What is Qualitative about Qualitative Dialectic?

The aim of this paper is to define what is qualitative about qualitative dialectic. Its main point is to differentiate between qualitative and quantitative dialectic. I characterize three forms of dialectic to be able to distinguish qualitative dialectic from what it is not. Qualitative dialectic is defined by Kierkegaard as the method by which philosophical discourse should engage with an individual. Kierkegaard clarifies that in relation to individual existence it is impossible to acquire genuine knowledge from a mere speculative vantage point. Only qualitative dialectic should be engaged in existential matters. Kierkegaard s view of stages on life s way, known as the esthetic, the ethical and the religious, also entails a development in his dialectical method, by which the different stages are conceived. Whereas it is possible to find texts in which each stage is distinctively characterized, the main concern in this article is to elucidate the specific dialectical method employed by Kierkegaard in the religious stage, a method which is not directly applied in the two others. The process of becoming religious culminates in Kierkegaard s philosophy with the adoption of the pseudonym Johannes Climacus at the point at which the believer attains an absolute relation to the absolute. The dialectical method at this religious stage is characterized by Climacus as qualitative dialectic. This dialectic consists of manifold thought processes through which the believer reflects on his own existential purpose (that is, becoming a Christian) and then rethinks it vis-vis his feelings and will, and other specific thoughts, proper to his own existence. The complexity inherent in this existential thinking process of qualitative dialectic renders it difficult to understand, and, more significantly, to implement and master. In order to understand what qualitative dialectic is, it seems essential to differentiate it from other dialectical methods. Hence, the question I shall ask in this paper is what is qual1 Climacus makes explicit references to this terminology in his writings. See, for example, SKS 7, 354, 364, 397, 469, 511, 551 / CUP1, 388, 399, 436, 517, 562, 606. itative about qualitative dialectic? What makes qualitative dialectic qualitative? In his journals, Kierkegaard attributes great importance to qualitative dialectic: “Everything turns upon the distinction absolute between quantitative dialectic and qualitative dialectic. All logic is quantitative dialectic or modal dialectic, for everything is and the whole is one and the same. Qualitative dialectic belongs to existence [Tilvœrelsen].” Understanding qualitative dialectic is not an easy task for Kierkegaard s scholars, since the question is not answered directly and explicitly in his writings, including those of the religious pseudonyms. Though featuring in his religious philosophical texts (such as Philosophical Fragments and Concluding Unscientific Postscript) this dialectic is neither defined nor methodologically characterized. Perhaps this very abstruseness reflects Kierkegaard s belief that qualitative dialectic cannot be directly defined, since it first and foremost belongs to existence, which eludes any definition. Whether or not this obscurity is intentional, I believe that in order to understand the essence of qualitative dialectic, some significant, if indirect distinctions are required. The main point is to differentiate between qualitative and quantitative dialectic. To that end, I will first characterize three forms of dialectic, then I will distinguish qualitative dialectic from what it is not, through a consideration of Kierkegaard s esthetic and ethical texts (in which it does not feature). Both the esthetic and the ethical spheres are addressed here only in regards to their contribution to the understanding of qualitative dialectic. I. Three Forms of Dialectic Dialectic is both the art of debate and a method of thinking. Dialectical thinking employs abstract thought and imagination, by which it strives to approximate a processing of actual events. It makes claims about human 2 SKS 18, 303, JJ:492 / JP 1, 759. 3 Imagination is relevant also in viewing dialectic as a trial-and-error method which maintains that “human thought develops in a way characterized by what is called the dialectical triad: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.” Karl Popper emphasizes that “the synthesis will, in every case, embody some new idea which cannot be reduced to earlier stages of the development. In other words, the synthesis will usually be much more than a construction out of material supplied by thesis and antithesis”; moreover, “dialectic is not applicable without exceptions...dialectic has no special affinity to logic.” Karl Popper, Conjectures and Tamar Aylat-Yaguri 264