Kierkegaard targeted several critical delusions associated with rationalism, certainty, objectivity and security. In his criticism he took no prisoners, attacking Hegelian thinking and objectivism relentlessly.

In Kierkegaard’s dialectical method one is taken to the precipice of death and the fear of death as the meaning of risk and the nature of trust. One of the best pieces one can read on the absurdity of risk/trust is by Mollering: Chapter 5 Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity – Trust Beyond Risk, The Leap of Faith. (https://www.mpifg.de/825298/2006-02-wz-moellering).

Trust is the reverse side of the coin of risk.

The simple fact of risk is, we don’t know yet, we must trust anyway.

In the face of uncertainty, our trust in anything is held in trust by faith, not reason.

There is no reason why we trust in faith (in action without evidence) as an assurance to guarantee certainty.

In Kierkegaard’s language he often uses the notion of things being ‘comical’ regarding assertions of certainty via rationalism/objectivity. This idea of laughing at the absurdity of certainty/objectivity and making the absurd the foundation of faith, is critical in understanding Kierkegaard’s declaration that ‘subjectivity is truth’. It is also critical to understand Kierkegaard’s idea of risk.

The trouble for many who try to read Kierkegaard, is that one cannot bring propositional/rational thinking to his discussion. Similarly, his notion of faith cannot be understood rationally. Indeed, trying to do so, is comical/laughable. This sarcastic way of tackling the delusions of objectivity/rationalism is foundational to Kierkegaard’s method. He executes this through poetic/lyrical discourse not via propositional argument. For some, this triggers emotions of rage and offence and for others it liberates into faith. But Kierkegaard states: ‘Humour is the last stage of existential awareness before faith’ (Concluding unscientific postscript, p.259). How dare Soren write this way, surely, he should argue the way with which I am comfortable? For Kierkegaard, the way of comfort, certainty and objectivity is not the way of faith.

In Fear and Trembling (1843 by Johannes DE SILENTIO, Kierkegaard’s alias), Kierkegaard doesn’t particularly care about the sensitivities of his opponents. In the face of death, such concerns are absurd. If you wish to understand more of his style, this is a good start: https://ia601306.us.archive.org/32/items/kierkegaards-fear-and-trembling-a-critical-guide/Kierkegaard%27s%20Fear%20and%20Trembling%20A%20Critical%20Guide.pdf

In a similar method, Christian theology ‘laughs’ at Death in the same poetic, lyrical, ironical and anthropomorphic discourse as Kierkegaard. Donne’s famous sonnet is a good example (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44107/holy-sonnets-death-be-not-proud).

However, if you don’t like Kierkegaard’s style, you don’t have to read it. One can remain suitably insulted and offended.

 Yet, for those who do engage with Kierkegaard, one can discover the most liberating understanding of risk, trust and faith. Such is the positive and constructive outcome of engaging with this Danish Philosopher.

Kierkegaard connects a failure to be ‘comical’ as the weakness of the scepticism required to believe in the myth of objectivity. He asserts the disconnectedness of objectivity as a disconnectedness from being most evidenced in the humour of life, the comical. The myth of being able to step away from human ‘being’ into objectivity is the joke.

Why should any of this be of interest to risk and safety? Why should philosophy be of any interest to an industry deluded by the ideology of Zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) and the denial of Fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/). Why should wisdom be of any interest? Why should critical thinking about risk, trust and faith be desirable?

Perhaps through engaging in some philosophical thinking, the seductions of objectivity and certainty might wither? Perhaps, new questioning might help lead to a better method? Perhaps a reframed methodology might help re-invigorate a better method, for tackling risk? Perhaps a questioning of objectivity/certainty might lead to the innovation Safety is looking for?

If you are interested in such a journey in questioning and learning then you can register for the free workshops on Philosophy and Risk by registering here: admin@spor.com.au

Registrations close 7 April.