the beginning of the sickness of the spirit for the single individual.
Структура
Книга начинается с посвящения, как и некоторые из его Восемнадцати Укрепляющих Речей, однако эта книга посвящена не его отцу, а «Тому единственному». Он опубликовал эти речи, а позже написал более длинное посвящение под названием «Толпа есть неправда», где он написал: «Это, которое теперь значительно пересмотрено и расширено, было написано и предназначено для сопровождения посвящения «тому единственному», которое содержится в «Укрепляющих беседах в различных духах». Копенгаген, весна 1847 года. Уолтер Лоури перевёл в 1939 и 1962 годах «Точку зрения моей работы как автора» Кьеркегора и включил в эту книгу «Мою деятельность как писателя» Сорена Кьеркегора (1851). Здесь Кьеркегор писал: «Я вновь религиозно привязался к «тому единственному», которому была посвящена следующая важная работа (после Заключительного постскриптума). Я имею в виду «Укрепляющие речи в различных духах», или, скорее, первую часть этой книги, которая является призывом к исповеди. Возможно, никто не заметил, когда я впервые использовал категорию «тот единственный», и никто не обратил особого внимания на то, что она повторялась в стереотипной форме в предисловии к каждому выпуску «Воспитывающих речей». Религиозно говоря, не существует публики как таковой, а есть только отдельные люди; ибо религия – это серьезность, а серьезность – это индивидуальность». В этой книге есть предисловие, и Кьеркегор советовал обращать внимание на предисловия в его книге с тем же названием. Книга также имеет посвящение. Вот первая половина его предисловия. Кьеркегор считает, что человек должен сам принести повод (потребность) для того, чтобы стать учеником.
При исповеди
«По случаю исповеди» было постскриптумом к первому разделу «Трех речей о воображаемых случаях» («По случаю исповедальной службы»). Этот раздел также назывался «Чистота сердца – это воля к одному». Кьеркегор спрашивает, как человек может узнать, находится ли он на «правильном» пути в жизни. Исповедь и покаяние перед Богом – его ответ, сопровождаемый предупреждением о двойственности. Если бы один человек задал себе все вопросы, поставленные в этом разделе, и попытался обнаружить все уклонения, используемые, чтобы не действовать с единой целью, он бы обнаружил, что очень трудно сказать: «Я невиновен». В «Делах любви» (1847) он просит своего читателя «представить себе энтузиаста, который с энтузиазмом желает только одного и с энтузиазмом готов пожертвовать всем ради добра». Здесь он пишет о внутреннем измерении молитвы. Он говорит:
Он спрашивает: «Чего совесть хочет подчеркнуть посредством осознания того, что ты – отдельная личность?» (Hong p. 132). Он отвечает так: «Желать, в принятом решении, быть и оставаться со добром – это краткое выражение истины, заключающееся в готовности делать все, и в этом выражении сохраняется равенство, которое не признает различий в отношении более существенного разнообразия жизни или человеческого состояния: действовать или страдать, поскольку страдающий, в принятом решении, также может быть со добром». По отношению к высшему, по отношению к готовности делать все, не имеет никакого значения, слава Богу, велик или мал поставленный труд. О, как милосерден Вечный к нам, людям! Сорен Кьеркегор, Укрепляющие беседы в различных духах, Хонг стр. 79–80.
Позже, в «Делах любви», Кьеркегор суммирует суть того, что значит иметь чистое сердце, используя метафоры из Архимеда и Нового Завета.
Чему мы учимся у полевых лилий и у птиц в небе
Первая речь (Довольствоваться человеческим существованием) посвящена сравнению и выбору и тому, как доверить Богу сделанный однажды выбор. Возможно, он перекликается с «Пропилеями» Гёте, где Гёте писал: «Юноша, когда Природа и Искусство привлекают его, полагает, что энергичными усилиями он вскоре проникнет во внутреннее святилище; человек же, после долгих странствий, обнаруживает, что все еще находится во внешнем дворе. Такое наблюдение и послужило названием. Лишь на ступени, в воротах, в прихожей, в вестибюле, в пространстве между внешним и внутренним помещением, между священным и обыденным, мы обычно задерживаемся с друзьями». Кьеркегор пишет о природе иначе, чем Гёте, но схожим образом, поскольку оба видят Природу как учителей человечества, а Кьеркегор много писал о «внутреннем существе», о душе. Кьеркегор создал замечательную историю о лилии и непослушной птице. Вторая речь посвящена отвлечению от забот, «обучаясь у птицы, как славно быть человеком». Дэвид Ф. Свенсон перевел несколько речей Кьеркегора, опубликованных в 1958 году усилиями Пола Л. Холмера. Кьеркегор писал о «Славе нашего общего человечества». Это была вторая из трех речей, основанных на тексте из Матфея 6:24 до конца. Говард В. Хонг, переводивший книгу Кьеркегора в 1993 году, озаглавил ее «Как славно быть человеком». Структура трех речей о лилиях и птицах такова: первая – эстетическая, вторая – этическая, третья – религиозная. Журнал и труды Сёрена Кьеркегора VIII A 1 1847.
