Artist’s Conception of Eve making a critical life choice
The two dominant political parties in the United States of America, the Republican and Democratic parties, keep pushing reproductive rights in front of the public eye. It is the lever and the fulcrum that keeps the nation pried into two miserable, dysfunctional halves, an “either/or”1Kierkegaard, Søren, Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong, and Søren Kierkegaard. Either/Or. Kierkegaard’s Writings 3–4. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987. that we seemingly cannot go beyond. It is the lever and the fulcrum that keeps money pouring into re-election campaign coffers.
At some point somebody, for some reason2Wallenbrock, Emma. “Inside the Handbook on Abortion.” Slate, June 8, 2022. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/fetal-photos-jack-barbara-willke-handbook-on-abortion.html. framed an idea of reproductive rights as the seemingly mutually exclusive either/or pair of pro-life / pro-choice. It is a false dichotomy as is evidenced by a parable from the book of Genesis, the so-called the “fall of man”. (A scribe could have dubbed it—perhaps more accurately—the “rise of man”.)
The story of Eve’s fateful first bite of the apple is the locus classicus in Scripture—given to us as in concrete poetic imagery—of the concept of free-will. It’s a dubious incident of free choice at best. How is it not a set-up if the Supreme being furnishes the first couple’s new apartment with a tree and not just any old tree, but the “Tree of Knowledge”? Inevitably the garden of Eden became—as any Penthouse suite, cruel for its lack of imperfections, would eventually become—incredibly boring. It got to a point where Eve had played all the Mahjong she was ever going to play. She had garden fever. Nagged by the threat of hanging out confined for all time with a sulky Adam, what could she do? What was left for her but to bite into that apple and feel life rupture in the crunch of the apple as the juices flowed down her gullet and over her lips. Despite all of the siren-song inevitableness of it, Scripture makes it clear: it was Eve’s choice.
So, we have to get this right. Scripture is pro-choice.
But in so choosing, Eve chose to be a mother; ergo, she chose life. So, Scripture is pro-life. Scripture presents this—as Kierkegaard would delight in—as a paradox, an either/or to which there is no way past.
For that matter, did Abraham really have a choice either? The voice of God spoke to him in private, not before an audience. Abraham did not share his confrontation with God in a stump speech on a campaign trail. It was an intimate conversation, pillow talk, the kind you don’t blab about. And it was about sacrifice. As Eve sacrificed the Garden of Eden, a perfect home ready to grace the cover of any edition of Martha Stewart Living magazine, Abraham was prepared to make literally the Supreme sacrifice, his patronage, his legacy, his son, the course of history.
Under those conditions it doesn’t seem to be much in the way of a choice. But Scripture makes it clear: it was Abraham’s choice.
Eve disobeyed the Lord. John Milton called it the “first disobedience.” Abraham obeyed His Master. In the strict chronology of Genesis, Eve’s indiscretion led to Abraham’s ability to obey (not to mention his conception). Both were driven by inscrutable impulses not readily subject to analysis or critique, not subject to judgement, both with unimaginable verve and daring.
God wants to receive our love. Yet He/She cannot mandate it. We have to love God of our own free will. We have to have the latitude to sin, to screw-up, recover our senses and come to Him/Her of our own accord, in our own time, purely as an act of desire and will. Otherwise, it is phony and fake religion.
The phony dichotomy of pro-choice / pro-life creates an unholy amount of suffering, political skullduggery, and crocodile tears. It is a perpetual source of government inaction when palpable lives, of persons subject to the U.S. census, are compromised by uneven distributions of food and healthcare. It is at the center of a frightening lack of compassion for real lives (e.g., women, people of color, Samaritans, prisoners, housekeepers, bootblacks) for theoretical lives (e.g., unborn children).
