ARTIGO ORIGINAL DOI: HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.5216/PHI.V24I2.47183 IS GOD A PHENOMENON? A DIALOGUE BETWEEN KIERKEGAARD AND JEAN-LUC MARION1 Wellington José Santana (PUCGO)2 [email protected] Abstract: The present article analyses critically the paradox between the radi- cal phenomenon claimed by Camus, Sartre, and others philosophers, and Marion’s new concept named saturated phenomenon. While the concept of God, by definition, must surpass the realm of empiricism, perhaps the satu- rated phenomenon may shed light over what God must be: Excess. Although the new concept does not refer directly to God, I will argue that Kierke- gaard’s paradox gives ground to reflect about whether or not He can be thought as Excess of excess, despite of the trap of the language we’re im- mersed in. Is it possible to analyze the divinity following phenomenological footsteps? Key-words: Paradox; Saturated phenomenon; freedom; Excess. Introduction Every time we look at the universe we feel how small and insignificant we are compared to how vast it is. At the beginning people used to think that the earth was the cen- tre of the universe and played a very important role in our lives. In fact, God has chosen this tiny planet to create hu- manity. However, after a long period of historical and sci- 1 Recebido: 29-05-2017/ Aceito: 14-09-2017/ Publicado on-line: 12/04/2020. 2 Wellington José Santana é professor da Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brasil. PHILÓSOPHOS, GOIÂNIA, V. 24, N. 2, P.177-204, JUL./DEZ. 2019. 177 1 77 Wellington José Santana entific development, our understanding was turned upside down when science demonstrated that Earth is not, and will never be, important at all to the universe. Little by little Earth itself will stop rotating on its axis and will lose the magnetic field that protects us from the dangerous radia- tion from the sun. Earth will be no more. The sun will eventually run out of fuel, expand and eventually explode creating a supernova, a new star. However, before that apocalyptic event takes place, all surrounding planets will be blown off and the universe will not remember that we existed. Now when we think about the meaning of our lives, we may be very troubled that our hopes and dreams, struggles and achievements do not really mean a lot in a big scale. The universe does not care if you live or die, if you have a university degree or not, if you suffer or are unhap- py. So the question that arises is, why should we live or die? Kierkegaard, in addition to being very interested in the concept of irony raised by Socrates3, is captivated by what the meaninglessness of life and its outcome. Since this is not a modern phenomenon that human being has to face, it must play an important role in his life. What is the place God plays in this old and modern problem? What is the re- lationship between lack of meaning and nihilism? Amazing- ly, this was a problem in Kierkegaard’s time and still continues today and I shall analyze it critically now and re- late it to the modern problem of the gift raised by Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion. 3 Søren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Irony, (New York: Harper and Row publishers, 1965), 185 178 PHILÓSOPHOS, GOIÂNIA, V. 24, N. 2, P.177-204, JUL./DEZ. 2019. ARTIGO ORIGINAL IS GOD A PHENOMENON? A DIALOGUE BETWEEN KIERKEGAARD AND JEAN-LUC MARION FACING THE PARADOX: IS GOD A PHENOMENON? Irony usually has its form shaped by subjectivity4 which, in the time of Socrates, represented a specific value and meaning – one which was rejected by his fellow friends. However, Kierkegaard assumes a new form of subjectivity that’s grounded in the reflection’s reflection. While the En- lightenment focused on the faculty of the reason raised by philosophers like Descartes and Kant, in which the main purpose was to criticize the Church and the reigning politi- cal order, the subjectivism of its focus is, instead, on emo- tion and feeling. This is also an issue brought about by the Romanticism, a movement that arose in France, England and Germany in the second half of the 18th century. However, to be able to acknowledge something as sci- ence one must be attracted to what can be proved, but will end up acknowledging that sometimes, reason is unable to provide answers to all my inquiries. Here my emotions truly emerge and show that I am not only about brain, but also about heart. I am not a ruthless machine but I do have in- ward emotions that lead me to decide what is better for me and for my own life, even if this decision conflicts with rea- son. An individual can be cultivated and I can make a room for further relationship. Here one can really show off one’s true self – one’s soul – as something as profound as the universe and can speak straight from the heart. Being ironic is somehow a way of overtaking the world and being smarter than it. By utilizing the irony, one may 4 Søren Kierkegaard, concluding unscientific postscript, (Princeton: New Jersey Princeton University Press, 1968), 67 PHILÓSOPHOS, GOIÂNIA, V. 24, N. 2, P.177-204, JUL./DEZ. 2019. 