We saw on the sixth lecture how the Critic Johan Ludvig Heiberg, wrote a critical review of Either/Or that earned him Kierkegaard's animosity. What Kierkegaard responded with the article "a Word of Thanks to Professor Heiberg." This was by no means the end of the conflict. Heiberg was known for his famous literary journals such as "Couldn't Hones Flew in a Post or Kobenhavns Flyvende Post." At the beginning of 1844, Heiberg funded a new journal entitled "Iranian," which had an entirely new profile. At this time, Heiberg had become interested in astronomy, and this journal was intended to encourage new research in this field. He was on the second floor of this house, where Heiberg lived at that time, where he built his own private observatory. In the first issue of his new journal, Heiberg wrote an article entitled "The Astronomical Year." In this piece, he discusses the various changes that occur in nature, such as the movements of the planets and the changing of the seasons. In this context, he comes to mention Kierkegaard's new book "Repetition." He writes quote, "In a recently published work, which even has the word 'repetition' as its title, something very beautiful and fitting is said about this concept, but the author has not distinguished between the essentially different meanings which repetition has in the sphere of nature and in the sphere of spirit." As in his earlier review of Either/Or, Heiberg initially acknowledges something positive in Kierkegaard's work, but then criticizes it for misunderstanding something quite fundamental. Kierkegaard was angered by Heiberg's remarks here just as he had been angered by the previous review of Either/Or. He drafted a couple of different articles in response to Heiberg, but in the end he never published these. Kierkegaard saved his polemical response to Heiberg for his next book, entitled, Simply Prefaces. This book appeared on June the 17th,1844, and is written under the Guise of the Pseudonymous author Nicholas Notabene. This is a somewhat odd book in that, it consists of a series of different prefaces to other texts which were never written. It appears that Kierkegaard had a handful of unused text just lying around, but they cannot be really used for anything. Some of these texts included materials relevant for his criticism of Heiberg. Kierkegaard hit upon the idea of publishing them in a single text with the title "Prefaces." He had to give some kind of reason for why these texts were presented in this odd way, and so he concocted the following story. The author Nicholas Notabene is a married man, and his wife is angry with him because he spent so much time writing books and not enough time with her. So, she forbids him from writing books. Notabene however, is enamored in writing and can't desist. So, he tries to get around his wife's prohibition by writing note books but instead just prefaces. This explains why the book consists of a series of eight prefaces, that in a sense stand alone and are not prefaces to any particular book. In the work, Heiberg is mentioned directly several times, and in some passages, the perceptive reader can recognize Kierkegaard's response to both the review of Either/Or and the critical discussion of "Repetition." Indeed, Notabene criticizes the entire culture of literary critics, and the industry of book reviews in the second preface. As we saw in lecture six, in his article "a Word of Thanks to Professor Heiberg Kierkegaard," satirized Heiberg's constant use of the impersonal pronoun one, in his review of Either/Or. Now here, in the fourth of the prefaces, he does the same thing when he writes quote, "What, I wonder, will one say about this book now? My dear reader, if you're not able to find out in any other way, then our literary telegraph manager, Professor Heiberg will probably be kind enough to be a tax collector again and tally the votes, just as he did in connection with Either/Or." So, it seems that, one of Kierkegaard's primary goals and prefaces, was to criticize Heiberg in certain things that he stands for in the public eye, such as literary criticism and Hegelian philosophy. As a young man, Johan Ludvig Heiberg lived in a house in gammo strand, just about 50 meters from here. The house was located just across the canal facing the royal palace. The last of Kierkegaard's prefaces namely, Preface number eight, is also a criticism of Heiberg, but it's particularly interesting for our purposes, since in it Kierkegaard again employs some of the strategies that he learned from Socrates. This preface is ostensibly a preface to a new philosophical journal, that Nicholas Notabene wants to found. He begins by referring to Heiberg's philosophical journal Perseus, which began in 1837. The subtitle of Perseus is a journal for the Specutive Idea, which indicates Heiberg's intention. This journal is supposed to serve the purpose of spreading information about Hegel's speculative philosophy in Denmark. In the end, Heiberg's journal saw only two issues, in 1837 and 1838 and was then discontinued. Nicholas Notabene then contemplates his own prospects of succeeding with the new philosophical journal given that Heiberg's journal didn't flourish, despite the fact that Heiberg had extensive editorial experience and academic connections. Nicholas Notabene recalls that Heiberg in his treatise on the Significance of Philosophy for the present age claim that philosophy was the demand of the age, or in other words, philosophy was what was needed to help the age get past the forms of relativism and subjectivism that was so dominant. Given this diagnosis, Heiberg's attempt to found new philosophical journal, makes perfect sense. He takes this to be the cure for the ills of the day. Nicholas Notabene says that he too wants to serve philosophy with his new journal, but his service is quite different from that of Heiberg's journal. Instead of using his journal to explain philosophy to his readers as Heiberg does, Notabene admits openly that he doesn't understand philosophy, and that his journal will invite contributors to explain it to him. Notabene asks for the approval of his readers, when he explains his goal to work for philosophy by asking people to teach him about it. Quote, "Isn't this purpose good, and isn't it different from that of those who heretofore have tried to publish a philosophical journal, even if it is in harmony with theirs in wanting to serve philosophy? Yet the services are different: one serves it with his wisdom, another with his stupidity." Just as Socrates claimed to know nothing, Notabene claims to be straight forwardly stupid. Notabene refers to himself in an entirely humble and self-effacing manner while at the same time recognizing Heiberg as one of the leading cultural figures in Danish letters at the time. Just as Socrates invites others to teach him and to explained to him what they know so also Notabene invites contributors to his journal who can teach him and explain him the new philosophy. Like Socrates, Notabene refrains from making any positive claims himself, but instead simply listens to the claims of others and critically evaluates them. Heiberg was of course known for his promotion of Hegel's philosophy in Denmark, and so Notabene grants that Hegel's philosophy has explained everything. This is the same as Socrates' point of departure. He always grants immediately the claims of his interlocutors to know something. Notabene really states that he doesn't understand the account that Hegel's philosophy gives, and so he politely asks for an explanation of it. So, also Socrates after having heard the explanations or definitions given by his interlocutors, claims not to fully understand their explanation, and so he begins to ask follow-up questions, which reveal that the explanation is contradictory and thus unsatisfying. Notabene then like Socrates, ironically states his expectation to be enlightened about this, quote, "Since we now have so many philosophers here in Denmark, who with industry and good fortune have comprehended this philosophy, I happily expect the instruction for which I have wished." Socrates often begins by flattering his interlocutors for the knowledge they possess, thereby making it more difficult for them to refuse to answer his questions, after they have accepted his recognition. So, also, Notabene seems to oblige the Danish followers of Hegel to respond, since they're publicly known to have an understanding of Hegel's philosophy, which Notabene is the first to recognize. But given their public reputation as experts in this philosophy, these people like Heiberg, have no excuse for not responding as it were to Notabene is call for papers. With this context set up in this way, it is Heiberg who appears in the role of one of Socrates's interlocutors, perhaps even one of the softest, someone who claimed to know things and to teach things, but who in fact is ignorant, and even ignorant of his own ignorance. Here we can see how Kierkegaard takes his initial inspiration from Socrates and then translates it into his own modern Danish culturally you. Kierkegaard's next important work with Stages on Life's Way which appeared on April 30th 1845. This is another complex Pseudonymous book, that in many ways recalls Either/Or and seems to be a kind of sequel to it. The pond down to Victor Eremita from "Either/Or" is Hilarious Boban under the Pseudonymous editor, responsible for the publication of the new book. Like Victor Eremita, Hilarious Boban claims to have found texts that constitute the work. The book consists of three long chapters, with what amount to four different texts by four different authors. First, there's Invino Veritas, which is attributed to William Offham. Then, there's a text entitled some reflections on