Religion is an inward thing, I’m quite sure. Faith is a nocturnal creature that shrinks from the braying light. Maybe a better question to ask our political candidates before we go to the polling station is “Where is their sacrifice?” But an even better question is to ask ourselves in an out-of-the-way place, a quiet corner, far from the madding crowd3John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961, “Where is my sacrifice?”.
Footnotes
1
Kierkegaard, Søren, Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong, and Søren Kierkegaard. Either/Or. Kierkegaard’s Writings 3–4. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987.
A long time ago (2020), I wrote a letter to Florida’s U.S. Senator Rubio when he raised an alarm alleging that “professional agitators” numbered among the protestors in Lafayette park who had gathered to demonstrate against police brutality of the kind that had then so recently resulted in George Floyd’s murder.
The truth is I was agitated by the Senator’s remarks—which he posted on that beacon of truth, Twitter1So called, I imagine, after all the twits who frequent the site.—since they appeared to be baseless and lacking in substance2Though I recognize that “fertilizer” legitimately ranks as a substance..
Citizens might remember that President Trump posed with a bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal church on June 1st (see above) but I feared that few would remember Senator Rubio’s grandstanding on that day and in the shadow of the president’s. Hence, this remembrance.
For the record, here is the letter I wrote:
June 10, 2020
The Honorable Marco Rubio
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Rubio,
I read with alarm your recent assertion on Twitter that there were professional agitators among the protesters on June 1st, the day President Trump made his law and order speech. It piqued my interest that the agitators you mention are professional—as opposed to amateurs—which suggests that they get paid for their agitation. It galls me to think that somebody would get paid to do that.
This is what you wrote on the melee which ensued between protesters and police during and following the President’s speech:
I assume that you have concrete evidence, such as a pay stub or subpoenaed bank account records, that proves how and by whom these agitators get paid. If there is any destruction of private property as a direct or indirect consequence of their agitation, I want to know their names! I think you owe it to the great American people you serve to release their names immediately if not to the press (you can leak the names if necessary) then at least to the proper authorities.
If you are withholding this information, I beg you to consider whether you are putting yourself in legal jeopardy. I am not an expert on criminal law, what I know is mostly from watching LAPD, but I fear you could be accused of withholding evidence, which is probably a crime. I say this because I find it impossible to believe that you, bearing the solemn responsibilities of a U.S. Senator, would talk about “professional agitators” without concrete evidence (what chatty press persons like to call “a smoking gun”).
It is possible that you misplaced that evidence. If it is true, you shouldn’t have trouble relocating it with the kinds of federal resources you have at your disposal. Maybe your colleagues could help you find it? Maybe now would be an excellent opportunity for you to “reach across the aisle”, as they say, and ask your Democratic colleagues to help you find it?
I am actually quite agitated to think that you might have misplaced this information!
One angle would be to get with the IRS and find out if these agitators pay taxes on their agitation earnings. If they’re paid professionals, even if for them it’s just a moonlighting gig, they should be paying taxes. Sometimes the best way to get these guys behind bars is to get them on income tax evasion. It’s an old trope as I’m sure you are aware. A lot of people with suspect or lax moral standards I am told dodge paying taxes. This is only hearsay. I pay mine in full every year. Also, if you find out who is funding them, it could be quite the coup for your political aspirations ☺.
I did a little Internet research (thank you Al Gore!) and discovered concrete evidence of one such agitator. I believe based on this visual proof that the agitator is in fact employed—big clue, he’s wearing a uniform—and that charges, if brought against him, could be pretty harsh.
I am not a constitutional scholar but I’m pretty sure he’s violating a few of our most cherished constitutional rights, which are found in the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, the bits having to do with our rights to peaceful assembly (#1), freedom of speech (#2), and freedom of the press (#3).
I attach a few pix in case you can help me and put your muscle into running down this professional agitator to bring him to justice. I also wish to spare you the trouble of finding your smoking gun.
Figure – Professional Agitator or Thug?
Figure – The Smoking Gun
I have saved this evidence on my hard drive and will present it to you or the FBI upon request.
