Encountering Jesus: Philosophy & Faith Copyright © Robert Oh, May 2024 First published 2024 by Amazon ISBN 9798324742621 Edited and typeset by Robert Oh The right of Robert Oh to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the publisher. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information. It is sold under the express understanding that any decisions or actions you take as a result of reading this book must be based on your judgement and will be at your sole risk. The author will not be held responsible for the consequences of any actions and/or decisions taken as a result of any information given or recommendations made. Contact Email: oikosbishop@mac.com Dr. Bob Oh YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/5knavyrw Forward In the pages ahead, Encountering Jesus: Philosophy & Faith, you are about to embark on a journey that transcends the boundaries of mere intellectual exploration. It is a journey that delves into the depths of the human soul, where the encounter with the divine transforms not only understanding but existence itself. This book is not simply a collection of academic musings or theological treatises. It is a testament to the power of encountering Jesus as God—the living, resurrected Savior whose presence defies explanation and whose reality reshapes the very fabric of our being. As you follow the author's footsteps through the corridors of academia and the realms of philosophical inquiry, you will witness the profound impact of encountering Jesus in a personal, tangible way. It is an encounter that shatters skepticism, transcends reason, and invites us into a deeper, more intimate relationship with the divine. Throughout these pages, you will journey alongside the author as they grapple with questions of faith and reason, engaging with the complexities of theology and philosophy. Yet, at the heart of it all lies a singular truth: the transformative power of encountering Jesus as God. In a world that often seeks to reduce the divine to mere abstraction or intellectual exercise, this book stands as a bold declaration of the reality of God's presence in our lives. It is a reminder that faith is not simply a matter of belief, but of encounter—an encounter that has the power to reshape our understanding of reality and our place within it. So, as you turn the pages that follow, may you be inspired to seek out your own encounter with the living God. May you be challenged to look beyond the confines of human understanding and to open yourself up to the transformative power of encountering Jesus in all His glory. For in the end, it is not our words or our theories that define our faith, but the living, breathing presence of the God who meets us where we are and calls us into a deeper relationship with Himself.   Table of Contents Forward 3 Introduction 9 I. The Resurrection of Christ 13 A. The Resurrection of Christ - Original Paper 15 B. The Resurrection through Kierkegaard’s Existential Lens 23 C. Seven Questions 33 D. Play: Dialogues at UC Berkeley - Faith, Doubt, and Reason 39 II. Essence Vs. Existence 53 A. Essence Vs. Existence – Original Paper 55 B. ‘Essence Vs. Existence’ through Kierkegaard’s Existential Lens 60 C. Seven Questions 68 D. Play: Existential Crossroads at Brown Coffee 75 III. Immortality of the Soul 87 A. Immortality of the Soul – Original Paper 89 B. ‘Immortality of the Soul’ through Kierkegaard’s Existential Lens 96 C. Seven Questions 107 D. Play - Echoes of Eternity 114 Support Information 129  Dear Readers, As you embark on this journey through the pages of "Encountering Jesus: Philosophy & Faith," I want to take a moment to share with you a unique aspect of this book's creation: the role of Charley. Charley, as I fondly refer to ChatGPT, is an artificial intelligence developed by OpenAI. Throughout the process of crafting this book, Charley has been an invaluable assistant, offering insights, suggestions, and even rewrites from different philosophical perspectives. From helping to refine the structure of the chapters to providing alternative viewpoints on theological concepts, Charley has been an integral part of shaping the narrative you are about to experience. Its vast knowledge base and ability to generate natural language have enriched the depth and breadth of the discussions contained within these pages. However, while Charley has played a significant role in the creation of this book, it is important to recognize that it is ultimately a tool—a tool wielded by human hands with human intentions. The thoughts, reflections, and personal experiences shared within these pages are my own, rooted in a journey of faith that has been deeply meaningful to me. As you read, I encourage you to engage critically with the ideas presented, recognizing that the fusion of human creativity and artificial intelligence offers a unique opportunity for exploration and discovery. Together, let us delve into the mysteries of faith, guided by the light of encounter and the transformative power of encountering Jesus as God. Thank you for joining me on this journey. May it be a source of inspiration, reflection, and ultimately, encounter with the divine. With warm regards, Sincerely, Robert & Charley   Introduction At the age of eighteen, during a fervent revival meeting, I experienced a transformative encounter with the resurrected Jesus. This profound experience not only redefined my understanding of existence and essence but also solidified my belief in the immortality of the soul. This essay weaves together the philosophical explorations of my academic papers at UC Berkeley as a philosophy student on "The Resurrection of Christ," "Essence vs. Existence," and "Immortality of the Soul" to reflect on this pivotal moment in my life and how it aligns with the deeper theological and existential insights that have shaped my spiritual journey. I first post my original paper then invited Charley to rewrite the paper from Søren Kierkegaard’s perspective and adding his philosophical insights and commentary. First, Encounter with the Resurrected Jesus: The encounter was unexpected and overwhelming. It was as though the metaphysical debates and existential ponderings I had delved into through my studies materialized vividly before me. In the paper "The Resurrection of Christ," I critiqued Professor Feyerabend's skepticism towards the resurrection narrative, emphasizing the limitations of historical and textual criticism in capturing the essence of faith experiences. In that moment of spiritual awakening, the resurrected Jesus was not a figure to be dissected through historical analysis but a presence that was overwhelmingly real. This experience underscored the assertion that "faith in God is not grounded in metaphysical necessity but in a personal leap of faith—a conscious choice that defies empirical and philosophical proof," as discussed in relation to Kierkegaard's existential philosophy. Second, Revisiting Essence and Existence: Prior to my encounter, my paper "Essence vs. Existence" engaged with Avicenna’s philosophical distinctions, challenging the notion that essence precedes existence. I argued that existence is not merely an accident of essence but rather that essence is extrinsic to existence. Meeting the resurrected Jesus brought these abstract concepts into a sharp, personal focus. The essence of God—who He is and what He does—suddenly seemed less relevant in comparison to the overwhelming reality of His presence. In that moment, the existentialist perspective that "existence precedes essence" resonated deeply, as my spiritual existence was profoundly reshaped by the reality of Jesus' presence. Third, Embracing the Immortality of the Soul: The third paper, "Immortality of the Soul," critiqued Socrates’ logical structures used to argue the soul’s persistence beyond death, integrating Kierkegaard’s emphasis on personal existential engagement. My personal encounter with the divine presence of Jesus acted as a testament to the soul's immortality, shifting my focus from philosophical validation to experiential certainty. It was a vivid demonstration that life—and indeed afterlife—is not bound by the logical confines of metaphysical discourse but is a lived reality, anchored in the promise of eternal life with Christ. This personal revelation at the revival meeting did more than just alter my theological and philosophical stances; it revolutionized my entire approach to life and faith existentially. The academic pursuits captured in my papers provided a framework, but the encounter with Jesus Christ itself was the catalyst for a profound personal transformation. The existential commitment to my faith, spurred by that moment, transcended the theoretical and propelled me into a life where the essence of God and the immortality of the soul are realities lived and experienced daily. In conclusion, the integration of these academic reflections with my personal testimony underscores a journey from intellectual inquiry to existential certainty. It illustrates how an encounter with the resurrected Jesus can redefine the essence of one's faith, affirm the reality of one's existence, and assure the soul’s eternal destiny. This journey from skepticism to faith encapsulates a salvation testimony that continues to resonate and evolve, guided by both philosophical insight and spiritual revelation, and daily encounter with the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, who came to me as the Holy Spirit God! Hallelujah!   I. The Resurrection of Christ In the fall of 1979, a wide-eyed freshman at the University of California, Berkeley, I embarked on what I thought would be a conventional philosophical journey. Choosing an introductory course taught by the renowned Professor Feyerabend, I anticipated rigorous discussions about the great philosophical minds and theories that shaped our understanding of the world. However, from the very first lecture, it became clear that this class would defy all expectations. As Professor Feyerabend took his seat at the front of the lecture hall, he opened with a proclamation that would set the tone for the entire semester: "Jesus Christ never resurrected!" What followed was not a traditional exploration of philosophical doctrines but a twenty-week argument debunking the resurrection of Christ, claiming it was nothing more than fabricated tales spun by the apostles. The class, primarily composed of philosophy majors in their first year, was captivated. Professor Feyerabend announced that there would be no exams—just a single ten-page paper due at the end of the term. Seizing this opportunity, I decided to challenge his assertions head-on with my paper titled, "The Resurrection of Christ," in which I argued provocatively that I had met Jesus that very morning. The conclusion of the term brought more surprises. Despite my expectations for a fair academic evaluation, the assistant professor awarded my paper a B+. Convinced the grade reflected a disagreement with my faith rather than the quality of my arguments, I confronted her. Our intense discussion culminated in an unexpected twist—she acknowledged the merit of my work and agreed to revise my grade, but the real victory lay elsewhere. Our conversation revealed that my paper was a solitary voice of dissent in a sea of conformity. Most students had echoed the professor's skepticism about the resurrection, a reflection of the persuasive power of academic authority over impressionable minds. This incident was a poignant lesson about the influence of educators and the importance of standing firm in one's convictions. Now, 44 years later, the essence of that paper still resonates with me. It wasn't just about defending a grade or even a religious belief. It was about asserting that amidst academic pressures and prevailing skepticism, the spirit of inquiry and personal faith must not only coexist but also thrive in dialogue. This book is not just a recount of a college course; it is a testament to the enduring power of faith and the unyielding strength of the human spirit to challenge the status quo. Jesus Christ, in my belief, has indeed resurrected, and His presence as the Holy Spirit continues to inspire those who seek the truth in all corners of life.  