[MUSIC] Today, we occasionally hear talk about nihilism. The nihilism of modern society, the lapse of traditional values. People struggle with the lack of meaning in their lives. Indeed, perhaps some of you have experienced the same phenomenon in one form or another, in the context of your own society or life. Why is this such a widespread modern problem? In the past, it was thought that the universe was not all that large, and that the Earth was at its center. It occupied a special place, and God had created it for a special purpose. Human beings like you and me played a special role in this. We were part of God's plans, and we are favored among all the creatures of the world. People in those days, of course, were well aware of the difficulties and contingencies of life. They knew disease, suffering, and death. But in the face of this, it was a great comfort to think that the Earth was an absolutely unique and special place that God was personally interested in. God cared about the fate and struggles of families and individuals. After a long period of historical and scientific development, this picture has changed. Geologists today tell us that one day, the molten rock at the core of the Earth will cool off. The Earth will stop rotating on its axis and will lose its magnetic field. When this happens, its protecting atmosphere will be blown off into space by the solar wind. At which point, the Earth will become inhabitable since it will be directly exposed to the dangerous rays of the sun. Astronomers tell us that one day, the sun will begin to run out of the fuel that powers it. It will enter into its final stages of life. When this happens, the sun will rapidly expand, becoming a red giant. It will then engulf and vaporize the Earth. Our beloved planet will cease to exist. Sometime after this, the sun itself will breath it's last gasp, will explode in an event called the nova. With this, our solar system will no longer exist, no trace of it will remain. And it will be as if we never existed. In contrast to the earlier view, this picture offers precious little comfort. Indeed, when we think about it a lot, it starts to become somewhat disturbing. In this vast cosmic play of planets, stars, and galaxies, which is larger than one can even imagine, and operates on time scales that are inconceivable, what is the meaning of my life? Nothing that I will ever do will change these basic facts. The Earth, the sun, they will be destroyed. There's nothing that I or you or all of humanity collectively could do about this. Think of your dearest hopes and dreams, your struggles and achievements, all the things that makes your life important and meaningful to you. Now ask yourself, what do these mean on this cosmic scale? Does the universe care that you want to get a university degree? That you hope to obtain a good job or have a beautiful home. Does the universe care that you have inward doubts and anxieties? That you feel pain and suffering? In all of these things, the universe seems cruelly indifferent. As Macbeth says, the sound and fury of all of human life amounts to nothing. Our existence is but a flicker of a brief candle. [BLANK AUDIO] When we look at things from this modern perspective, it's easy to take a critical view of the events and customs that make up our daily lives. People who take themselves or the actions in their lives very seriously simply seem to have lost perspective. They appear to pursue petty goals in their petty lives, all the while pretending that they're achieving something grand and monumental. They fail to see that in the end all of their efforts will amount to nothing. This is the perspective of the modern nihilist, the person who believes that there's no real meaning in the world. Kierkegaard is interested in the problem of the meaninglessness of life. He regards this as an important modern phenomenon that must be taken seriously. In the second part of the concept of irony, he treats different forms what he calls 'modern irony'. The positions that he looks at is very similar to that of the modern nihilist. So we now turn to this analysis to see what insights it might hold for the modern problem of the absence of meaning in our 21st century world. [BLANK AUDIO] In the introduction to part two of the concept of irony, Kierkegaard reiterates that the goal of the work is to examine the development of irony in it's historical forms. As he noted at the beginning of the book, two elements are required for this analysis. First, the idea or concept of irony, and second, the actual empirical phenomenon of it. On the one hand, we need the concept so that we can recognize specific instances of it. Without the concept of irony in our minds, it would be impossible for us to determine concrete instances of irony in the world. Just as if we didn't know the concept of dog, we'd be unable to identify which animals in the actual world are dogs. On the other hand, we also need the empirical phenomenon of irony since without it, our concept or idea of irony would simply float in the air and have no contact with the real world. So Kierkegaard claims that we must continue to operate with the concept of irony but be sure that we focus on specific instances of it in actuality. The two are intertwined. The concept is in the phenomenon and the phenomenon in the concept. The first phenomenon of irony that was explored in the first part of the work was of course that of Socrates. He used irony to introduce the notion of subjectivity into the