In his book The Sickness Unto Death Kierkegaard defines the self as:

“Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation which relates itself to its own self; the self is not a relation, but that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two [components]. So regarded, man is not yet a self. In the relationship between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate themselves to the relation, and in the relation to the

Given what we now know about humans being both eternal and temporal the paradox is apparent. How can a human be both eternal and temporal if they are contradictions to each other? Kierkegaard answers this question by introducing the concept of ‘the moment’ of decision. Mark C. Taylor in his book Kierkegaard’s Pseudonymous Authorship: A Study of Time and the Self describes the moment as: “In this moment, one faces one’s possibilities in full recognition of one’s actuality, and with a complete awareness of one’s freedom (limited though it is) to act to realize these possibilities. The decision that one make’s constitutes a further definition of one’s actuality.” (KPA 119) The eternal and the temporal come together in this moment because in the moment a choice has to be made but the choice is entirely dependent upon the agents fancy. To return to our example, let us say that the person is lying in bed deliberating whether or not to get out of bed this day. Let us say that it is now six fifty nine in the morning and this person starts work at eight o’clock and in order to get to work on time they have to be up by seven o’clock at the latest, I suppose we should also note that being late for work is not an option, if you are late you go home. So our person is laying bed weighing the pros and cons of getting out of bed when their alarm goes off indicating that it is now seven o’clock. In this moment that person has no choice but to make a choice whether or not they are getting out of bed, the eternal demands an answer! Meanwhile at this moment the temporal is providing options as to what the answer is going to be: stay in bed or get out…A or B. I think that is readily apparent that in this moment the individual is both experiencing the eternal and the temporal.

What then is the eternal? In one word the eternal is the unchanging, this is in opposition of the temporal which includes change and becoming. (KPA 91) It must now be asked what then Kierkegaard considers to be unchangeable. As humans we have the ability to rationally make decisions, whether or not higher order animals also have this ability is not our concern. What is our concern is that this decision making process gives us options. As humans we are constantly, every day engaged in an existence which forces us whether we like it or not to make decisions. One can choose to get out of bed in the morning, go to work, go home, relax and then go to bed. Or on the other hand one can choose not to get out of bed, miss work, relax and then go to bed. Obviously these are not the only possibilities that a human can choose, it is doubtful that a list could ever be made that encompasses all the possibilities of human action. What cannot be disputed is that humans have to make decisions in order to exist. Exceptions to this statement can be found i.e.) coma victims, but I think the point remains strong regardless, for the most part humans have to make choices in order to exist. Even if a decision is avoided, this can still be considered a choice. And this is what Kierkegaard calls unchanging “that which does not change within the self system is the fact of the self’s freedom”. (KPA 116-117) Freedom, the eternal, exists in humans because we have no choice in whether or not we get to make choices.

There we have it, the self according to Kierkegaard. He is putting forth the idea that humans are a synthesis of various elements that when comprised make humans uniquely human. A synthesis, in its traditional sense, consists of a thesis and an antithesis that are brought together to form the synthesis. Hegel is credited with this traditional view, Kierkegaard points out that his third factor in the synthesis process is a negative one whereas Kierkegaard’s is a positive one, “the relation is the positive third term…the relation is the instant in which spirit relates to the synthesis first by reflecting it, second by bringin

Some topics in this essay:
Death Kierkegaard, Possibility KPA, Study Self, Necessity Possibility, Kierkegaard’s Pseudonymous, Anxiety Kierkegaard, Unto Death, Philosophical Fragments, Dread Kierkegaard, Soren Kierkegaard, eternal temporal, human existence, relation relates own, relation relates, self self, relates own, self relation, temporal eternal, relation relation, infinite finite, own self, relates own self, sickness unto death, eternal freedom necessity, related infinite finite,