The second discourse deals with diverting oneself from worries by "learning from the bird how glorious it is to be a human being." David F. Swenson translated several of Kierkegaard's discourses which were published in 1958 through the efforts of Paul L Holmer. Kierkegaard wrote of The Glory of Our Common Humanity. This was the second of three discourses that were all based on the text from Matthew 6 verses 24 to the end. It was titled How Glorious It Is to Be a Human Being by Howard V Hong when he translated Kierkegaard's book in 1993. The structure of the three discourses about the lilies and the birds is as follows: the first is esthetic, the second ethical, the third religious. Journal and Papers of Soren Kierkegaard VIII A 1 1847
Kierkegaard writes about the gift given to human beings that nature doesn't have, conscience. With the use of conscience we can know about time and the future. Something nature cannot know. He sums the human ability to love and the distinctiveness of nature up in Works of Love, which he published four months later. The third discourse was titled What Blessed Happiness is Promised in Being a Human Being by Howard V Hong. Kierkegaard is constantly stressing the importance there is in being a human being instead of a beast in the field because you have been given the gift of choice. "A choice. My listener, do you know how to express in a single word anything more glorious! If you talked year in and year out, could you mention anything more glorious than a choice, to have choice! It is certainly true that the sole blessing is to choose rightly, but certainly choice itself is the glorious condition." Kierkegaard began writing about this choice in his first book Either/Or where he wrote first as the aesthetic and then as the ethicist. Hegel thinks that history and philosophy should come afterwards and explain events. Kierkegaard thinks its better to come beforehand. Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) Philosophy of Right translated by SW Dyde Queen's University Canada 1896 edition Preface xxxHang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will also regret that; hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum and substance of all philosophy. It is only at certain moments that I view everything acterno modo, as Spinoza says, but I live constantly aeterno modo. There are many who think that they live thus, because after having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate the opposites. But this is a misunderstanding: for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or, but before it. Hence, their eternity will be a painful succession of temporal moments, for they will be consumed by a two fold regret. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part I, Swenson p. 37–39It is a sign of a well brought up child to be inclined to say it is sorry without too much pondering whether it is in the right or not, and it is likewise a sign of a high minded person and a deep soul if he is inclined to repent, if he does not take God to court but repents and loves God in his repentance. Without this, his life is nothing, only like foam. Indeed, I assure you that if my life through no fault of my own were so interwoven with sorrows and sufferings that I could call myself the greatest tragic hero, could divert myself with my affliction and shock the world by naming it, my choice is made: I strip myself of the hero's garb and the pathos of tragedy; I am not the tormented one who can be proud of his sufferings; I am the humbled one who feels my offense; I have only one word for what I am suffering—guilt, only one word for my pain—repentance, only one hope before my eyes—forgiveness. And if it proves to be difficult for me to do—oh, then I have only one prayer. I would throw myself upon the earth and appeal from morning till night to the heavenly power who rules the world for one favor, that it might be granted me to repent, for I know only one sorrow that could bring me to despair and plunge everything into it—that repentance is an illusion, an illusion not with respect to the forgiveness it seeks but with respect to the imputation it presupposes. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part II, Hong p. 237–238Spiritually understood, temporality and eternity are two magnitudes that are to be weighed. But in order to deliberate the person in turn must be a third party or have a third position in relation to the two magnitudes. This is the choice: he weighs, he deliberates, he chooses. Here, however there is never any chance that the two magnitudes weigh equally much, which can of course happen with a scale, it indicates the relation as one of equality. No, praise God, that can never happen, because properly understood the eternal already has a certain overweight and the person who refuses to understand this can never begin really to deliberate. So a person deliberates before he begins. Soren Kierkegaard, Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, 1847, Hong p. 306–307
Kierkegaard stresses not only having a choice but learning how to use it. He concludes, "But then in his sadness out there with the lily and the bird the worried one did indeed acquire something other than his worry to think about; he began to consider what blessed happiness is promised in being a human being. Then let the lily wither and let its loveliness become indiscernible; let the leaf fall to the ground and the bird fly away; let it become dark on the fields—God's kingdom does not change with the seasons! So let the rest be needed for a long time or a short time, let all these things have their moment when they are lacking or possessed, their moment is a subject of discussion until in death they are eternally forgotten—God's kingdom is still that which is to be sought first but which ultimately will also last through all eternities, and "if that which will be abolished was glorious, that which remains will be more glorious,: and if it was hard to live in want, then it must indeed be only an easier separation to die to want!
Кьеркегор пишет о даре, данном человеку, которого нет у природы, – совести. С помощью совести мы можем познавать время и будущее, что недоступно природе. Он обобщает человеческую способность любить и своеобразие природы в «Делах любви», опубликованных четыре месяца спустя. Третья речь была озаглавлена Говардом В. Хонгом «Какое блаженное счастье обетовано человеку». Кьеркегор постоянно подчеркивает важность того, чтобы быть человеком, а не зверем полевым, поскольку вам дарован дар выбора. «Выбор. Слушатель мой, знаете ли вы, как выразить одним словом нечто более славное! Если бы вы говорили год за годом, смогли бы вы упомянуть что-нибудь более славное, чем выбор, обладать выбором! Безусловно, единственное благословение – выбирать правильно, но сам выбор – это прекрасное состояние». Кьеркегор начал размышлять об этом выборе в своей первой книге «Или/или», где он сначала писал как эстетик, а затем как этик. Гегель полагает, что история и философия должны прийти позже и объяснять события. Кьеркегор считает, что лучше прийти раньше. Еще одно слово о желании научить мир, каким он должен быть. Для такой цели философия, по крайней мере, всегда приходит слишком поздно. Философия, как мысль о мире, появляется лишь тогда, когда реальность завершает свой формирующий процесс и становится готовой. История, таким образом, подтверждает учение о том, что лишь в зрелости реальности идеал возникает как противовес реальности, постигает реальный мир в его сущности и формирует его в интеллектуальное царство. Когда философия рисует серым в сером, одна форма жизни устаревает, и с помощью серого ее нельзя омолодить, а лишь познать. Сова Минервы начинает свой полет лишь с наступлением ночи. Георг Вильгельм Фридрих Гегель (1770–1831). «Философия права», перевод С.В. Дайда, Университет Квинс, Канада, 1896 г., предисловие xxx.
The second discourse deals with diverting oneself from worries by "learning from the bird how glorious it is to be a human being." David F. Swenson translated several of Kierkegaard's discourses which were published in 1958 through the efforts of Paul L Holmer. Kierkegaard wrote of The Glory of Our Common Humanity. This was the second of three discourses that were all based on the text from Matthew 6 verses 24 to the end. It was titled How Glorious It Is to Be a Human Being by Howard V Hong when he translated Kierkegaard's book in 1993. The structure of the three discourses about the lilies and the birds is as follows: the first is esthetic, the second ethical, the third religious. Journal and Papers of Soren Kierkegaard VIII A 1 1847
Kierkegaard writes about the gift given to human beings that nature doesn't have, conscience. With the use of conscience we can know about time and the future. Something nature cannot know. He sums the human ability to love and the distinctiveness of nature up in Works of Love, which he published four months later. The third discourse was titled What Blessed Happiness is Promised in Being a Human Being by Howard V Hong. Kierkegaard is constantly stressing the importance there is in being a human being instead of a beast in the field because you have been given the gift of choice. "A choice. My listener, do you know how to express in a single word anything more glorious! If you talked year in and year out, could you mention anything more glorious than a choice, to have choice! It is certainly true that the sole blessing is to choose rightly, but certainly choice itself is the glorious condition." Kierkegaard began writing about this choice in his first book Either/Or where he wrote first as the aesthetic and then as the ethicist. Hegel thinks that history and philosophy should come afterwards and explain events. Kierkegaard thinks its better to come beforehand. Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) Philosophy of Right translated by SW Dyde Queen's University Canada 1896 edition Preface xxxHang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will also regret that; hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum and substance of all philosophy. It is only at certain moments that I view everything acterno modo, as Spinoza says, but I live constantly aeterno modo. There are many who think that they live thus, because after having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate the opposites. But this is a misunderstanding: for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or, but before it. Hence, their eternity will be a painful succession of temporal moments, for they will be consumed by a two fold regret. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part I, Swenson p. 37–39It is a sign of a well brought up child to be inclined to say it is sorry without too much pondering whether it is in the right or not, and it is likewise a sign of a high minded person and a deep soul if he is inclined to repent, if he does not take God to court but repents and loves God in his repentance. Without this, his life is nothing, only like foam. Indeed, I assure you that if my life through no fault of my own were so interwoven with sorrows and sufferings that I could call myself the greatest tragic hero, could divert myself with my affliction and shock the world by naming it, my choice is made: I strip myself of the hero's garb and the pathos of tragedy; I am not the tormented one who can be proud of his sufferings; I am the humbled one who feels my offense; I have only one word for what I am suffering—guilt, only one word for my pain—repentance, only one hope before my eyes—forgiveness. And if it proves to be difficult for me to do—oh, then I have only one prayer. I would throw myself upon the earth and appeal from morning till night to the heavenly power who rules the world for one favor, that it might be granted me to repent, for I know only one sorrow that could bring me to despair and plunge everything into it—that repentance is an illusion, an illusion not with respect to the forgiveness it seeks but with respect to the imputation it presupposes. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part II, Hong p. 237–238Spiritually understood, temporality and eternity are two magnitudes that are to be weighed. But in order to deliberate the person in turn must be a third party or have a third position in relation to the two magnitudes. This is the choice: he weighs, he deliberates, he chooses. Here, however there is never any chance that the two magnitudes weigh equally much, which can of course happen with a scale, it indicates the relation as one of equality. No, praise God, that can never happen, because properly understood the eternal already has a certain overweight and the person who refuses to understand this can never begin really to deliberate. So a person deliberates before he begins. Soren Kierkegaard, Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, 1847, Hong p. 306–307
Kierkegaard stresses not only having a choice but learning how to use it. He concludes, "But then in his sadness out there with the lily and the bird the worried one did indeed acquire something other than his worry to think about; he began to consider what blessed happiness is promised in being a human being. Then let the lily wither and let its loveliness become indiscernible; let the leaf fall to the ground and the bird fly away; let it become dark on the fields—God's kingdom does not change with the seasons! So let the rest be needed for a long time or a short time, let all these things have their moment when they are lacking or possessed, their moment is a subject of discussion until in death they are eternally forgotten—God's kingdom is still that which is to be sought first but which ultimately will also last through all eternities, and "if that which will be abolished was glorious, that which remains will be more glorious,: and if it was hard to live in want, then it must indeed be only an easier separation to die to want!
