Irony and the Truth

by Andrea Elizabeth

Kierkegaard will next tackle Plato’s Apology in his Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates. I’ve gone through the Symposium, Phaedrus and Phaedo in pretty quick succession and was admittedly more motivated by their topics of love and death than I currently am in Socrates’ trial defense. So far it seems that the concept of irony comes from the idea that in the course of honest, detailed reasoning, precise conclusions cannot be drawn, except that one should strive to be virtuous so that no matter what happens one will have nothing to fear. This uncertainty is why I’m glad we have revelation through the Church. Without the revealed Tradition of the Church, even Reason’s ability to come to conclusions about the Bible faces a similar dilemma. Which is right, literal vs. figurative interpretation, free will or determinism, once saved always saved or contingent salvation, faith vs works, etc.? There are good arguments to be had on both sides which is why we need the judgment of the Church to settle these disputes and show us the way.

I intend to get back to Kierkegaard after I take a break to read something else. I need to write that my plan is to pick up Crime and Punishment after I finish this post, or else I may continue to put it off. Thus far I’ve not been up to what I anticipate will be an uncomfortable read. Maybe my post-fast anemia is making me hungry for raw meat.