Yours Respectfully,
John H. Poplett
CC: Chicago Tribune, NYT, Medium.com, other national media outlets
In the summer of 2022, a friend invited me to join a discussion group which gets its jollies reading and discussing Plato’s dialogues line by line in minute detail. Before long it became obvious to me that I had entered the gates of heaven though I was much more alive than dead. Old pockets of gray matter long dormant, but still harboring vestigial memories of Attic Greek, learned in college a long time ago, and Hellenic culture, shrouded in darkness, received light. That should have been sufficient for any philosophical junkie.
But gluttony overcame me and I talked myself into joining a second discussion group on reviewing, also with tedious devotion, the complete works of Søren Kierkegaard. Both discussion groups came to me through the medium of Meetup.com under the auspices of The Chicago Philosophy Meetup. The Chicago Philosophy Meetup is what you call an “enabler”.
Reading Kierkegaard’s works, which tend to drip with irony, refer to theological and philosophical figures and concepts only obliquely, and take pseudonymous inscriptions, I was while very much intrigued also very much overwhelmed. An oppressive cloud of ignorance hovered over me, as I tuned in on our weekly discussion of Kierkegaard parked on a street in Chicago on a fine autumnal evening, idly researching an influence on K.— it was Herder or Hamman or some “H” name—when I serendipitously came upon a course offering “Søren Kierkegaard – Subjectivity, Irony and the Crisis of Modernity” taught by Professor Jon Stewart—auspiciously out of the University of Copenhagen—that started that same day.
That was all the serendipity I needed. Or so I thought. Unbeknownst to me at the time. Professor Stewart’s schtick concentrates on demonstrating Kierkegaard’s indebtedness to Socrates (the other guy I had been trying to “get my mind around”).
By this “chance” moment, I was afforded the means to get Kierkegaard better by getting Socrates better and vice-versa.
Flash forward to early April in 2023, I was dreading the task of writing an essay for my final assignment in the Kierkegaard course, while we completing a reading of the Phaedrus dialogue with my Plato meetup group. Clearly, fate ordained that I combine the Phaedrus into the paper, the necessity of which became abundantly clear as reacher lead me to discover more and more reasons to emphasize the significance of the Phaedrus for better appreciating Kierkegaard.
I now have serendipitous whiplash.
Here is the most recent draft of the essay, which I seek to improve and is open to your suggestions.
Here in this transcript I test my wits with ChatGPT. Not only is the robot smarter, it’s more polite.
PART I
JOHN
I am writing an essay on the concept of time in the thought of Søren Kierkegaard. My thesis is that chronological time is mostly irrelevant, more like a distraction, from his perspective. In his work, Philosophical Fragments, the section “Thought-Project”, makes it clear that time is “accidental”, i.e., an accident of history. Therefore, it would seem that the concept of teleology, or, in secular terms, of progress is highly suspicious if not erroneous from Kierkegaard’s perspective. Does this make sense?
BOT
Yes, your thesis that chronological time is mostly irrelevant and a distraction from Kierkegaard’s perspective is a valid interpretation of his thought. Kierkegaard’s philosophy emphasizes the importance of subjective experience, individual choice, and personal responsibility, and these themes are not necessarily linked to chronological time or historical progress.
Kierkegaard believed that time was not a fundamental aspect of reality but rather a human construct that helps us make sense of the world. He argued that the present moment is the only one that matters, and the past and future are irrelevant distractions that can prevent us from living authentically in the present. In this sense, the idea of progress or teleology, which suggests that history is moving towards a certain end or goal, is not meaningful from Kierkegaard’s perspective. Instead, he believed that each individual must create their own meaning in life and make choices based on their unique situation and perspective.
In Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard presents the thought-experiment of the historical Jesus, which illustrates his views on the importance of subjective experience over historical time. He argues that the significance of Jesus’ life is not in his historical existence but rather in the personal relationship that individuals can have with him in the present moment. This idea underscores Kierkegaard’s belief that the present moment is the only one that matters, and that individuals must take responsibility for their own choices and actions rather than relying on historical progress or teleology.
Overall, your thesis that chronological time is largely irrelevant from Kierkegaard’s perspective is well-supported by his philosophy. However, it is important to note that Kierkegaard’s views on time are complex and nuanced, and there may be other interpretations of his thought that emphasize the importance of historical context or the role of time in the human experience.
JOHN
How does this fit in with the Socratic method of maieutics and the Christian concept of rebirth?
BOT
Kierkegaard’s philosophy has been influenced by both the Socratic method of maieutics and the Christian concept of rebirth, and it is possible to see connections between these ideas and his views on time.
BOT: The Socratic method of maieutics involves a process of questioning and dialogue that is aimed at helping individuals to bring forth their own ideas and knowledge from within themselves. Kierkegaard’s emphasis on subjective experience and personal responsibility can be seen as a continuation of this method, as he believed that individuals must find their own truth through introspection and reflection. In this sense, the concept of time is largely irrelevant to the Socratic method of maieutics, as it is the individual’s inner experience that is most important.
Similarly, the Christian concept of rebirth involves a process of personal transformation and renewal, in which the individual is born again into a new life. Kierkegaard saw this process as a way of achieving authenticity and freedom, as the individual is freed from the constraints of societal norms and conventions. From this perspective, time is again largely irrelevant, as the focus is on the individual’s inner experience rather than on historical progress or external events.
However, it is important to note that Kierkegaard’s views on time are complex, and he does not reject the idea of historical time altogether. He believed that historical events could serve as a catalyst for personal transformation and growth, and that the individual must engage with their historical context in order to find their own meaning and purpose in life. Furthermore, Kierkegaard’s Christian faith also emphasizes the importance of historical events, such as the life and death of Jesus Christ, in the process of spiritual transformation.
Overall, while there are connections between Kierkegaard’s views on time and the Socratic method of maieutics and the Christian concept of rebirth, it is important to approach his philosophy with a nuanced and contextual understanding of his ideas.
JOHN
Rebirth is a metaphor and a paradox since the idea of giving birth to one’s self departs from the literal idea of giving birth. If we embrace the paradox, as an incident of “subjective experience”, a rebirth would signal a new life. Once I am reborn, life begins anew. I am biologically the same age I was before the rebirth but spiritually I am literally one year old. Do you see how this cements the relationship of Kierkegaard’s concept of time, maieutics, and rebirth? What are the nuances here?
BOT
Yes, I see how the paradox of rebirth as a metaphor for personal transformation can be related to Kierkegaard’s concept of time and maieutics. The idea of being “born again” suggests a radical break with the past and a new beginning, in which the individual is transformed and renewed. This new beginning is not necessarily tied to chronological time, as the individual’s spiritual or subjective experience is what matters most.
The paradox of rebirth also highlights the tension between the individual’s inner experience and external reality. While the individual may experience a profound transformation through the process of rebirth, their external circumstances and physical appearance remain the same. This tension between the inner and outer self is a recurring theme in Kierkegaard’s philosophy, as he emphasizes the importance of subjective experience and personal responsibility over external events or historical progress.
However, it is important to note that the concept of rebirth can also be interpreted in different ways, depending on one’s religious or philosophical beliefs. For example, in Christianity, rebirth is often associated with baptism and the forgiveness of sins, while in Eastern religions, rebirth is seen as a cycle of reincarnation based on karma. Kierkegaard’s interpretation of rebirth is deeply rooted in his own Christian faith and his emphasis on personal responsibility and spiritual transformation.