world. According to Kierkegaard, who's following Hegel on this point, this marked a major step in the development of human thinking. After Socrates, the idea of subjectivity didn't simply disappear. On the contrary, it caught on and in the course of time became more and more important. People began to realize the significance and value of subjectivity in contrast to the broad sphere of custom and tradition. Kierkegaard now says that, in the modern world, a new form of irony is introduced. But it's not identical with Socratic irony. Since Socrates, subjectivity has had several centuries to develop. Now in the modern world, we accept the role of subjectivity in a positive way. This is completely different from the Ancient Greeks who, with the exception of Socrates, rejected it. So, when irony arises in the modern world, it does so against an entirely different background, with an entirely different point of departure. In each case, irony is an assertion of subjectivity, but since in the modern world, subjectivity is already established, it must assert itself in an even more radical manner. Kierkegaard writes, "For a new mode of irony to be able to appear now, it must result from the assertion of subjectivity in a still higher form. It must be subjectivity raised to the second power, a subjectivity's subjectivity, which corresponds to reflection's reflection." Kierkegaard associates modern irony with the movement of German romanticism, which is represented by figures such as Friedrich von Schlegel, Ludwig Tieck, and Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solger. Each of these three figures attempted to employ irony in his specific field. Kierkegaard also notes that, Hegel had an important criticism of the romantics and he wishes to take this into account in his own analysis. It's in these forms of modern irony that Kierkegaard now turns. What do we mean when we refer to German Romanticism? This is an intellectual movement that's difficult to define in a few words since it's so diverse and contains so many different elements. Romanticism is usually thought to be the movement that arose in France, England and the German states in the second half of the 18th century as a reaction to the Enlightenment. While the Enlightenment focused on the faculty of reason to criticize the church and the reigning political order, that is absolute monarchy, romanticism focused on feeling and emotion. The Enlightenment was regarded as the politically progressive force at the time, sweeping away superstition and outdated practices in institutions. But the leading figures of romanticism found something abstract and sterile in the enlightenment The faculty of reason is something that's shared by everyone. We're all able to understand science and mathematics in the same way, since we all possess the faculty of reason. In a sense, my own personal opinion about these things doesn't really matter. They're true independent of me. I can recognize their truth when I employ my reason. According to the Romantics, this means that in order to understand something I must in effect abstract from myself. In my rational faculty, there's nothing special or unique about me as a specific person. On the contrary, this is what I share with everyone else. The romantics argue that it's only in feeling and emotion that my true self really emerges. Only I have the specific set of feelings that I possess at any given point and time. This is what is special about the individual and what should be cultivated. By contrast, the Enlightenment's adulation of reason, in effect forgets the individual. There's no room left for the individual in the Enlightenment picture. The Romantics, therefore tried to celebrate individuality. This meant, criticizing the Enlightenment emphasis on science and reason. It also meant, criticizing different kinds of conformism in society. Therefore, they mounted an aggressive attack on bourgeois life and values. Friedrich von Schlegel, for example, wrote a book titled Lucinde, in which he shocked the middle class society of the day with his allusions to free sexual acts outside of marriage. The Romantics dreamed of a world in which each individual could express his or her true self. In their criticism of the Enlightenment in mainstream society, the Romantics often made use of irony. On November 11th, 1802 the Danish philosopher Henrik Steffens, began a series of lectures. Here at college, in which he introduced the work of the German Romantics to Denmark. These lectures were extremely popular and were attended by some of the leading intellectuals of the Danish Golden Age. The Romantics focused squarely on the value and integrity of the individual. Irony is something that isolates individuals and undermines the social whole. Why is this the case? Kierkegaard points out that the use of irony as a strategic tool is an action that requires considered reflection. The ironist looks at the way most people use language and cunningly interjects irony into this. Kierkegaard claims that there's a certain superiority in this in that the ironist takes himself to be more clever than the ordinary person and his use of language with irony is more subtle and sophisticated than ordinary daily speak. The ironist takes joy in using irony then waiting to see who in the conversation picks up on it. He takes particular joy when other people fail to notice it, and take him as stating his views straight forwardly. He feels superior to them. The ironist is critical of bourgeois