In the end of The Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the “Philosophical Fragments,” Kierkegaard argues that the “ironist is always on the watch” for contradictions and verbal malapropisms. This vigilance is radical. For Kierkegaard, the true principled ironist will laugh at everyone, equally. S/he will even laugh at those who die for an opinion. No stone will go unturned by the ironist. The point Kierkegaard wants to make is that dying for a claim or idea (in the name of “freedom,” “justice,” etc) is ridiculous because it will always be ironic:
To the extent the gentleman may be right in asserting that he has that opinion with all his vital force he persuades himself he has, he may do everything for it in the quality of a talebearer, he may risk his life for it, in very troubled times he may carry the thing so far as to lose his life for this opinion…and yet there may be living contemporaneously with him an ironist who, even in the hour when the unfortunate gentleman is executed, cannot resist laughing, because he knows by the circumstantial evidence he has gathered that the man had never been clear about the thing himself. (257)
The ironist, so to speak, laughs at the beheading; it is ironic. But the ironist Kierkegaard is talking about, the vigilant ironist, is not secular; s/he is religious. S/he is not saved by laughter and the gods; s/he is saved by God:
Laughable it is…for he who with quiet introspection is honest before God and concerned for himself, the Deity saves from being in error, though he be never so simple; him the Deity leads by the suffering of the inwardness of truth. (258)
In other words, for Kierkegaard, God has the last laugh. For him, people who believe that their words and ideas will save them will always fail. Their martyrdom is (or will be) tainted by this or that irony.
To illustrate, Kierkegaard tells the story of a thief who dons a wig and robs an innocent bystander. But after committing the crime, the criminal takes off his wig and runs away. A “poor man” comes along and puts the wig on and he, unfortunately, becomes the scapegoat. Since man who is robbed sees the wig, and not the man, he makes an oath that the poor man – that is, the innocent man – is the criminal.
The irony is that when the man who steals happens upon the court case, puts the wig on, and says he is the real criminal, the oath taker realizes he has made an error; but he can do nothing since he already swore that the poor man with the wig (the wrong man) was the criminal.
The lesson is obvious. Kierkegaard sees all public oaths and all statements – statements one is willing to stake everything on – to be laughable. The oath is ironic; it is not a truthful commitment. In addition, it is the poor and innocent man – who happens to be walking by – who is the victim of irony (and not just the victim of the theft who made the wrong oath).
The final lesson that Kierkegaard wants to teach us is that people who are more concerned with the “what” (the “hat”) rather than the “how” (inner passion and conviction) will always be deceived.
The only thing that can save us from the absurdity of irony (the “error”), says Kierkegaard, is faith. Faith, “the how,” is greater than “the what” (the public proclamation of truth). The inner oath, so to speak, is greater than the outer oath. Apparently, the inner oath cannot be ironic while the outer oath can.
Therefore, laughter, for Kierkegaard, leads to faith since one will realize that truth cannot exist in exterior reality. All public acts – even the most noble – will lead to error and irony. Faith may not. It is a “possibility” or risk that Kierkegaard would like to take.
For Kierkegaard, the internal absence of irony makes faith better than laughter since irony may lead to faith or skepticism. Kierkegaard chooses the latter. Laughter may be the gift of the gods, but for the Kierkegaard of The Postscript, the greater gift is the gift of God: the gift of faith.
However, there is a problem. Kierkegaard’s description of Abraham in Fear and Trembling insists that the inner “secret” of Abraham’s faith-slash-wisdom is not a faith untainted by foolishness but…foolishness:
But Abraham was greater than all, great by reason of his power whose strength is impotence, great by reason of his wisdom whose secret is foolishness, great by reason of his hope whose form is madness, great by reason of the love which is hatred of oneself.
To say that the “secret” of Abraham’s wisdom is foolishness implies his faith is ironic. A secret implies something hidden from view; what Kierkegaard would call the “inner” or “subjectivity.” Given what we have learned from The Postscript above, we can understand that this public commitment can be called ridiculous, but his inner commitment (his inner “oath” of faith) should not.
To say that this is a secret invites the question: can anything, even something so serious as faith, escape laughter? If the secret of faith is irony, then everything is touched with laughter – even the state of “fear and trembling” that Abraham goes through when he “decides” to act. But can this really be the case? If faith, an internal oath, is better than the external oath, shouldn’t it be unblemished by irony? Is irony, still, a saving grace for Kierkegaard? Is it the secret of faith? Is Kierkegaard taking the side of the holy fool?
And how does this fare with the schlemiel? Is Kierkegaard’s notion of irony consistent with a Jewish concept of irony? Does the schlemiel have a secret, too? And is this secret foolishness?
The answers to many of these questions come from Kafka. For him, Abraham was a schlemiel of sorts. Kafka’s comic rendering of Abraham and his situation makes Abraham into a simpleton and not so much a passionate knight of faith.
To play on Kierkegaard, I’d say that the issue, for Kafka, is not so much whether faith puts an end to laughter as who laughs and how one laughs in relation to “the commandment.”
(I will turn to Kafka’s Abraham in the next blog.)