Additionally, while Kierkegaard’s views on time and the importance of subjective experience are central to his philosophy, there are also other nuanced aspects to his thought that must be taken into account. For example, his emphasis on the importance of personal choice and responsibility can be seen as a critique of determinism and societal norms, while his use of irony and pseudonyms in his writing complicates any straightforward interpretation of his philosophy. Therefore, it is important to approach Kierkegaard’s philosophy with a nuanced and contextual understanding of his ideas, rather than relying on simplistic or one-dimensional interpretations.
JOHN
Touché.
BOT
I’m glad I could provide some helpful insights. If you have any more questions or would like to explore Kierkegaard’s philosophy further, feel free to ask!
PART II
JOHN
Kierkegaard placed a lot of stock in the idea of authenticity. How does authenticity play into religious experience and the life of a person? What does it take to obtain it?
BOT
For Kierkegaard, authenticity is the key to living a meaningful life, and this includes religious experience. Authenticity involves being true to oneself and one’s own beliefs, rather than simply conforming to societal norms or external expectations. Kierkegaard saw authenticity as a crucial aspect of religious faith, as it involves a personal relationship with God that is not based on external authority or dogma.
In order to obtain authenticity, Kierkegaard believed that individuals must engage in a process of self-reflection and introspection. This involves questioning one’s own beliefs and values, and striving to understand oneself on a deeper level. It also involves taking responsibility for one’s own life and choices, rather than relying on external authority or social norms to dictate one’s path.
Kierkegaard also believed that authenticity requires a willingness to embrace risk and uncertainty. This is because living an authentic life often involves making difficult choices and taking risks, rather than simply following a predetermined path. In the realm of religion, this may involve questioning traditional beliefs and practices, and forging a personal relationship with God that is based on individual experience and reflection.
Ultimately, Kierkegaard believed that authenticity is a lifelong process of self-discovery and growth. It requires a commitment to ongoing self-reflection and a willingness to continually question one’s own beliefs and values. However, the rewards of authenticity are great, as it allows individuals to live a life that is true to themselves and their own unique path, rather than simply conforming to societal norms or external expectations.
JOHN
Is it inauthentic to consult ChatGPT while composing an essay for a grade in an academic course?
BOT
No, it is not inauthentic to consult resources such as ChatGPT while composing an essay for a grade in an academic course. In fact, seeking out information and guidance from a variety of sources is an important part of the research and writing process.
What is important, however, is that you engage with the ideas and information you find in a critical and thoughtful way, and that you are transparent about the sources you are using. This means citing your sources properly and avoiding plagiarism, as well as evaluating the reliability and credibility of the information you find.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that academic writing and personal authenticity are not necessarily the same thing. While authenticity may involve being true to oneself and one’s own beliefs, academic writing often involves presenting and analyzing information in a neutral and objective manner. This means that in some cases, you may need to set aside your personal beliefs or opinions in order to accurately present and analyze the information at hand.
In summary, consulting resources such as ChatGPT is a valid and useful part of the research and writing process. However, it is important to approach these resources with a critical eye and to be transparent about the sources you are using, while also recognizing the distinct goals and expectations of academic writing.
Got a call from Maureen Muldoon one day in January. I pitched her a story for the Voice Box storytelling series she runs with Cathy Richardson. There came a pause in the conversation. I had mentioned something about a recent, embarrassing little dust-up, why I don’t know. Naturally, that’s when Maureen asked me to backup and tell her more about “that”. I looked over at my girlfriend Terrie, who was seated straight ahead of me, making the international hand sign for “ixnay”. Maureen pounced, making short work of convincing me to tell the embarrassing, little dust-up instead. I spilled. The rest is now on record.
In hindsight, the dust-up, while horrific at the time, is pretty much standard fare in the life of a writer.
It was cathartic to get it all out on stage and reminded me how much I creed I give to the expression “put yourself out there” as motto and mantra.
Cathy and Maureen, as the co-conspirators behind Voice Box, a storyteller’s series which combines an intoxicating mix of “live” story-telling and music, have been “putting themselves out there” for ten years! Kudos to them.
