976 SØRENKIERKEGAARD
God although he is worshiping an idol; the other prays in untruth to the true God and is
therefore in truth worshiping an idol.
If someone objectively inquires into immortality, and someone else stakes the
passion of the infinite on the uncertainty—where, then, is there more truth, and who has
more certainty? The one has once and for all entered upon an approximation that never
ends, because the certainty of immortality is rooted in subjectivity; the other is immor-
tal and therefore struggles by contending with the uncertainty.
Let us consider Socrates. These days everyone is dabbling in a few proofs or
demonstrations—one has many, another fewer. But Socrates! He poses the question
objectively, problematically: if there is an immortality. So, compared with one of the
modern thinkers with the three demonstrations, was he a doubter? Not at all. He stakes
his whole life on this “if”; he dares to die, and with the passion of the infinite he has so
ordered his whole life that it might be acceptable—if there is an immortality. Is there
any better demonstration for the immortality of the soul? But those who have the three
demonstrations do not order their lives accordingly. If there is an immortality, it must be
nauseated by their way of living—is there any better counter-demonstration to the three
demonstrations? The “fragment” of uncertainty helped Socrates, because he himself
helped with the passion of infinity. The three demonstrations are of no benefit whatever
to those others, because they are and remain slugs and, failing to demonstrate anything
else, have demonstrated it by their three demonstrations.
In the same way a girl has perhaps possessed all the sweetness of being in love
through a weak hope of being loved by the beloved, because she herself staked everything
on this weak hope; on the other hand, many a wedded matron, who more than once has
submitted to the strongest expression of erotic love, has certainly had demonstrations and
yet, strangely enough, has not possessed quod erat demonstrandum[that which was to be
demonstrated]. The Socratic ignorance was thus the expression, firmly maintained with
all the passion of inwardness, of the relation of the eternal truth to an existing person, and
therefore it must remain for him a paradox as long as he exists. Yet it is possible that in the
Socratic ignorance there was more truth in Socrates than in the objective truth of the entire
system that flirts with the demands of the times and adapts itself to assistant professors.
Objectively the emphasis is on what is said; subjectively the emphasis is on how
it is said. This distinction applies even esthetically and is specifically expressed when
we say that in the mouth of this or that person something that is truth can become
untruth. Particular attention should be paid to this distinction in our day, for if one were
to express in a single sentence the difference between ancient times and our time, one
would no doubt have to say: In ancient times there were only a few individuals who
knew the truth; now everyone knows it, but inwardness has an inverse relation to it.
Viewed esthetically, the contradiction that emerges when truth becomes untruth in this
and that person’s mouth is best interpreted comically. Ethically-religiously, the empha-
sis is again on:how. But this is not to be understood as manner, modulation of voice,
oral delivery, etc., but it is to be understood as the relation of the existing person, in his
very existence, to what is said. Objectively, the question is only about categories of
thought; subjectively, about inwardness. At its maximum, this “how” is the passion of
the infinite, and the passion of the infinite is the very truth. But the passion of the
infinite is precisely subjectivity, and thus subjectivity is truth. From the objective point
of view, there is no infinite decision, and thus it is objectively correct that the distinction
between good and evil is canceled, along with the principle of contradiction, and
thereby also the infinite distinction between truth and falsehood. Only in subjectivity is
there decision, whereas wanting to become objective is untruth. The passion of the