[MUSIC] While Kierkegaard was writing the articles

for The Fatherland and The Moment, he lived here in this building
across the street called right across from the Church of
Our Lady and the Bishop's Palace. He was living literally
just a stone's throw away from Bishop Martensen's residence. While he was here,
he published nine issues of The Moment and had just completed the tenth and
final issue when he fell ill. So this was the last text that
he ever completed in his life. The Moment Number 10 is an interesting
work since Kierkegaard reflects on his own strategy and
his attack on the church, and here once again we can see some interesting
hints of the figure of Socrates emerge. In the section called My Task, Kierkegaa
rd reminds his readers that
he's not called himself a Christian and that this is of the utmost
importance that people bear in mind. This might come as a surprise to some
people since every introductory text or encyclopedia article on Kierkegaard begi
ns
by saying that he is a Christian writer. What then can he mean to say that he
never called himself a Christian? In the history of the Christian church,
there have always been different sects and factions which claim to know about
the truth of Christianity and criticized others for not knowing it. They thus to
ok a kind of moral high ground
by claiming to be the true Christians while others fell short of the mark. Kierk
egaard is anxious to avoid this kind
of relation where he props himself up as the moral authority,
claiming to be the true Christian and criticizing his enemies for
being false Christians. If he were to assert that he were the true
Christian, then he would open himself up to criticisms of his opponents who
could claim that he was a hypocrite. In order to avoid this, he simply says
that he doesn't call himself a Christian. However, he paints a picture of New
Testament Christianity that's so difficult to live up to that it ends up being
a kind of ideal that no one can attain. This ideal allows him to criticize
what he takes to be the corrupt and false Christianity of his contemporaries
without him having to commit himself to saying that he personally
embodies the idea. In short, the ideal does
the critical work for him, and he simply has to point it out to people. This is
similar to
the strategy of Socrates who never claims to know the truth. On the contrary,
he claims to know nothing. He then goes around and asks others what
they know just as Kierkegaard explores the Christianity of other people
in Golden Age Copenhagen. Socrates then discovers that although
other people claim to know certain things, they are in fact ignorant. Just as Ki
erkegaard sees that although
his contemporaries claim to be pious Christians, they have, in fact,
a mistaken understanding of Christianity. Socrates, however,
keeps driving at the truth and continues to ask people what they know
in the hope of one day finding it. It's as if he has a conception or ideal of th
e truth that he can never
manage to attain, just as Kierkegaard has an ideal of Christianity but yet says
that
he does not call himself a Christian. Neither Socrates nor Kierkegaard claim
that they have reached this ideal, but the critical part of their
task demonstrates clearly that other people have
not attained it either. Even though these same people probably
boast that they have done so. Thus, Kierkegaard writes, the only
analogy I have before me is Socrates. My task is a Socratic task, to audit the d
efinition of
what it is to be a Christian. I do not call myself a Christian
(keeping the ideal free), but I can make it manifest that
the others are that even less. This makes it clear that
Kierkegaard used Socrates, a pagan philosopher,

in his attempt to criticize what he took to be the mistaken conceptions

about Christianity in his own time. When Socrates was confronted with the
words of the oracle that there was no one wiser than he, he interpreted this to
mean
simply that while everyone else claimed to know something and yet was ignorant,
he knew at least that he was ignorant. And on this sole point he
was wiser than the others. Similarly, Kierkegaard can point out
that the version of Christianity that the others are following is mistaken, alth
ough everyone else believes
that they are pious Christians. The difference between Kierkegaard and
them is simply that he realizes that he's not a Christian while the others
continue to believe themselves to be so. Thus, like Socrates, he avoids making t
he positive claim
about his own status, but instead his project is the negative one of exposing
the problems with the views of others. The analogy goes even further. Socrates s
truggled against
this office in his own time. They taught for money, and they had no
problem in presenting something as true. Kierkegaard sees a pundit to this
office in his own day in the clergy and professors of theology. They, too, teach
for a fee, and they're
financially supported by the state. They claim to teach
the truth of Christianity, but according to Kierkegaard, the conception of Chris
tianity that
they produce is deeply problematic. So for Kierkegaard, these are the modern
sophists while he is the modern Socrates. The public conflict with the Danish ch
urch
doubtless took it's toll on Kierkegaard who never really enjoyed robust
health even in his best days. Perhaps due to stress and overwork,
Kierkegaard became seriously ill and after collapsing was admitted to
Frederick's Hospital on October 2, 1855. Today, this is the Danish Museum for
Design. Kierkegaard apparently suffered from
a paralysis that immobilized his legs and lower body. His condition gradually
worsened to the point that he could hardly hold up his head or
even move on his own. He was visited regularly by some of
the members of his extended family, for example his nephews. But he refused to s
ee his elder brother
Peter Christian when he came to visit him. Kierkegaard was angry with his
brother who had given a speech at the Roskilde Ecclesiastical Convention
on July 5, 1855 in which he took a critical stance
toward Kierkegaard's attack on the church. Kierkegaard was however regularly
visited by his friend Emil Boesen who left behind an account
of Kierkegaard's final days. As Kierkegaard's condition continued to
deteriorate, hope began to slip away. Boeson asked if he would take holy
communion, but Kierkegaard refused. He claimed that he would only
take it from a layman but not from a pastor, but this was of
course not legal in Denmark at the time since only ordained pastors were
permitted to perform such ceremonies. So Kierkegaard declared that he
would die without the communion. He rejects receiving the communion
from a pastor since he tells Boesen, quote, the pastors are civil
servants of the crown and have nothing to do with Christianity. Kierkegaard beca
me weaker and weaker with
each day, and towards the end he fell into a comatose state, not being able to
recognize anyone or even to speak. Finally, he died here on
the evening of November 11, 1855. Kierkegaard's funeral took place
on Sunday, November 18, 1855, here in the Church of Our Lady. The situation was
an awkward one given Kierkegaard's violent
attack on the church. For this reason,
none of the clergy dared to show up for fear of being perceived to be
sympathetic to Kierkegaard's cause. The only exceptions were
Kierkegaard's elder brother, Peter Christian Kierkegaard, who is the only remain

ing relative
in Kierkegaard's immediate family. And second
the Archdeacon Eggert Christopher Tryde, who was the presiding pastor. It was a
difficult proposition for
Tryde, since, on the one hand, he could hardly criticize
Kierkegaard's attack on the church, but then, on the other hand, he could hardly
ignore it completely since it was an ongoing controversy that had attracted
a great deal of public attention. Kierkegaard's brother Peter Christian took
up the difficult task and gave the eulogy. He began by explaining the sad family
background, recounting the life of his father, the loss of his siblings
such that only he and Soren remained. He could not avoid completely the issue of
the controversy surrounding the attack on the church, although he said that the
funeral was
not the appropriate place to discuss it. Nonetheless, he emphasized that he thou
ght
that his brother had gone too far in his criticism, and he emphasized that much
of
what Soren Kierkegaard said in the context of the articles in The Fatherland and
The Moment could not be accepted. A large number of people came
to Kierkegaard's funeral. Indeed, there was standing
room only in the church, but it was said that there were only a few
members of distinguished society present. But rather, most of the people who cam
e
were from the lower social classes. This might be taken to imply
that Kierkegaard's works were popular among ordinary people who
weren't trained scholars or academics. Or it might be explained by the fact that
Kierkegaard was a well known public figure who was seen regularly on his
daily walks through Copenhagen. There was also doubtless an element
of sensationalism involved since people were keen to
see how the official church establishment would deal with this
awkward and sensitive situation. [MUSIC]