In the context of Kierkegaard's 'Fear and Trembling', the Universal should not, without exceedingly good cause,
be suspended. The age of fracture we are living in takes little
account of universal economic principles and regards 20 trillion
dollars of public debt as an existential cloud to be ignored with
partisans making up their own romantic realities explaining it as
trivial.
Kierkegaard's
concept of the suspension of ethics seems to be an individual
one. Though he didn't say so, I believe that the relationship of the
individual to the Universal is a secular paradigm, whereas in the
case of divine command, while the individual may be required to
suspend ethics or rather morality (for ethics is probably better
described as how one implements the moral), the Universal remains in
effect.
Thus
it is important to distinguish the Universal from divine command. The
Universal is entirely temporal whereas divine command is
transcendent. If one follows the will of God through faith, and
suspends a moral paradigm, defense isn't required in the temporal
world for violating the Universal, for God will provide it, if He
wills it so.
Socrates'
death is a different paradigm. in my opinion, he was
fundamentally opposed to the Athenian democracy, was old in a tough
era without good medical treatment (Emperor Sulla later died from
worms rotting his stomach and his guts literally fell out) so a good
peaceful death wasn't such a bad option; one attended even with
glory, good friends and wine, and did not die as a result of enacting
a divine command. Following his conscience to subvert the Athenian
demos was his choice in effect, for he seemed to prefer Sparta
judging from Plato’s The Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment