Ch.IV: Anxiety of Sin or Anxiety as the Consequence of Sin in the Single Individual Summation of proceeding: “The history of the individual life proceeds in a movement from state to state. Every state is posited by a leap. As sin entered into the world, so it continues to enter into the world if it is not halted. Nevertheless, every such repetition is not a simple consequence but a new leap. Every such leap is preceded by a state as the closest psychological approximation. This state is the object of psychology. To the extent that in every state possibility is present, anxiety is also present. Such is the case after sin is posited, for only in the good is there a unity of state and transition” (113). Anxiety is not annulled by the leap
We presume it would be, since anxiety is generated by possibility (“anxiety is defined as freedom’s disclosure to itself in possibility” (111)), and once sin is posited (leap), thus becomes an actual sin, we assume possibility becomes actuality and thereby annuls the anxiety … this is not the case.
Once sin is posited, anxiety now stands in relation to what is posited and what is the future; Anxiety’s “object” is no longer possibility (hence, lacks an object), but is now a determinate something and its nothing is an actual something because we have now posited good and evil concretely (111).
Sin is posited in the particular individual by a qualitative leap; w/ this positing, good & evil come to be.
§1: Anxiety about Evil: The posited sin is:
A) an annulled possibility as an unwarranted actuality
As such, anxiety can relate itself to it and undertake work to negate sin;
Sin signifies the concrete; anxiety wants the sin to go away, but not entirely (114)—Antipathetic sympathy and sympathetic antipathy—the simultaneous attraction-repulsion response;
Over time, this anxiety is most visible; anxiety desperate for repentance;
Repentance is always one step behind, always fails;
B) a consequence that is foreign to freedom
Anxiety here relates itself to the future appearance of this consequence, which is a possibility of a new state, knowing that no matter how low, one can sink lower;
Over time, this anxiety seems to fade, but spirit knows it is the most powerful;
“The only thing that is truly able to disarm the sophistry of sin is faith, courage to believe that the state itself is a new sin, courage to renounce anxiety without anxiety, which only faith can do; faith does not thereby annihilate anxiety, but, itself eternally young, it extricates itself from anxiety’s moment of death. Only faith is able to do this, for only in faith is the synthesis eternal and at every moment possible” (117). §2: Anxiety about the Good: Sin is posited (leap), and the individual continues in sin, and there are two formations in it:
A) formation in the good: in sin, and anxiety about evil
B) formation in evil (the Demonic): in sin, and anxiety about (& unfree relation to) good
The Aesthetic-Metaphysical View of the Demonic:
Demonic seen as misfortune, fate;
Approached sympathetically (not a good to sufferer; a means of protecting one’s own egotism: sympathy acquires significance/meaning by distinction of self from sufferer: “If the demonic is a fate, it may happen to anyone” (120));
The Ethical View of the Demonic:
Demonic see as something to be condemned;
Ethical judgment so severe to show “its sympathy was of a better quality” (121);
Identifies itself in thought with the phenomenon, which is shown to be guilt (hence, “the demoniac himself, according to his better possibility, would in fact desire all the cruelty and severity that was used against him” (121));
The Medical-Therapeutic View of the Demonic:
Demonic seen as something to be treated with medicine;
Viewed as purely physical and somatic;
“That three so different views are possible shows the ambiguity of the phenomenon and indicates that in a sense it belongs in all three spheres: the somatic [bodily], the psychic [mental], and the pneumatic [spiritual/of soul]” (122). The Demonic: “there are traces of it in every man, as surely as every man is a sinner. … In innocence there can be no question of the demonic” (122). “The demonic is a state. Out of this state, the particular sinful act can constantly break forth. However, the state is a possibility, although in relation to innocence it is an actuality posited by the qualitative leap. The demonic is anxiety about the good.” In Innocence:
Freedom not posited as freedom; freedom’s possibility is anxiety in the individual;
Freedom is posited as unfreedom (freedom is lost); freedom’s possibility is anxiety in the individual; but the absolute difference: freedom’s possibility is in relation to unfreedom (the opposite of innocence), hence a qualification disposed toward freedom;
Demonic desires to close itself off (despite this being an impossibility)—hence:
“The demonic is inclosing reserve and the unfreely disclosed”(123).
Inclosing Reserve: “is precisely the mute, and when it is to express itself, this must take place contrary to its will, since freedom, which underlies unfreedom or is its ground, by entering into communication with freedom from without, revolts and now betrays unfreedom in such a way that it is the individual who in anxiety betrays himself against his will” (123).
Freedom is expansive; the Unfree closes in on itself;
Metaphysically expressed, evil is the negative; Ethically expressed, evil is inclosing reserve;
Breaking the silence of the Inclosing Reserve needs a higher demon or silence (125). Disclosure: “The demonic is inclosing reserve, the demonic is anxiety about the good. Let the inclosing reserve be x, denoting the most terrible, the most insignificant, the horrible, whose presence in life few probably even dream about, but also the trifles to which no one pays attention. What then is the significance of the good as x? It signifies disclosure” (126-7).
May signify the highest (redemption) or insignificant (accidental remark);
Disclosure is the good because it is the first expression of salvation;