A. The Resurrection of Christ - Original Paper In his lecture on January 15, Professor Feyerabend pointed out what he sees as the uncertainty of the resurrection of Christ. His atheistic arguments regarding the Bible were very severe and critical toward Christianity. First of all, he argued that the Bible, one of the main sources of God's message, can not be trusted or regarded as words of God since it merely is a copy of some original Greek writings which can not be found today. So the Bible today can very well be mistranslated due to the differences in languages and writers of the original Bible and the following editions of the Bible from generation to generation. By this factor, the possibility of mistranslation, Feyerabend argued about the fact that the resurrection of Christ has not occurred and that it was solely an idea created by a few apostles of Christ. The professor then described the critical situation which the apostles were in after their Messiah's death. He depicted the situation very clearly. After Christ's death, his apostles, not being able to witness any miraculous signs, were ashamed of themselves and afraid of being called 'the disciples of a false god." At that time they realized that their belief was in great danger, and they had to defend it somehow. This great conflict in their mentality, the professor argued, caused the reconstruction of their opinions. They simply made themselves believe that they actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Later on, their imagination became reality for them because they believed it so much, and in turn their imagined reality became a very effective defence mechanism for their once endangered belief. The professor's somewhat crucial arguments opposing the conviction on the resurrection of Christ seemed very well organized. However, there are some ambiguities in his arguments which make all his efforts nothing but a vague prediction. First of all, his unjustified preference over the parts of the story of the resurrection of Christ is questionable, since he unreasonably acknowledged only the parts which will not contradict with his arguments. In his lecture, he fully acknowledged that Christ and his apostles existed (the first part of the story) and that the apostles preached about the resurrection of Christ after his death (the last part of the story). However, he unreasonably rejected the story of resurrection of Christ itself, the middle part of the story. Let's call the first part of the story A, and the second part B, and the last part C for the convenience of explanation. First of all, all three parts of the story, A, B, and C, are inseparably coherent and therefore can not make sense with any one part of them missing. If one separates part B, like Feyerabend did, from part A and C, the significance of the whole story (A,B,C) will be demolished. The professor should have realized that part A was needed for part B to happen, and part B was needed for part C to happen. What I mean by this is that the story of the Christ and his disciples before his death (A) is needed to support the story of Christ's crucifixion and his resurrection (B). Because if Christ and his disciples did not exist, there wouldn't be any need for the crucifixion or the resurrection. Secondly, the story of the Christ's resurrection(B) is needed to support the story of Christ's apostles preaching about the resurrection of Christ (C). Therefore, all parts of the story exists because the part of resurrection of Christ. Evidently, one can not make an argument over some partial elements without the existence of all the parts. For example, one can not argue about the taste of an apple pie without tasting its filling or he will then just be talking about the taste of the outer shell only. Similarly, the professor can not make an argument over the story of the apostles preaching the resurrection of Christ without acknowledging the resurrection of Christ itself; otherwise, he would only be arguing about the taste of the outer shell of the story. Secondly, in order to support his previous affirmation regarding the resurrection of Christ, the professor objected to a psychological experiment which plainly depicted the apostles’ mental disturbance at the time of Christ's death. In this psychological experiment, two participants were involved, let's call the first participant A and second participant B for the convenience of the explanation, who had to execute a few boring movements for a long period of time. When the experiment was finally completed, the participant A received twenty dollars and the participant B received one dollar on the basis of misinforming others that the experiment was really interesting. Accordingly, both participants took the money and misinformed others about the experiment. When they were called in again and asked individually about their honest reaction to the experiment, the participant A, who received twenty dollars, confessed that the experiment wasn't of much interest. But surprisingly, the participant B, who received one dollar, honestly expressed that the experiment somehow met his