Yet one thing still remains to be discussed before leaving the matter of sufferings: Can one be said to will suffering? Is not suffering something that one must be forced into against his will? If a man can be free of it, can he then will it, and if he is bound to it, can he be said to will it? If we would answer this question, let us first of all distinguish between what it is to will in the sense of inclination, and what it is to will in the noble sense of freedom. Oh, praised be the blessed justice of the Eternal! Although not a single man should see him, mankind feels with him, suffers with him, and conquers with him! For everywhere that the Good truly conquers, the victory is really as great whether the Good conquers in the many by means of one, or whether it conquers in a solitary forsaken one by his own efforts in reality the victory is equally great. On his lonely outpost he, too, would be defending a difficult pass by saving his own soul from all of the ensnaring difficulties of suffering. Yes, even if the sufferer were denied this working by the power of example, even if he were cut off from all other men, he would still be sharing in mankind’s great common concern. His life when he is and remains committed to the Good, contains a severe judgment upon the many, who use in an inexcusable way the much that has been given them. For his life, just because so much is denied him, contains a great challenge to the many to whom much is given. The true sufferer can always work for the Good outwardly by the power of example, and work effectually. Yet the Good must have conquered and must continue to conquer in the active one’s own heart, if he sincerely works for the Good outwardly. The true sufferer does everything inwardly (by being willing to suffer all) for the Good in order that it may conquer in him. The active one works from without in order that the Good may conquer even his suffering has significance from its bearing upon this goal. Only the direction in which they work is different, and this difference must not be understood as making them mutually exclusive. The similarity is that they both may be and remain committed to the Good. The active one will do all for the Good, the sufferer will suffer all for the Good. On that account the sufferer who sincerely wills the Good knows that cleverness is a treacherous friend, and that only the commitment is fully trustworthy. Because of the uncertainty of the temporal order, it is also true that over a period of many years a sufferer may talk himself out of the original impression of the commitment. For the error is just this, that in spite of all his advance acceptance of suffering, the sufferer wins nothing that is eternal but only becomes terrified in a temporal sense. The commitment should not Concentrate sufferings in this way. There is no doubt that what often makes a sufferer impatient is that he takes upon himself in advance the suffering of a whole lifetime and now quails before what would be lighter to bear if he were to take each day’s burden as it comes. He knows that in the Commitment the nerve of the temporal order is being cut, even though pain continues in the wish. He does not fear the mark of the commitment that, as it were, draws the suffering over him for he knows that this mark is the breaking through of the Eternal. By Sören Kierkegaard Chapter 11: The Price of Willing One Thing: The Sufferer’s Use of Cleverness to Expose Evasionīut the sufferer who sincerely wills the Good, uses this very cleverness to cut off evasions and hence to launch himself into the commitment and to escape the disillusionments of choosing the temporal way.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |