Kierkegaard, Sren, The Concept of Anxiety, trans. by Reidar Thomte (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, !"#$.

S%btit&e: '( Sim)&e Psycho&ogica&&y *rienting +e&iberation on the +ogmatic ,ss%e o.ereditary Sin/ 0sim)&e, as in not s)ec%&ative 0')sycho&ogica&&y orienting/ and 'dogmatic iss%e/ )oint o%t that it is not meta)hysica& (i.e., not on ho1 sin got started, or 1hat it is )er se$, b%t 1hat are h%man beings &ike s%ch that sin can become )ossib&e. (%thor: 2igi&i%s .a%-niensis 3 'The 1atchman o- 4o)enhagen/ 0in the )assage -rom 4UP cited by the editor in his notes on ). 55 , SK makes it c&ear -or 1hom the 1ork is intended: someone 1ho has not achieved the 'deve&o)ment o- in1ardness,/ b%t 1ho )ossesses kno1&edge6 someone 1ho does not need to know more, b%t needs to be 'in-&%enced./ 7)igra)h: 'The age o- making distinctions is )ast8/ 0S.K. obvio%s&y making a stab at .ege&ian synthesis Pre-ace: 2igi&i%s re9ects the h%bris o- a .ege&ian 1or&d0system, and scorns it as the a%thority -or 'the c%rrent year,/ i.e., an inte&&ect%a& -ad. ,ntrod%ction: 2igi&i%s )resents severa& e:am)&es o- ho1 .ege& and his -o&&o1ers have -ai&ed 'to )roceed in a scienti-ic manner/ by -orgetting the )ro)er bo%ndaries o- their st%dy: . .ege& introd%ces act%a&ity into &ogic. 0b%t since the act%a& is contingent, it cannot be )art o- &ogic, 1hich dea&s 1ith the necessary6 0and since this is tr%e, &ogic has tried to think something 1hich it cannot. 5. .ege&;s -o&&o1ers, in )resenting their dogmatic theo&ogy, have ca&&ed -aith 'the immediate./ 0th%s, -aith becomes something that everyone thinks it is easy to s%r)ass6 0-aith thereby &oses its 'historica& )res%))ositions,/ i.e., the content oreve&ation, the <os)e& story6 0dogmatics &ike1ise &oses its beginning )oint. 0&ogic )res%mes the 'ann%&ment/ o- immediacy6 =. .ege& re)&aced 'synthesis/ 1ith 'mediation./ 0as a res%&t, ethics and dogmatics 'become radica&&y con-%sed/ (). 5$6

0-or .ege& regards &ogic 3 that is, -or Kierkegaard, the science o- the idea& 3 and dogmatics 3 that is, the science o- the >ogos, the ?ord made -&esh 3 as 'reconci&ed/. @. .ege& introd%ced the negative into &ogic as a )rinci)&e o- movement. 02igi&i%s arg%es that &ogic &acks act%a& movement6 &ogica& negation does not )rod%ce any, either6 0so, the negative as evi& is im)orted -rom ethics, thereby in t%rn distorting the ethica& conce)t o- evi& into a &ogica& one. These movements created by the negative, 2igi&i%s says, are 'too m%ch/ in &ogic, 'and in ethics too &itt&e./ (). =$ The theme o- the 1ork: 'the )sycho&ogica& treatment o- the conce)t o- Aan:iety;./ (). @$ 0this treatment 1i&& a&so take into acco%nt the re&ationshi) o- an:iety to the dogma o- hereditary sin. S,N 0sin has 'no )&ace/ in )sycho&ogica& st%dies6 1hen it is disc%ssed 1here it does not be&ong, this res%&ts in an a&teration o- the 'mood/ )ro)er to it6 0the )ro)er mood -or sin is earnestness, and it is to be overcome6 0i- sin is dea&t 1ith in aesthetics, the mood becomes either comic or tragic6 i- it is dea&t 1ith in meta)hysics, the mood becomes 'that o- dia&ectica& %ni-ormity and disinterestedness/6 i- sin is dea&t 1ith )sycho&ogica&&y, the mood is that o- ')ersistent observation/ o- a 'state/ (). B$6 0sin is not a state, as it constant&y %ndermines itse&-6 )sycho&ogy 1o%&d st%dy this as a state 1ith detached 'c%riosity/6 b%t, 2igi&i%s says, 'the )ro)er mood is earnestness e:)ressed in co%rageo%s resistance./ (). B$ 0there is no science o- sin 3 it be&ongs in dogmatics 3 e.g., in the sermon 1here one 'sing&e individ%a&/ s)eaks to another 'sing&e individ%a&/ 0 not science6 0sin does not be&ong in ethics, either, since ethics is the science o- the idea& (acc%sing, 9%dging, acting (). !$6 trying 'to bring idea&ity into act%a&ity/ C). DE$6 0'-irst ethics/ 0 beca%se it %)ho&ds the idea& and seeks to bring the act%a& %) to the idea& 0 is 'shi)1recked/ on the sin-%&ness o- the 'sing&e individ%a&,/ beca%se this cannot be incor)orated into ethics6 the 'ne1/ or 'second ethics/ )res%))oses dogmatics (). 5#$, and there-ore can e:)&ain sin, 1hi&e sti&& %)ho&ding idea&ity 3 seeking to rea&iFe the idea& by ascending -rom be&o1. 0&ike1ise, )sycho&ogy cannot st%dy the emergence o- sin, b%t on&y its )artic%&ar mani-estations6 )sycho&ogy can st%dy the ')redis)osing )res%))osition,/ the )ossibi&ity, o- sin, and can st%dy this )redis)osition %) to the )oint 1here the sin act%a&&y takes )&ace, b%t it cannot st%dy the G%a&itative di--erence 1hereby the )redis)osition to sin becomes an act%a& sin ()). 5 055$6 (second$ ethics

takes %) 1here sin &eaves o--, at the )oint 1here sin is 'act%a&&y )osited/ (). 55$6 0)sycho&ogy e:amines the 'rea& )ossibi&ity o- sin,/ 1hi&e dogmatics e:)&ores the 'idea& )ossibi&ity o- sin/ (). 5=$. ,. (n:iety as the Pres%))osition o- .ereditary Sin and as 7:)&aining .ereditary Sin Retrogressive&y in Terms o- ,ts *rigin H . .istorica& ,ntimations Regarding the 4once)t o- .ereditary Sin ,n order to e:)&ain sin, traditiona& theo&ogy had reco%rse to a '-antastic beginning,/ 1hich eG%ated sin 1ith the -irst sin, that o- (dam. .o1ever, this had the e--ect o)&acing (dam o%tside o- history 3 in a )aradise, 1here he and 7ve )ossessed a&& )er-ections, and re)resented a&& o- h%manity. They become the so%rce o- sin;s entering history, b%t are themse&ves o%tside the conseG%ences o- sin. 0b%t this makes the )resent0day individ%a& invo&ved in hereditary sin on&y historica&&y, thro%gh (dam6 b%t '.ereditary sin is something )resent6 it is sin-%&ness8/. (). 5D$ (dam, in re&ation to sin, is no di--erent -rom %s 3 to e:)&ain his sin is to e:)&ain hereditary sin, and vice verse. I%t, in a sense, this is tr%e o- any individ%a& 3 -or every individ%a& ')artici)ates/ in the '1ho&e race/ and vice versa. 7very individ%a& has a history 3 history meaning a task in 1hich the end o- the task (becoming an individ%a&$ and the movement o- the task itse&- to1ard that end (becoming an individ%a&$ are the same. ()). 5"05!$ The h%man race &ike1ise has a history, and every individ%a& is a member o- that history. (). 5!$ So, (dam is at once an individ%a& and a member o- the race, b%t '.e is not essentia&&y di--erent -rom the race./ (). 5!$ H5. The 4once)t o- the Jirst Sin 'Jirst/ in regard to sin does not re-er to the G%antity o- the sin (-or i- it mere&y meant that it 1as one sin, this 1o%&d not have any historica& conseG%ences$, b%t the G%a&ity o- it. (dam;s -irst sin bro%ght sin into the 1or&d in the same 1ay that every )erson;s -irst sin brings sin into the 1or&d. (). = $ This '&ea)/ into sin is a G%a&itative one, and as s%ch cannot be tho%ght thro%gh6 th%s, the -irst sin is red%ced to a myth. (). =56 see the 'nis0ba&&s/ e:am)&eK$ The traditiona& )hrase 'Iy (dam;s -irst sin, sin came into the 1or&d/ is eG%ivoca&, and it is easi&y over&ooked that by (dam;s -irst sin, sin-%&ness a&so entered (dam. ()). =50==$

H=. The 4once)t o- ,nnocence .ege& (or his -o&&o1ers$ con-%sed immediacy and innocence. Jor &ogic, immediacy is that 1hich is )res%))osed, b%t a&so does not e:ist (immediacy does not e:ist %nti& mediacy is )osited6 b%t 1hen this takes )&ace, immediacy is in that same instant ann%&&ed 3 ). =L$. ,nnocence be&ongs to ethics, not &ogic. ,t is %nethica& to ann%& innocence, -or this can on&y be done by g%i&t. (). =B$ ?hi&e this ann%&ment does take )&ace, ethics does not a&&o1 %s to -orget that it is %nethica&. 7very )erson inc%rs g%i&t and the &oss o- innocence in the same 1ay. The re)&acement o- innocence by g%i&t is not &ike the re)&acement o- immediacy by the mediacy. The &atter is an 'immanent movement,/ i.e., immediacy gives rise oitse&- to mediacy, or vice versa. I%t g%i&t is G%a&itative&y di--erent -rom innocence, and is a transcendence o- innocence. (). =L$ ,nnocence is a state s%ch that one 1ho has it does not kno1 it, and one 1ho seeks to have it has a&ready &ost it. ,nnocence is ignorance. H@. The 4once)t o- the Ja&& ?hi&e (dam 1as in a sense 'more/ ignorant o- sin that 1e, that does not mean that his sin-%&ness di--ered -rom o%rs 3 a G%antitative di--erence is not a G%a&itative one. (). ="$ 01e seek to avoid the rea& 1eight o- sin by taking ass%ming an aesthetic )ost%re o- sorro1-%&ness to1ard it. Psycho&ogy can on&y e:)&ain sin %) to the )oint at 1hich it occ%rs, and becomes g%i&t. ,- the )rohibition to eat the -r%it o- the tree is considered as 'conditioning/ the -a&& by e&iciting conc%)iscence, this %ndermines the G%a&itative di--erence bet1een innocence and g%i&t. HB. The 4once)t o- (n:iety ,nnocence is immediacy 3 a state in 1hich the h%man s)irit is 'dreaming./ (). @ $ That is, (dam;s state )rior to the Ja&& is not one o- )er-ection, b%t one o- ignorance o- the distinction o- good and evi&. This dreaming s)irit is ignorant o- act%a&ity6 it is a1are o- nothing, 1hich res%&ts in an:iety. '(1ake, the di--erence bet1een myse&- and my other is )osited6 s&ee)ing, it is s%s)ended6 dreaming, it is an intimated nothing./ ()). @ 0@5$

(NM,7TN (n:iety is not -ear, b%t rather '-reedom;s act%a&ity as the )ossibi&ity o- )ossibi&ity./ (). @5$ That is, the dreaming s)irit;s act%a&ity, 1hich is essentia&&y -reedom, is not kno1n to it, and there-ore is bare )ossibi&ity 1itho%t G%a&i-ication. (n:iety is a 'sym)athetic anti)athy/ and an 'anti)athetic sym)athy/ 3 i.e., something to1ard 1hich 1e are dra1n at the same time as 1e are re)%&sed by it. 4om)are the chi&dish -ascination -or advent%re, -or the horri-ic. (n:iety )&ays an ambig%o%s ro&e in the )assage -rom innocence to g%i&t, -or 1hi&e one is assa%&ted by an:iety as -rom the o%tside (a&beit by nothing$, sti&& one '&oved even as he -eared it./ (). @=$ S.K.;s dia&ectica& de-inition o- h%man being: h%man being is a synthesis o- psyche (so%&$ and physis (the )hysica&, the body$. The synthesis o- these is ca&&ed s)irit (nous$. S)irit is )resent in the re&ation bet1een body and so%& as a 'hosti&e s)irit/ 1hich both dist%rbs and reconci&es the t1o. (n:iety is the re&ation o- the s)irit to itse&- in ignoranceOinnocence. (n:iety cannot be esca)ed in anima&ity, -or the h%man cannot get rid o- s)irit (nor 1ants to, tho%gh at the same time8$. (n:iety is ignorance 1itho%t an ob9ect, or 1ith nothing as its ob9ect. ,gnorance gets intensi-ied 1hen it gets an ob9ect6 this -irst ob9ect is the commandment not to eat o- the -r%it o- good and evi&. I%t o- co%rse, (dam co%&d not %nderstand the commandment, beca%se he did not kno1 1hat good and evi& are. Th%s, ignorance is intensi-ied, and 1ith it an:iety. The )rohibition o- the -r%it makes (dam a1are -or the -irst time o- '-reedom;s )ossibi&ity,/ i.e., choice. (). @@$ The an:iety is increased by the )ena&ty -or disobedience (death$, another )ossibi&ity (dam cannot conceive. 'The in-inite )ossibi&ity o- being ab&e that 1as a1akened by the )rohibition no1 dra1s c&oser, beca%se this )ossibi&ity )oints to a )ossibi&ity as its seG%ence./ (). @B$ This is the end0)oint -or )sycho&ogy6 it cannot go -%rther 1ith the investigation. HD. (n:iety as the Pres%))osition o- .ereditary Sin and as 7:)&aining .ereditary Sin Retrogressive&y in Terms o- ,ts *rigin

S.K. considers 7ve, as a 'derived/ )erson (1hich, s%bseG%ent&y, 1e a&& are$6 as s%ch, she 1as )redis)osed to1ard sin-%&ness. I%t this )redis)osition, no matter ho1 in-inite&y G%antitative&y )otentiated, does not res%&t in sin. Sin on&y comes abo%t thro%gh an individ%a&;s G%a&itative act. S.K. c&aims that he cannot e:)&ain the ro&e o- the ser)ent. .e re9ects the idea o- a tem)tation -rom 1itho%t that is s%--icient to res%&t in sin (1e are a&1ays res)onsib&e -or o%rse&ves, des)ite e:terna& tem)tation$. .e denies (on Iib&ica& gro%nds$ that <od does not tem)t h%mans. ,- the ser)ent is a&&o1ed to be a tem)ter, then he tem)ts <od, too, and this is im)ossib&e. The -a&& cannot be tho%ght by )sycho&ogy, b%t 1e can consider its conseG%ences, name&y sin-%&ness and se:%a&ity, 1hich m%st be tho%ght together. Since h%mans are a synthesis o- so%& and body, the one act o- sin e--ects both, res%&ting in sin and se:%a&ity. (). @"$ Se:%a&ity is )osited in the same instant that the s)irit 'becomes act%a&./ (). @!$ Se:%a&ity is )osited as a contradiction 1ithin the synthesis o- so%& and body (a str%gg&e o- so%& 1ith body$, and is there-ore a task (to reconci&e the contradiction$, and hence a history (the history o- each individ%a&;s 3 and h%manity;s 3 attem)ts to overcome this contradiction$. (). @!$ Jreedom (the sheer -act o- 'being ab&e/$, or )ossibi&ity, becomes act%a& in the moment o- sin6 this cannot ha))en direct&y, b%t ha))ens thro%gh the intermediary o- an:iety. (n:iety itse&- cannot demonstrate the G%a&itative &ea) -rom innocence to sin, b%t it stands bet1een them, as 'entang&ed -reedom./ (). @!$