Повесься – пожалеешь; не повесься – тоже пожалеешь; повесься или не повесься – пожалеешь в обоих случаях; повесишься или не повесишься – пожалеешь в любом случае. Это, господа, суть всей философии. Лишь в определенные моменты я рассматриваю все *acterno modo*, как говорил Спиноза, но живу постоянно *aeterno modo*. Многие полагают, что живут так, поскольку, сделав одно или другое, они сочетают или смягчают противоположности. Но это заблуждение: истинная вечность лежит не за «или/или», а перед ним. Следовательно, их вечность будет болезненной последовательностью временных мгновений, поскольку их поглотит двойное сожаление. Сёрен Кьеркегор, «Или/или», часть I, Свенсон, с. 37–39.
The second discourse deals with diverting oneself from worries by "learning from the bird how glorious it is to be a human being." David F. Swenson translated several of Kierkegaard's discourses which were published in 1958 through the efforts of Paul L Holmer. Kierkegaard wrote of The Glory of Our Common Humanity. This was the second of three discourses that were all based on the text from Matthew 6 verses 24 to the end. It was titled How Glorious It Is to Be a Human Being by Howard V Hong when he translated Kierkegaard's book in 1993. The structure of the three discourses about the lilies and the birds is as follows: the first is esthetic, the second ethical, the third religious. Journal and Papers of Soren Kierkegaard VIII A 1 1847
Kierkegaard writes about the gift given to human beings that nature doesn't have, conscience. With the use of conscience we can know about time and the future. Something nature cannot know. He sums the human ability to love and the distinctiveness of nature up in Works of Love, which he published four months later. The third discourse was titled What Blessed Happiness is Promised in Being a Human Being by Howard V Hong. Kierkegaard is constantly stressing the importance there is in being a human being instead of a beast in the field because you have been given the gift of choice. "A choice. My listener, do you know how to express in a single word anything more glorious! If you talked year in and year out, could you mention anything more glorious than a choice, to have choice! It is certainly true that the sole blessing is to choose rightly, but certainly choice itself is the glorious condition." Kierkegaard began writing about this choice in his first book Either/Or where he wrote first as the aesthetic and then as the ethicist. Hegel thinks that history and philosophy should come afterwards and explain events. Kierkegaard thinks its better to come beforehand. Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) Philosophy of Right translated by SW Dyde Queen's University Canada 1896 edition Preface xxxHang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will also regret that; hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum and substance of all philosophy. It is only at certain moments that I view everything acterno modo, as Spinoza says, but I live constantly aeterno modo. There are many who think that they live thus, because after having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate the opposites. But this is a misunderstanding: for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or, but before it. Hence, their eternity will be a painful succession of temporal moments, for they will be consumed by a two fold regret. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part I, Swenson p. 37–39It is a sign of a well brought up child to be inclined to say it is sorry without too much pondering whether it is in the right or not, and it is likewise a sign of a high minded person and a deep soul if he is inclined to repent, if he does not take God to court but repents and loves God in his repentance. Without this, his life is nothing, only like foam. Indeed, I assure you that if my life through no fault of my own were so interwoven with sorrows and sufferings that I could call myself the greatest tragic hero, could divert myself with my affliction and shock the world by naming it, my choice is made: I strip myself of the hero's garb and the pathos of tragedy; I am not the tormented one who can be proud of his sufferings; I am the humbled one who feels my offense; I have only one word for what I am suffering—guilt, only one word for my pain—repentance, only one hope before my eyes—forgiveness. And if it proves to be difficult for me to do—oh, then I have only one prayer. I would throw myself upon the earth and appeal from morning till night to the heavenly power who rules the world for one favor, that it might be granted me to repent, for I know only one sorrow that could bring me to despair and plunge everything into it—that repentance is an illusion, an illusion not with respect to the forgiveness it seeks but with respect to the imputation it presupposes. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part II, Hong p. 237–238Spiritually understood, temporality and eternity are two magnitudes that are to be weighed. But in order to deliberate the person in turn must be a third party or have a third position in relation to the two magnitudes. This is the choice: he weighs, he deliberates, he chooses. Here, however there is never any chance that the two magnitudes weigh equally much, which can of course happen with a scale, it indicates the relation as one of equality. No, praise God, that can never happen, because properly understood the eternal already has a certain overweight and the person who refuses to understand this can never begin really to deliberate. So a person deliberates before he begins. Soren Kierkegaard, Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, 1847, Hong p. 306–307
Kierkegaard stresses not only having a choice but learning how to use it. He concludes, "But then in his sadness out there with the lily and the bird the worried one did indeed acquire something other than his worry to think about; he began to consider what blessed happiness is promised in being a human being. Then let the lily wither and let its loveliness become indiscernible; let the leaf fall to the ground and the bird fly away; let it become dark on the fields—God's kingdom does not change with the seasons! So let the rest be needed for a long time or a short time, let all these things have their moment when they are lacking or possessed, their moment is a subject of discussion until in death they are eternally forgotten—God's kingdom is still that which is to be sought first but which ultimately will also last through all eternities, and "if that which will be abolished was glorious, that which remains will be more glorious,: and if it was hard to live in want, then it must indeed be only an easier separation to die to want!
