The concept of the highest good in Kierkegaard and Kant

Article

Abstract

This article tries to make sense of the concept of the highest good (eternal bliss) in Søren Kierkegaard by comparing it to the analysis of the highest good found in Immanuel Kant. The comparison with Kant’s more systematic analysis helps us clarify the meaning and importance of the concept in Kierkegaard as well as to shed new light on the conceptual relation between Kant and Kierkegaard. The article argues that the concept of the highest good is of systematic importance in Kierkegaard, although previous research has tended to overlook this, no doubt due to Kierkegaard’s cryptic use of the concept. It is argued that Kierkegaard’s concept of the highest good is much closer to Kant’s than what previous research has indicated. In particular, Kant and Kierkegaard see the highest good not only as comprising of virtue and happiness (bliss), but also as being the Kingdom of God.

Keywords

Immanuel Kant Søren Kierkegaard Happiness Virtue Kingdom of God The highest good Eternal bliss Religion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Byrne P. (2007) Kant on God. Ashgate, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  2. Davenport J. J. (2001) The meaning of Kierkegaard’s choice between the aesthetic and the ethical: A response to MacIntyre. In: Davenport J. J., Anthony R. (eds) Kierkegaard after MacIntyre. Open Court, Chicago, pp 75–112Google Scholar
  3. Denis L. (2005) Autonomy and the highest good. Kantian Review 10: 33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Di Giovanni G. (2005) Freedom and religion in Kant and his immediate successors. The vocation of mankind, 1774–1800. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans C. S. (1999) Kierkegaard’s Fragments and Postscript. Humanity, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Frierson P. R. (2003) Freedom and anthropology in Kant’s moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glenn J. D. Jr. (1997) ‘A highest good ... an eternal happiness’: The human telos in Kierkegaard’s concluding unscientific postscript. In: Perkins R. L. (eds) International Kierkegaard commentary. Concluding Unscientific Postscript to “Philosophical Fragments”. Mercer University Press, Macon, GA, pp 247–262Google Scholar
  8. Green R. M. (1989) The leap of faith: Kierkegaard’s dept to Kant. Philosophy & Theology 3: 385–411Google Scholar
  9. Green R. M. (1992) Kierkegaard and Kant: The hidden debt. Albany, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Green R. M. (1997) The limits of the ethical in Kierkegaard’s The Concept of Anxiety and Kant’s Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. In: Perkins R. L. (eds) International Kierkegaard commentary: The Concept of Anxiety. Mercer University Press, Macon, GA, pp 63–87Google Scholar
  11. Green R. M. (2007) Kant: A debt both obscure and enormous. In: Steward J. (eds) Kierkegaard and his contemporaries. Tome I: philosophy. Ashgate, Hampshire, pp 179–210Google Scholar
  12. Guyer P. (2000) Kant on freedom, law, and morality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannay A. (1993) Kierkegaard. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hare J. E. (2002) The moral gap. Kantian ethics, human limits, and God’s assistance. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Johansen, K. E. (1988). Begrepet Gjentagelse hos Søren Kierkegaard. Oslo: Solum.Google Scholar
  16. Khan, A. H. (1985). Salighed as happiness? Kierkegaard on the concept Salighed. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kleingeld, P., et al. (1995). What do the virtuous hope for? Re-reading Kant’s doctrine of the highest good. In H. Robinson (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth international Kant congress, Memphis (Vol. 1, pp. 91–112). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Knappe U. (2004) Theory and practice in Kant and Kierkegaard. de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koch C. H. (2003) Dansk oplysningsfilosofi 1700–1800. Gyldendal, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  20. Kosch M. (2006) Freedom and reason in Kant, Schelling, and Kierkegaard. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marina J. (1997) Kant on grace: A reply to his critics. Religious Studies 33: 379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marina J. (2000) Making sense of Kant’s highest good. Kant–Studien 19: 329–355Google Scholar
  23. Michalson G. E. Jr. (1999) Kant and the problem of God. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Rossi, Ph. J. (1995). The social authority of reason: The “true Church” as the locus for moral progress. In H. Robinson, et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth international Kant congress, Memphis (Vol. 2, pp. 679–785). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rossi Ph. J. (2005) The social authority of reason. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  26. Schulz H. (2009) Germany and Austria: A modest head start: The German reception of Kierkegaard. In: Stewart J. (eds) Kierkegaard’s international reception. Tome I: Northern and Western Europe. Ashgate, Hampshire, pp 307–420Google Scholar
  27. Stewart J. (2003) Kierkegaard’s relations to Hegel reconsidered. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Theunissen M. (1982) Der Begriff ERNST bei Søren Kierkegaard. Alber, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  29. Theunissen M. (1993) Der Begriff Verzweiflung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
  30. Theunissen M. (2005) Kierkegaard’s concept of despair. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Thuborg A. (1951) Den Kantiske periode i dansk filosofi 1790–1800. Gyldendal, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood, A. W. (2001). Kant vs. Eudaimonism. Accessed November 23, 2009 from http://www.stanford.edu/~allenw/webpapers/Eudaimonism. Originally published in Predrag Cicovacki (Ed.), Kant’s legacy: Essays in honor of Lewis White Beck (pp. 261–282). Rochester: University of Rochester.
  33. Zammito J. H. (2002) Kant, Herder and the birth of anthropology. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations