最近在看討論齊克果的書籍，看看這位聞名已久，卻始終無緣探究的哲學家，有著如何的特色。我借到了這本小書：John Douglas Mullen, Kierkegaard’s Philosophy: Self-Deception and Cowardice in the Present Age, The New American Library, Inc., 1981。不用功的HIYORI目前只看了三分之一，其中有些部分讓我頗為感動，節錄下來，與您分享。

至於我個人的感想呢？我只能說，目前我所見到的齊克果，是有著正面思考(positive thinking)的哲學家；令我感動的，正是此部分。當面臨人生分岔點時，我們永遠無法知道，在抉擇的背後，我們所犧牲的與將得到的，是否等值或超值。每一回抉擇都是一次賭注，而誰會是最後的贏家呢？唯有善用每一次機會、創造新生命的人吧？我想。

我經常想像自己死去又重生。但果真獲得新生了嗎？又將是如何的新生呢？我是善用每一回轉折、抑或糟蹋每一次機會呢？

對於這樣的問題，我無能回覆；只能義無反顧、向前邁步。

祝福你，我的朋友！^^

It is appropriate, of course, to mourn the loss of a loved one, but not in a way that destroys your own life and the life of others (feeling). It is appropriate to envision a new physical theory that overturns Einstein’s special relativity, but not in a way that ignores known evidence (knowledge). It is appropriate to decide to become a medical doctor even though you are now forty-two, but not in a way that ignores all the difficult steps that are required (will). Linguistically we smooth over the difficulties involved with words such as ”appropriate,” ”realistic,” ”reasonable,” ”proportionate.” But existentially, as existing persons, there are no clear rules. Only an act of our will can determine how it will be for us. Rules are impossible for the genuine person; life is too ambiguous. The struggle is perceptual, and so is anxiety. (John Douglas Mullen: 1981, p.49)

The dialectical pair temporal/ eternal is an even further narrowing down of the factors infinite/ finite and possible/ necessary. Every person must be aware of who and what he is now in order to determine who he can and cannot be. He must delimit imaginative possibility with necessity. To do that is to be free. When he does this, he is left with a set of real possibilities for his future self. So to the question ”Who is it possible for me to be?” any of the members of this set of real possibilities is a correct answer. But there is a further question, which is ”Which of these possible selves should I become? Which is the real me?” The idea here is that every person carries with him a real, true self, a self which he should be. This self is the ”true me” now, and in the future, whether or not I accept it as me. The term ”eternal” in the history of philosophy and in Kierkegaard’s thought refers (minimally) to the unchanging. The temporal refers to what is in time and therefore changing. Our lives, surroundings, worlds, are in time and thus subject to constant flux. Who each of us is is constantly changing at one level. We grow, mature, marry, divorce, change occupation, have children or grandchildren. But throughout all this I am still I, and you are still you. And I am who I am even if I never became that person. The eternal element in me is both my continuity and my true self. It is the self not only that I can become but that I should become. The very worst thing that can happen to me as a person, my most basic form of failure, is that I do not become who I am. This is the general nature of all spiritual corruption, ”for despair is precisely to have lost the eternal and oneself.” [SUD p.195] (John Douglas Mullen: 1981, p.50~51)

Sep.10, 2006