life and enjoys ironically criticizing it. He looks down on other people whom he regards as unreflectively caught up in the petty affairs of this kind of life. And like them, he believes that he alone sees the hollowness of bourgeois existence and has the courage to expose its shortcomings. Thus, with this disposition and this use of irony, the question is separating himself from most everyone else. He regards himself not as a part of the mainstream which would mean undermining his individuality but rather as a loner, an outsider. This is in his eyes the only authentic life. The goal with modern irony is in a sense the same as with the Socratic irony: To expose people who are complacent or overly confident. The ironist pretends to go along with things when dealing with such people but all the while it suddenly undermines their claims and arrogant dispositions indirectly with irony. So in this way, the ironist who might be in a less respected position socially can nonetheless prove himself superior to people who are generally regarded as the pillars of bourgeois society. The ironist thus takes special pleasure in fooling those people who are honored or hold prestigious positions in life. Most people are bound by certain customs and conventions of society. Their actions are, in a sense, dictated by such things. The ironist, by contrast, rejects all such established customs and conventions. He regards himself as being free from them, since he's seen through their facade of legitimacy. He knows that such things are only traditional or conventional but have no absolute grounding. This is what Kierkegaard means when he says that actuality loses its validity for the ironist. Since he's seen through such customary practices, he's free to ignore them and act as he pleases. Kierkegaard describes this with Hegel's term 'subjective freedom'. He writes, and I quote, "...the salient feature of irony is the subjective freedom that at all times has in its power the possibility of beginning and is not handicapped by earlier situations." Almost all of our behavior follows the pattern of previous behavior and previous situations. As noted this behavior is governed by customs and traditions. Since the ironist doesn't believe in this, he's free to start a new ex nihilo each time. One is subjectively free in a sense that when asked based on one's own decisions and inclinations and not in accordance with some criterion that comes from without, that is external customer tradition. Kierkegaard describes many different forms of irony, but the key one is what he calls 'irony in the eminent sense'. One can be ironic about specific things in one's culture that one finds to be mistaken or wrong. In this way one aims irony at a specific target for example a corrupt institution or hypocritical individual. But irony in the eminent sense intends to criticize or negate not something specific but rather everything. That is, an entire culture or way of life. The German romantics wanted not just to criticize specific elements of bourgeois life and keep the rest but rather they wanted to undermine society as a whole. Kierkegaard says this form of irony "...is directed not against this or that particular existing entity but against the entire given actuality at a certain time and under certain conditions." He borrows a phrase from Hegel and refers to this form of irony as infinite absolute negativity. [BLANK AUDIO] Irony is by its very nature, something that's critical or negates something. This form of irony is infinite since its not satisfied to criticize or negate just specific finite things but rather wants to criticize everything. It's absolute in the sense that it regards everything but it criticizes as merely finite convention. Such conditions are really relative and have no deeper binding power than human law or custom. By contrast, the ironist's own position is absolute. Indeed, it's the sole absolute that says that there are no absolutes and that all truth is relative. Kierkegaard notes an odd convergence in two standpoints that seem on the face of it to be on the opposite ends of the spectrum, namely the pious religious views and the ironist. One might think, these two views have absolutely nothing to do with one another since religion represents a part of the traditions and conventions of society that the ironist is constantly trying to undermine. But Kierkegaard enjoins us to look closer. He recalls the words of Ecclesiastes, 'everything is vanity'. This view says that all the affairs of human life are vain and transient in comparison to what is really important. Namely, God. In other words, God is the absolute and everything else, that is, everything coming from humans is merely relative and finite. In short, vanity. Irony comes to the same conclusion about the mundane world of human society. It agrees that all is vanity but not because it believes that God is the absolute. Instead, its absolute is that there are no absolutes. What's interesting is that, the disposition of both the pious religious believer and the ironists separate them from mainstream society, in daily life in the world, which neither can take seriously. Although the modern ironist seems to be a kind of nihilist, it could not be further away from religious belief. This strangely seems to be a case where opposites converge. Like the religious believer, the ironist believes that this truth sets him free, specifically from the tyranny of custom, tradition, and hypocrisy in the world. [MUSIC]