marriage and answer to objections, which was written by a married man, that is Judge William, the author of the second part of "Either/Or" Finally, the third large chapter consists of two works. There's a text entitled 'Guilty not Guilty' by Quidam, the Latin name for someone with respect to form. This text recalls the Seducer's Diary from "Either/Or". It's the story of a young man who like Kierkegaard, breaks off and engagement to his beloved fiance. As the title indicates, it's a meditation on his degree of culpability in the matter. This inspires another long texts called 'Letter to the Reader' by Frater Taciturnus, who claims to have found the manuscript of Guilty not Guilty at the bottom of a lake. Stages on Life's Way, thus represents a complex embedding stories within stories. While readers had been quick to try to identify Kierkegaard with for example Quidam, it's clear that the text as a whole is set up in a way such that Kierkegaard himself hides behind the different authors. Not only use the word Pseudonomous, but it also contains a handful of different authors, with convoluted relations to one another. There are thus many different levels of distancing of Kierkegaard as an author from the text that comprised the work. Kierkegaard's use of Socrates or Socratic strategy does whoever play an unmistakable role here. Indeed, Socrates is mentioned in all of the texts that appear in the book. Perhaps most notable is the section In Vino Veritas, where one can see clear signs of this influence. The title In Vino Veritas is Latin, it means simply, in wine the truth. That is when people drink, they lose their inhibitions and speak the truth. The text presents a series of speeches at a dinner party on the subject of love. The participants in the dinner party who give the speeches are well known Kierkegaardian Pseudonyms, Johann as the Seducer, Victor Eremita Constantine Constantius, and the young man from repetition. The model that Kierkegaard uses for In Vino Veritas is clearly Plato's dialogue 'The Symposium,' which likewise presents a banquet scene, in a series of speeches on the topic of love. Kierkegaard's self-consciously, uses the platonic dialogue to stage his own symposium with its own speeches. Towards the end of Stages on Life's Way in the letter to the reader, Frater Taciturnus discusses the religious question of sin and forgiveness. He understands the original state of human beings as that of immediacy, that is living in immediate harmony with nature and the world. Then, there is sin and the immediacy is broken. This is the stage of reflection. The religious question is, how to return to immediacy and undo the damage done by sin. Frater Taciturnus talks about third stage as the forgiveness of sin. This is what he refers to as a second immediacy. The harmony between humans and the world is restored, but it's no longer the same harmony as at the beginning. Clearly, he has in mind here the Christian doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by means of Jesus Christ. Socrates is invoked in this context. Father Taciturnus emphasizes the difficulty of the Christian doctrine, and warns against those people who claim to understand it. Here he's presumably referring to the academic theologians or well educated clergy of the day. He notes that, he is aware that, in the eyes of such people, he will be regarded as a stupid person who asks foolish questions. But he says that it doesn't bother him to be regarded in this way. Indeed, this was the way that many people regarded Socrates who said that he didn't know anything and pestered people with his questions. In the passage Father Taciturnus imagines what Socrates would say about the issue of sin and forgiveness and the responses of Kierkegaard's contemporaries. He has Socrates say quote, "Surely, what you're asking about is a difficult matter, and it has always amazed me that so many could believe that they understood a teaching such as that; but it has amazed me even more that some people have even understood much more." Here we can see Kierkegaard through his pseudonym, again taking up a Socratic posture vis-a-vis his contemporaries. He recognizes the difficulty and complexity of the issue which others fail to see. What does it mean to say that our sins are forgiven by Christ? He is content to remain in a situation of ignorance and uncertainty even if this means being the subject of public ridicule. This disposition reflects in his eyes the contradictory, paradoxical, and absurd nature of Christian belief. It is contemporary's fail to appreciate. He thus evoke Socrates to help in maintaining the correct disposition towards these issues. Once again, although it seems odd for us to imagine Socrates helping people to understand a Christian doctrine, Kierkegaard finds it extremely useful, and for this reason he returns to Socrates repeatedly as a model to follow.