179 Wellington José Santana realize that everything is vanity5, transient in comparison to what is really important, namely God. He is absolute, om- niscient and everything else is regarded as relative and finite – in short, is vanity. Outside God there are no absolutes. Here the ironist is not an nihilist but, rather, someone that can take seriously the fact that nothing is real, except God. Like the believer, the ironist really believes that the truth can set him free from this world, from hypocrisy. Kierkegaard is aware of one of the leading philosophers of his time, namely Hegel. His doctrine was on the rise in Denmark and Kierkegaard was his fierce opponent because Hegel never really cared about subjectivity. In order to ex- plain the situation of a specific person he utilizes the word existence when the values of his declining society were crumbling. Despite the fact that we have no clear picture of what the future will hold, Kierkegaard asserts that we must construct that future relying on the subject and his strug- gles. Objectivity therefore, becomes the true. It is irrelevant to know the world without knowing oneself as subject. Another important word for the purpose of this work is “paradox,”6 a concept raised by Kierkegaard in his Philosoph- ical Fragments in which he points out that the Christian doctrine of Incarnation remains a real challenge for human understanding. The unknown God wanted to make himself known by the Revelation and the infinite and eternal Lord became finite and temporal with Incarnation. This is an ab- 5 Ecclesiastes 1:14 6 Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), 80. This is the paradox that does not permit mediation. What is contradictory is contradictory. This is the way faith must be treated. 180 PHILÓSOPHOS, GOIÂNIA, V. 24, N. 2, P.177-204, JUL./DEZ. 2019. ARTIGO ORIGINAL IS GOD A PHENOMENON? A DIALOGUE BETWEEN KIERKEGAARD AND JEAN-LUC MARION solute paradox7 that the human mind cannot grasp or think or explain. However, one must accept it by the virtue of faith. The only thing people should understand about the paradox is that it is paradox8 and therefore, outside of all comprehension. This being said, it does not mean reason has no role in professing the faith in something so high. It does so in recognizing the greatness of God. With the doc- trine of the absolute paradox, Kierkegaard clearly wants to insist that the Revelation is an example of an absolutely fixed, irreducible dichotomy that cannot be mediated. Kierkegaard resists seeing Christianity as a doctrine made up of arguments and discursive demonstration. Instead, he views it as an exercise of contradiction. The contradiction is the heart of Christianity presumably because it states that the eternal became temporal and somehow contingent, the infinite finite and his Philosophical Fragments bring this into focus. In one word, Christianity, or the God – since Kier- kegaard himself never referred to Jesus but simply to “the God” – is never to be comprehended by human capacity, but must be accepted inwardly as truth. This is the reason why subjectivity is so important to comprehend Kierke- gaard’s philosophy. Instead of formulating dogmas and doctrines, Christians should engage themselves in accepting the absurd and the contradiction of believing and avoid creating creeds. Just as Kierkegaard wants to introduce peo- ple to Christianity in which no conclusive statement can be drawn, so too is inconclusiveness the goal of Plato's dia- logue Hippias Major. This is one of Plato's so-called aporetic 7 Søren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), 59 8 Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments, 72 PHILÓSOPHOS, GOIÂNIA, V. 24, N. 2, P.177-204, JUL./DEZ. 2019. 181 Wellington José Santana dialogues intended to introduce people to the concept of beauty. After many failed attempts to define beauty, the discussion ends with no conclusion. In the same way Chris- tianity is not to be used to draw conclusions because the aporia of faith is beyond any conclusion. The better path to live Christianity is within one’s own soul. Contradiction, therefore, is required for faith. This is a true way of revealing the essential part of being Christian, which is divine and human together.9 True Christian faith involves no explanation in order to clarify some aspects of faith.