Признак хорошего воспитания – склонность извиняться, не слишком размышляя о том, прав ты или нет, и признак благородного человека и глубокой души – склонность к раскаянию, не прибегая к суду над Богом, а раскаявшись и полюбив Бога в своем раскаянии. Без этого жизнь ничто, подобна пене. Действительно, уверяю вас, если бы моя жизнь, не по моей вине, была так переплетена с печалями и страданиями, что я мог бы назвать себя величайшим трагическим героем, забавляться своим страданием и потрясти мир, назвав его, я бы лишил себя одеяния героя и пафоса трагедии; я не тот, кто может гордиться своими страданиями, я смиренный, чувствующий свою вину; у меня есть лишь одно слово для того, что я страдаю, – вина, лишь одно слово для моей боли – раскаяние, лишь одна надежда перед глазами – прощение. И если мне окажется трудно это сделать, – о, тогда у меня будет лишь одна молитва. Я брошусь на землю и от рассвета до заката взывать к небесной силе, правящей миром, об одной милости, чтобы мне было дано покаяться, ибо я знаю лишь одну печаль, которая могла бы привести меня в отчаяние и погрузить все в него, – что раскаяние есть иллюзия, иллюзия не в отношении прощения, которое оно ищет, а в отношении вины, которую оно предполагает. Сёрен Кьеркегор, «Или/или», часть II, Хонг, с. 237–238.
The second discourse deals with diverting oneself from worries by "learning from the bird how glorious it is to be a human being." David F. Swenson translated several of Kierkegaard's discourses which were published in 1958 through the efforts of Paul L Holmer. Kierkegaard wrote of The Glory of Our Common Humanity. This was the second of three discourses that were all based on the text from Matthew 6 verses 24 to the end. It was titled How Glorious It Is to Be a Human Being by Howard V Hong when he translated Kierkegaard's book in 1993. The structure of the three discourses about the lilies and the birds is as follows: the first is esthetic, the second ethical, the third religious. Journal and Papers of Soren Kierkegaard VIII A 1 1847
Kierkegaard writes about the gift given to human beings that nature doesn't have, conscience. With the use of conscience we can know about time and the future. Something nature cannot know. He sums the human ability to love and the distinctiveness of nature up in Works of Love, which he published four months later. The third discourse was titled What Blessed Happiness is Promised in Being a Human Being by Howard V Hong. Kierkegaard is constantly stressing the importance there is in being a human being instead of a beast in the field because you have been given the gift of choice. "A choice. My listener, do you know how to express in a single word anything more glorious! If you talked year in and year out, could you mention anything more glorious than a choice, to have choice! It is certainly true that the sole blessing is to choose rightly, but certainly choice itself is the glorious condition." Kierkegaard began writing about this choice in his first book Either/Or where he wrote first as the aesthetic and then as the ethicist. Hegel thinks that history and philosophy should come afterwards and explain events. Kierkegaard thinks its better to come beforehand. Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) Philosophy of Right translated by SW Dyde Queen's University Canada 1896 edition Preface xxxHang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will also regret that; hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum and substance of all philosophy. It is only at certain moments that I view everything acterno modo, as Spinoza says, but I live constantly aeterno modo. There are many who think that they live thus, because after having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate the opposites. But this is a misunderstanding: for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or, but before it. Hence, their eternity will be a painful succession of temporal moments, for they will be consumed by a two fold regret. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part I, Swenson p. 37–39It is a sign of a well brought up child to be inclined to say it is sorry without too much pondering whether it is in the right or not, and it is likewise a sign of a high minded person and a deep soul if he is inclined to repent, if he does not take God to court but repents and loves God in his repentance. Without this, his life is nothing, only like foam. Indeed, I assure you that if my life through no fault of my own were so interwoven with sorrows and sufferings that I could call myself the greatest tragic hero, could divert myself with my affliction and shock the world by naming it, my choice is made: I strip myself of the hero's garb and the pathos of tragedy; I am not the tormented one who can be proud of his sufferings; I am the humbled one who feels my offense; I have only one word for what I am suffering—guilt, only one word for my pain—repentance, only one hope before my eyes—forgiveness. And if it proves to be difficult for me to do—oh, then I have only one prayer. I would throw myself upon the earth and appeal from morning till night to the heavenly power who rules the world for one favor, that it might be granted me to repent, for I know only one sorrow that could bring me to despair and plunge everything into it—that repentance is an illusion, an illusion not with respect to the forgiveness it seeks but with respect to the imputation it presupposes. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part II, Hong p. 237–238Spiritually understood, temporality and eternity are two magnitudes that are to be weighed. But in order to deliberate the person in turn must be a third party or have a third position in relation to the two magnitudes. This is the choice: he weighs, he deliberates, he chooses. Here, however there is never any chance that the two magnitudes weigh equally much, which can of course happen with a scale, it indicates the relation as one of equality. No, praise God, that can never happen, because properly understood the eternal already has a certain overweight and the person who refuses to understand this can never begin really to deliberate. So a person deliberates before he begins. Soren Kierkegaard, Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, 1847, Hong p. 306–307
Kierkegaard stresses not only having a choice but learning how to use it. He concludes, "But then in his sadness out there with the lily and the bird the worried one did indeed acquire something other than his worry to think about; he began to consider what blessed happiness is promised in being a human being. Then let the lily wither and let its loveliness become indiscernible; let the leaf fall to the ground and the bird fly away; let it become dark on the fields—God's kingdom does not change with the seasons! So let the rest be needed for a long time or a short time, let all these things have their moment when they are lacking or possessed, their moment is a subject of discussion until in death they are eternally forgotten—God's kingdom is still that which is to be sought first but which ultimately will also last through all eternities, and "if that which will be abolished was glorious, that which remains will be more glorious,: and if it was hard to live in want, then it must indeed be only an easier separation to die to want!
Духовно понимая, временность и вечность – это два параметра, которые следует взвесить. Но чтобы рассуждать, человек должен быть третьей стороной или занимать третью позицию по отношению к этим двум параметрам. Это и есть выбор: он взвешивает, размышляет, выбирает. Однако никогда не бывает такого, чтобы два параметра весили одинаково, что, конечно, может произойти с весами, указывающими на равенство. Нет, слава Богу, этого никогда не произойдет, потому что, если понимать вечность правильно, она уже имеет определенный перевес, и тот, кто отказывается это понимать, никогда не сможет по-настоящему начать размышлять. Итак, человек размышляет прежде, чем начать. Сёрен Кьеркегор, «Укрепляющие речи в различных духах», 1847, Хонг, с. 306–307.
The second discourse deals with diverting oneself from worries by "learning from the bird how glorious it is to be a human being." David F. Swenson translated several of Kierkegaard's discourses which were published in 1958 through the efforts of Paul L Holmer. Kierkegaard wrote of The Glory of Our Common Humanity. This was the second of three discourses that were all based on the text from Matthew 6 verses 24 to the end. It was titled How Glorious It Is to Be a Human Being by Howard V Hong when he translated Kierkegaard's book in 1993. The structure of the three discourses about the lilies and the birds is as follows: the first is esthetic, the second ethical, the third religious. Journal and Papers of Soren Kierkegaard VIII A 1 1847
Kierkegaard writes about the gift given to human beings that nature doesn't have, conscience. With the use of conscience we can know about time and the future. Something nature cannot know. He sums the human ability to love and the distinctiveness of nature up in Works of Love, which he published four months later. The third discourse was titled What Blessed Happiness is Promised in Being a Human Being by Howard V Hong. Kierkegaard is constantly stressing the importance there is in being a human being instead of a beast in the field because you have been given the gift of choice. "A choice. My listener, do you know how to express in a single word anything more glorious! If you talked year in and year out, could you mention anything more glorious than a choice, to have choice! It is certainly true that the sole blessing is to choose rightly, but certainly choice itself is the glorious condition." Kierkegaard began writing about this choice in his first book Either/Or where he wrote first as the aesthetic and then as the ethicist. Hegel thinks that history and philosophy should come afterwards and explain events. Kierkegaard thinks its better to come beforehand. Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) Philosophy of Right translated by SW Dyde Queen's University Canada 1896 edition Preface xxxHang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will also regret that; hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum and substance of all philosophy. It is only at certain moments that I view everything acterno modo, as Spinoza says, but I live constantly aeterno modo. There are many who think that they live thus, because after having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate the opposites. But this is a misunderstanding: for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or, but before it. Hence, their eternity will be a painful succession of temporal moments, for they will be consumed by a two fold regret. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part I, Swenson p. 37–39It is a sign of a well brought up child to be inclined to say it is sorry without too much pondering whether it is in the right or not, and it is likewise a sign of a high minded person and a deep soul if he is inclined to repent, if he does not take God to court but repents and loves God in his repentance. Without this, his life is nothing, only like foam. Indeed, I assure you that if my life through no fault of my own were so interwoven with sorrows and sufferings that I could call myself the greatest tragic hero, could divert myself with my affliction and shock the world by naming it, my choice is made: I strip myself of the hero's garb and the pathos of tragedy; I am not the tormented one who can be proud of his sufferings; I am the humbled one who feels my offense; I have only one word for what I am suffering—guilt, only one word for my pain—repentance, only one hope before my eyes—forgiveness. And if it proves to be difficult for me to do—oh, then I have only one prayer. I would throw myself upon the earth and appeal from morning till night to the heavenly power who rules the world for one favor, that it might be granted me to repent, for I know only one sorrow that could bring me to despair and plunge everything into it—that repentance is an illusion, an illusion not with respect to the forgiveness it seeks but with respect to the imputation it presupposes. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part II, Hong p. 237–238Spiritually understood, temporality and eternity are two magnitudes that are to be weighed. But in order to deliberate the person in turn must be a third party or have a third position in relation to the two magnitudes. This is the choice: he weighs, he deliberates, he chooses. Here, however there is never any chance that the two magnitudes weigh equally much, which can of course happen with a scale, it indicates the relation as one of equality. No, praise God, that can never happen, because properly understood the eternal already has a certain overweight and the person who refuses to understand this can never begin really to deliberate. So a person deliberates before he begins. Soren Kierkegaard, Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, 1847, Hong p. 306–307
Kierkegaard stresses not only having a choice but learning how to use it. He concludes, "But then in his sadness out there with the lily and the bird the worried one did indeed acquire something other than his worry to think about; he began to consider what blessed happiness is promised in being a human being. Then let the lily wither and let its loveliness become indiscernible; let the leaf fall to the ground and the bird fly away; let it become dark on the fields—God's kingdom does not change with the seasons! So let the rest be needed for a long time or a short time, let all these things have their moment when they are lacking or possessed, their moment is a subject of discussion until in death they are eternally forgotten—God's kingdom is still that which is to be sought first but which ultimately will also last through all eternities, and "if that which will be abolished was glorious, that which remains will be more glorious,: and if it was hard to live in want, then it must indeed be only an easier separation to die to want!
Кьеркегор подчеркивает не только наличие выбора, но и умение им пользоваться. Он заключает: «Но тогда, в своей печали там, с лилией и птицей, обеспокоенный все же приобрел нечто иное, чем свою тревогу, о чем можно было бы подумать; он начал размышлять о том, какое блаженное счастье обетовано человеку. Пусть лилия увянет и ее красота станет незаметной; пусть лист упадет на землю и птица улетит; пусть на полях станет темно – Царство Божье не меняется с временами года! Пусть отдых нужен будет долго или коротко, пусть все эти вещи будут иметь свой момент, когда они отсутствуют или присутствуют, их момент является предметом обсуждения, пока они не будут вечно забыты со смертью – Царство Божье все еще то, что нужно искать первым, но которое в конечном итоге сохранится во все века, и «если то, что должно быть уничтожено, было славно, то то, что остается, будет еще славнее; и если было трудно жить в нужде, то, должно быть, будет легче расстаться с нуждой!»
The second discourse deals with diverting oneself from worries by "learning from the bird how glorious it is to be a human being." David F. Swenson translated several of Kierkegaard's discourses which were published in 1958 through the efforts of Paul L Holmer. Kierkegaard wrote of The Glory of Our Common Humanity. This was the second of three discourses that were all based on the text from Matthew 6 verses 24 to the end. It was titled How Glorious It Is to Be a Human Being by Howard V Hong when he translated Kierkegaard's book in 1993. The structure of the three discourses about the lilies and the birds is as follows: the first is esthetic, the second ethical, the third religious. Journal and Papers of Soren Kierkegaard VIII A 1 1847
Kierkegaard writes about the gift given to human beings that nature doesn't have, conscience. With the use of conscience we can know about time and the future. Something nature cannot know. He sums the human ability to love and the distinctiveness of nature up in Works of Love, which he published four months later. The third discourse was titled What Blessed Happiness is Promised in Being a Human Being by Howard V Hong. Kierkegaard is constantly stressing the importance there is in being a human being instead of a beast in the field because you have been given the gift of choice. "A choice. My listener, do you know how to express in a single word anything more glorious! If you talked year in and year out, could you mention anything more glorious than a choice, to have choice! It is certainly true that the sole blessing is to choose rightly, but certainly choice itself is the glorious condition." Kierkegaard began writing about this choice in his first book Either/Or where he wrote first as the aesthetic and then as the ethicist. Hegel thinks that history and philosophy should come afterwards and explain events. Kierkegaard thinks its better to come beforehand. Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) Philosophy of Right translated by SW Dyde Queen's University Canada 1896 edition Preface xxxHang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will also regret that; hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum and substance of all philosophy. It is only at certain moments that I view everything acterno modo, as Spinoza says, but I live constantly aeterno modo. There are many who think that they live thus, because after having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate the opposites. But this is a misunderstanding: for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or, but before it. Hence, their eternity will be a painful succession of temporal moments, for they will be consumed by a two fold regret. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part I, Swenson p. 37–39It is a sign of a well brought up child to be inclined to say it is sorry without too much pondering whether it is in the right or not, and it is likewise a sign of a high minded person and a deep soul if he is inclined to repent, if he does not take God to court but repents and loves God in his repentance. Without this, his life is nothing, only like foam. Indeed, I assure you that if my life through no fault of my own were so interwoven with sorrows and sufferings that I could call myself the greatest tragic hero, could divert myself with my affliction and shock the world by naming it, my choice is made: I strip myself of the hero's garb and the pathos of tragedy; I am not the tormented one who can be proud of his sufferings; I am the humbled one who feels my offense; I have only one word for what I am suffering—guilt, only one word for my pain—repentance, only one hope before my eyes—forgiveness. And if it proves to be difficult for me to do—oh, then I have only one prayer. I would throw myself upon the earth and appeal from morning till night to the heavenly power who rules the world for one favor, that it might be granted me to repent, for I know only one sorrow that could bring me to despair and plunge everything into it—that repentance is an illusion, an illusion not with respect to the forgiveness it seeks but with respect to the imputation it presupposes. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or part II, Hong p. 237–238Spiritually understood, temporality and eternity are two magnitudes that are to be weighed. But in order to deliberate the person in turn must be a third party or have a third position in relation to the two magnitudes. This is the choice: he weighs, he deliberates, he chooses. Here, however there is never any chance that the two magnitudes weigh equally much, which can of course happen with a scale, it indicates the relation as one of equality. No, praise God, that can never happen, because properly understood the eternal already has a certain overweight and the person who refuses to understand this can never begin really to deliberate. So a person deliberates before he begins. Soren Kierkegaard, Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, 1847, Hong p. 306–307
Kierkegaard stresses not only having a choice but learning how to use it. He concludes, "But then in his sadness out there with the lily and the bird the worried one did indeed acquire something other than his worry to think about; he began to consider what blessed happiness is promised in being a human being. Then let the lily wither and let its loveliness become indiscernible; let the leaf fall to the ground and the bird fly away; let it become dark on the fields—God's kingdom does not change with the seasons! So let the rest be needed for a long time or a short time, let all these things have their moment when they are lacking or possessed, their moment is a subject of discussion until in death they are eternally forgotten—God's kingdom is still that which is to be sought first but which ultimately will also last through all eternities, and "if that which will be abolished was glorious, that which remains will be more glorious,: and if it was hard to live in want, then it must indeed be only an easier separation to die to want!
Евангелие страданий
А. С. Олдворт и В. С. Ферри из Кембриджского университета перевели «Евангелие страданий» в 1955 году. Далее следует отрывок из его введения. Теперь он начинает рассуждать о смысле и радости, которые заключаются в следовании за Христом. Это не было первым, о чем он писал, но он писал о том, как со временем научиться следовать за Христом, и, учась этому, также научиться исповедоваться, каяться, принимать и прощать. Он подчеркивал важность прежде всего искать Царства Божьего (Матфея 6:33) и учиться «безмолвить перед Богом». Его первые три текста взяты из Луки 14:27: «Кто не несет креста своего и не идет за Мною, тот не может быть Моим учеником». Из Матфея 11:30: «Иго Мое благо, и бремя Мое легко». И о Господе Иисусе Христе сказано: «Хотя Он был Сыном, но научился послушанию через страдания» (Евреям 5:8). Деяния 5:41. Кьеркегор пишет о том, почему не так уж и хорошо иметь «отличие» быть апостолом. Они ушли, радуясь, что были сочтены достойными поносить позор ради имени Христова. Он заключил так:
Кьеркегор сравнил фунт золота и фунт перьев. Он считает фунт перьев менее весомым, поскольку золото ценнее перьев. Затем он просит читателя решить, равен ли фунт временности фунту вечности. Перья, золото, временность, вечность и числа – все это имеет ценность в этом мире. В этой третьей части он произносит семь различных речей. Кажется, он в целом использует религиозные числа в своих писаниях, но всегда конкретно ссылается на христианство. Кьеркегор, по-видимому, достиг цели, поставленной в «Завершающем ненаучном постскриптуме», где он заявил, что ему стало ясно, что люди забыли, что значит быть религиозным (исповедь и покаяние перед Богом), а также забыли, что значит быть человеком, и, следовательно, забыли, что значит стремиться стать христианином. Он выразил это следующим образом.