Critique of Kierkegaard Within Manteia

Manteic theory ontology (as part of Resurrexit Spiritus) posits that imagination and rationality are not opposites but co-dependent forces, a synthesis that allows for a deeper understanding of reality. Yet Kierkegaard, in his rejection of Hegelianism, often dismissed reason as a mere tool of the intellect, incapable of grasping the divine mysteries but could this be a reflection from without? Is he speaking from experience here or lack of experience? The answer seems obvious. His famous assertion that “the individual is the one who has to take this leap” suggests that faith must be divorced from logic entirely, a position at its core incompatible with manteic comprehension of the nature of being. Rather the logic of reality must simply be followed upwards out of our range of material and physical vision. The subjective mistakes in application are ours alone and only ours.

Consider Kierkegaard’s treatment of Christ: for him, the Incarnation is not a historical event but a personal revelation, an experience that cannot be rationalised or observed. This is where we see the danger of this philosophy: by reducing truth to subjective feeling, we risk eliminating the very framework in which truth can be known at all. If faith must be felt, then what becomes of the objective reality upon which it rests? The manteic theory, by contrast, seeks to bridge this gap, not through the abandonment of reason but through its refinement. Accepting that imagination and rationality are co-dependent is to reject the false dichotomy between faith and logic, between the spiritual and the material.

What is not observed internally though? There is no third-party for external confirmation, but there is assuredly observation, as well as reason. Rather it is the well practised rationality and honest reason (moderation) in all things, including material reality, which best trains the mind for reasoned observation immanently. The internal discourse we call thought is sharpened in observation, internally and externally; as well logic is purely immanent. This is a back and forth climb, like left and right legs pushing the body up a ladder, with observation as our hands firmly gripping the frame of the ladder. So then is there any external confirmation of these internal changes? Most certainly in the form of the visible virtues. There is no leap necessary here, but merely fair observations and clear dialectical discourse in thought and communication. Is not a more moral society also observable? The judgement is not subjective here, but rather dependent upon skill.

Kierkegaard’s insistence on the individual as sole arbiter of truth alienates people from reality and the divine. If every person must find their own path to God, then what becomes of the body of Christ? What of the shared traditions and doctrines that have long guided humanity? The manteic approach, by contrast, sees the individual not as a solitary adventurer but as part of a greater whole, where imagination and reason work in concert to build a more complete picture of reality.

The thinker becomes (https://24k.cc/issue/202400-s2i0/). The truth is most certainly not in the subjective, but rather we are subjects of our imperfect reflection in objective truth.