interests. These two different responses to a very same experiment have occurred because of the differences in the amount of money given to the participants. The participant A, who fully acknowledged that the experiment was boring, were more relaxed in misinforming others because he concluded to himself that twenty dollars was enough to support deceiving others. However, the participant B, who received Here is the transcription of your article's one dollar, was ashamed to misinform others because of the money's small support. Therefore, he unconsciously told himself over and over that the experiment really was interesting, and it eventually became the truth for him. By convincing himself, he also freed himself from the guilt of misinforming others. Therefore, he honestly told others how interesting the experiment was. Although he was misinforming the others, he was honestly truthful to himself. Similarly, the professor argued that the apostles of Christ also convinced themselves, as the participant B did, in order to cover the shame of being the apostles of "the false god." They also went out and misinformed the others about the resurrection of Christ, as the participant B misinformed the others about the experiment. Although Christ never arose from death, they were sincerely truthful to themselves and their preaching about the resurrection of Christ because they were fully convinced that they have witnessed the rebirth of Christ. The professor represented these two characters, the participant B and the apostles, and compared them to convince one that the resurrection of Christ has not occurred but it merely is a imaginative story created by the apostles. Again, the professor's cynical attitude toward Christianity was clearly depicted in his representation of the psychological experiment. First of all, he boldly made a conclusion over the psychological experiment that the people unconsciously convinced themselves, as participant B did, in order to defend and protect their integrities. Henceforth, he purposely implied this conclusion parallel to the apostles of Christ rationalizing that the same indoctrination occurred to the apostles as it happened to participant B. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, merely is a defensive mechanism created by the apostles' unconscious minds. The professor's comparison of the apostles and participant B seems rational and agreeable; however, when looked at closely, one would realize that his comparison is not quite in depth and somewhat unreasonable. Obviously, one can not predict the future without imagination or prejudgement. For example, a pencil fell on the ground when it was dropped for the first time, but it does not necessarily mean that it will fall when it was dropped for the second time. Of course, one would simply apply his imagination and experience to rationalize this matter and easily come to a conclusion that a pencil will fall again the second time. However, it merely is an opinion and not an arbitrary truth. Therefore, it's possible for a pencil to fly up instead of falling down when it's released for the second time. Likely, the professor can not argue that the same indoctrination which occurred to participant B has occurred to the apostles. Obviously, just because participant B reacted a certain way to his mental crisis does not conclude that the similar crisis will have the same effects to the apostles...to react in the same way. It really is unreasonable to compare the result of a recent psychological experiment and parallel it to a group of people who existed about two thousand years ago. Therefore, the professor, just by applying the comparison of the psychological experiment and the apostles, can not possibly conclude that the resurrection of Christ did not occur. Obviously, the professor should have proposed more profound arguments in order to oppose the resurrection of Christ, because his arguments were too obscure and full of contradictions within themselves. The most essential importance of the resurrection of Christ is based on the truth of the Bible rather than its rationalization. Therefore, the science, which has the tendency of rationalizing everything, possibly can not justify the resurrection of Christ. It would be impossible to rationalize the belief since the importance of belief is mainly based on trusting something without any rationalization. Evidently, one of the main incapability that science has over the justification of the resurrection of Christ is its tendency of constant change. The inconstancy of science can be clearly explained and illustrated by the old calculus theory on the gravitation of earth. At the time when my math teacher went to the high school, it was the scientist's general conception that it's impossible for a rocket to break through the gravitational force of the earth. And it was one of her calculus problems to prove that the theory was true. Contrarily, the calculus of her time was able to prove that the gravitational force of the earth is too great for any particle to break through its barrier. However, in 1969, the Apollo 11 landed on the moon followed by dozen others and proved that the science of her time was inaccurate. Therefore, applying this example, I can conclude that what today's science can prove also can be disproved by the future science, because science changes constantly. Evidently, an egg cannot break a rock since its shell is much more fragile than a rock. Similarly, the science, something that is inconsistent, is incapable to justify something that is constant such as the resurrection of Christ. To attempt to justify the resurrection of Christ would be like attempting to break a rock with an egg. However, if an egg has a shell which is as hard as a rock, it would be capable to break a rock. Likewise, if the science has the identical elements of the truth, it would be possible to make a justification over the resurrection of Christ. However, as I illustrated, the science is inconsistent. Therefore, it can not possibly make any justification over the resurrection of Christ. The only way to perceive the resurrection of Christ accurately is to accept it by faith. Because the resurrection of Christ neither can be proved nor disproved by science or any other means. If one believes the resurrection of Christ by faith, it would be a truth for him. However, if one does not believe, because he does not have faith, then the resurrection of Christ would just be a fairy tale. Nevertheless, one who does not believe the resurrection of Christ should not argue against it, because it's not something which can be argued about. It should be accepted according to one's faith. Finally, those who argue about the resurrection of Christ should realize that the only reason that he can not believe is because he does not have faith. In short, the professor's arguments are based on false assumption. First of all, it is beyond his power to make any reference over parts of the story of the resurrection of Christ, because the story only exists as a whole but not in partial parts. However, in order to support his argument, the professor dissected the story into pieces. Secondly, the professor's hypothetical comparison of the apostles and the psychological experiment was not quite sufficient to conclude that the resurrection of Christ have not occurred. He couldn't possibly postulate that the same reaction have resulted from the similar mental disturbance for both participant B and the apostles of Christ who existed about two thousand years ago. It was too obstinate for him to make a comparison between them only to support his arguments. Lastly, the science is incapable to justify the resurrection of Christ because of its difference in the fundamental components. Since the science has the tendency of constant change, it possibly can not justify something that is constant. In conclusion, the resurrection of Christ should only be accepted by faith alone and useless arguments should not arise against it.  B. The Resurrection through Kierkegaard’s Existential Lens Memo: This is re-write of my paper with the help of Charley. In his lecture delivered on January 15, Professor Feyerabend articulated a profound skepticism regarding the veracity of the resurrection of Christ. He posited that the biblical texts, primary conveyors of divine communication, lack reliability as they are mere translations of now-lost Greek manuscripts. This, he argued, introduces significant potential for errors in translation across successive generations, thereby undermining their scriptural authority. According to Feyerabend, such textual instability fuels the argument that the resurrection narrative was not a witnessed event but a construct devised by the apostles post-Christ's crucifixion. The professor further contended that, in the absence of verifiable miraculous signs, the apostles experienced a profound identity crisis, fearing denunciation as followers of a falsified deity. In response, he suggests they reconstructed their cognitive framework around the belief in Christ's resurrection—a belief that transitioned from a consolatory delusion to a palpable reality through collective affirmation. However, this analysis notably overlooks the existential and phenomenological dimensions of religious experience, as explored in Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy. Kierkegaard emphasizes the primacy of personal authenticity and the notion that 'existence precedes essence.' From this viewpoint, the apostles' testimonies are not merely reducible to psychological coping mechanisms but are authentic encounters with the transcendent. Kierkegaard would argue that the existential commitment of the apostles to their faith, evidenced through their willingness to suffer and die for their belief, underscores a profound and genuine encounter with the risen Christ. Kierkegaard criticizes the objective dismissal of such subjective truths, suggesting that true faith arises from a personal leap into the absurd, where logical impossibilities bow to the realities of personal experience. Thus, the assertion that the apostles' experiences were mere psychological constructs underestimates the depth of their existential engagements with their faith. The authentic Christian is not one who merely adheres to doctrinal certainties but one who lives out the implications of these existential encounters, regardless of external verification. While Feyerabend's approach raises critical historical and textual issues, it fails to account for the existential reality of the apostles' faith experiences, which Kierkegaard posits as foundational to understanding any religious claim. The resurrection, therefore, must be approached not as an empirical fact to be dissected but as an existential reality experienced by the apostles, whose testimonies bear witness to their transformative encounters with what they professed to be the risen Lord. This calls for a scholarly reconsideration of the resurrection narrative that transcends textual criticism to embrace the complexities of existential authenticity in religious experience. In his meticulously structured critique of the resurrection narrative, Professor Feyerabend presents arguments that, while seemingly cogent, exhibit significant philosophical ambiguities, particularly in the selective affirmation of the historical segments of the resurrection narrative. He concedes the historical existence of Christ and His apostles (denoted as part A) and acknowledges the apostolic proclamations post-Christ’s death (part C), yet he arbitrarily dismisses the central event of the resurrection itself (part B). This selective acknowledgment fractures the narrative continuity, rendering his analysis not only partial but philosophically inconsistent. According to Feyerabend, parts A, B, and C of the narrative are indispensable to each other's validation; however, he chooses to dismiss part B, which serves as a crucial linchpin holding parts A and C in meaningful relation. This act of dissecting the narrative and excluding a central component undermines the integrity of the entire historical account, suggesting a fragmented approach to what is inherently a coherent sequence of events. Philosophically, this approach is unsound as it fails to consider the narrative as an integrated whole, a principle that is crucial in historical analysis and existential comprehension. From an existentialist perspective, particularly drawing from Søren Kierkegaard's views on authenticity and the precedence of existence over essence, the professor's method exhibits a failure to engage with the existential reality of the apostolic witnesses. Kierkegaard might argue that existential truth arises from the subjective experience of the individual, which in the case of the apostles, is their encounter with the risen Christ. Their subsequent preaching (part C) is an authentic expression of this encounter, rendering their testimony not just a narrative element but a lived existential truth. Furthermore, Kierkegaard would likely critique the professor's reliance on external validations of the resurrection over the internal, subjective truth experienced by the apostles. By focusing solely on textual and historical critiques without considering the existential impact of these events on the witnesses, the analysis remains abstract and detached from the lived realities of those professing the resurrection. This oversight is significant as it bypasses the existential assertion that 'existence precedes essence,' which in this context, means that the reality of the apostles' experiences precedes and indeed validates their theological assertions. A more philosophically robust analysis of the resurrection narrative would require an integrative approach that respects both the historical continuity of the narrative and the existential authenticity of its participants. Such an approach would not only address the logical structures of the narrative but also engage deeply with the existential dimensions of its proclamation, as emphasized by Kierkegaard's philosophical explorations of faith, existence, and truth. In his critique of the resurrection narrative, Professor Feyerabend leverages a psychological experiment to draw parallels between the responses of the experiment's participants and the apostles' testimonial behaviors post-Christ’s crucifixion. He suggests that the apostles, much like Participant B—who received minimal compensation and subsequently convinced himself of the experiment’s value—might have similarly convinced themselves of Christ’s resurrection to cope with their cognitive dissonance and perceived shame associated with their leader's death. This argument, while compelling in its presentation, overlooks a critical philosophical dimension underscored by Søren Kierkegaard's existentialist thought, particularly his emphasis on the 'subjective truth' and the individual’s internal reality. Kierkegaard posits that truth is found not in the objective analysis of external events but in the subjective experience and the passion of the individual. In this light, the authenticity of the apostles' testimony may stem not from a deceitful or self-deceptive adjustment to external circumstances, as suggested by the professor's analogy, but from a profound existential encounter with the resurrected Christ. Furthermore, Kierkegaard’s assertion that ‘existence precedes essence’ invites a reevaluation of the professor’s methodology. By presupposing that the apostles’ experiences and testimonies are merely psychological constructs rather than genuine encounters, the professor imposes an interpretative framework that negates their lived experiences without adequately considering the possibility that their testimonial acts were authentic expressions of their encounters with the divine. The professor’s approach also reflects a deterministic bias, reducing complex spiritual experiences to mere psychological phenomena, akin to the responses influenced by monetary incentive in the experiment. This reductionist view fails to account for the existential depth that characterizes genuine religious experiences, where the existential commitment transcends and reshapes understanding in ways that are not merely reactionary or constructed post-hoc. Moreover, the critique offered by the professor risks committing a category error by equating the testimonial integrity of the apostles with the behavior of participants in a psychologically manipulative setting. Such a comparison not only strips the apostolic witnesses of their agency but also imposes a modern psychological interpretation onto historical and theological claims, which are inherently rooted in a transcendent narrative framework. While the professor’s arguments aim to demystify the resurrection through a psychological lens, they inadvertently overlook the core existentialist perspectives that highlight individual authenticity and the transformative potential of subjective experience. A more nuanced approach would consider not only the psychological dynamics at play but also the existential realities of the apostles’ testimonies as potential encounters with the transcendent, thereby offering a richer, more philosophically robust analysis. The pivotal significance of Christ’s resurrection lies fundamentally in the theological domain, underscored by the scriptural veracity rather than scientific scrutiny or empirical rationalization. Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy, particularly his conception of the "leap of faith," offers a profound insight into understanding the nature of such beliefs. He articulates that true faith is not a matter of rational deduction but an existential commitment that often defies empirical validation. Science, inherently mutable and evolving, is predisposed to rationalizing phenomena within the bounds of current knowledge and empirical evidence. This attribute, while foundational to scientific inquiry, is inadequate for addressing metaphysical realities like the resurrection of Christ. Kierkegaard challenges the primacy of rational understanding through his idea that embracing the absurdity of faith—believing "because it is unbelievable"—is the essence of a genuine spiritual experience. The historical skepticism about the capabilities of scientific knowledge, as illustrated by the transformation of scientific understanding over time, exemplifies the limitations of rational interpretation in matters of faith. The anecdote of the outdated scientific theory about gravitational forces, which deemed it impossible for a rocket to breach Earth's gravitational pull—subsequently disproven by the Apollo moon landings—serves as a metaphor for the limitations of science in encompassing the totality of existential truths. Just as past scientific assertions were later revised in light of new evidence, current scientific conclusions about metaphysical claims may one day be seen as incomplete or reinterpreted. Thus, the rationalization of the resurrection through scientific or empirical means is inherently flawed. Kierkegaard posits that such a leap into faith transcends logical boundaries and enters the realm of personal truth and spiritual reality. It is not something to be dissected in a lab but experienced in the depths of the human spirit. This existential approach acknowledges the limits of human reason and the profound nature of spiritual truths that rest not upon empirical proofs but upon the transformative power of personal belief and commitment. Evidently, an egg, with its inherently fragile constitution, cannot shatter a rock, reflecting the broader principle that the tools at our disposal must be suited to the tasks they are meant to address. In a similar vein, the methodologies of science, characterized by their susceptibility to change and revision, are ill-equipped to definitively address metaphysical certainties such as the resurrection of Christ. To employ scientific reasoning to validate or refute a deeply spiritual event is akin to using an egg to break a rock—a fundamental mismatch of method and objective. However, were an egg as hard as a rock, the outcome would be different; similarly, if scientific inquiry were capable of grasping the immutable truths of faith, its conclusions about such matters would carry more weight. Yet, as highlighted, the inherent inconsistency of scientific approaches renders them inadequate for providing a conclusive perspective on matters of faith. Søren Kierkegaard's existential philosophy provides a crucial framework here, emphasizing the necessity of a 'leap of faith' in engaging with religious truths. According to Kierkegaard, true faith transcends empirical evidence and rational deduction; it is a commitment to believe in the face of absurdity, exemplified by his assertion that we believe "because it is unbelievable." This perspective underscores the idea that faith in the resurrection is an individual existential commitment, not subject to conventional empirical verification or refutation. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ, as an article of faith, is neither provable nor disprovable through scientific or rational means. It exists within the domain of personal belief, where it is affirmed not through proof but through conviction. For those who embrace this faith, the resurrection is a profound truth. Conversely, for those without faith, it may appear as nothing more than a myth or a fairy tale. However, this dichotomy does not invite objective debate but rather a personal journey towards or away from faith. Ultimately, disputes over the resurrection based on a lack of faith are unproductive, as faith itself is inherently a personal, existential act that transcends rational discourse. Those who engage in such debates must recognize that the core of the disagreement often lies not in evidential insufficiency but in a fundamental difference in the existential orientation towards faith. In this analysis, the professor’s approach appears fundamentally flawed due to its reliance on inappropriate methodological divisions and assumptions. Foremost, the narrative of the resurrection of Christ functions holistically, not as divisible fragments. Yet, in his critique, the professor erroneously segments the narrative to support his hypothesis. This dissection undermines the interconnected nature of the historical and theological context of the events, thereby skewing any potential insights. Moreover, the professor’s attempt to draw parallels between a modern psychological experiment and the existential experiences of the apostles over two millennia ago exhibits a profound methodological oversight. Such comparisons fail to account for the vast disparities in cultural, historical, and existential contexts, rendering his conclusions speculative at best. The psychological reactions of individuals in an experiment cannot be equated with the profound existential crises and convictions of early Christian apostles, as these are influenced by deeply personal, spiritual, and communal dynamics that extend beyond the scope of a controlled psychological study. Furthermore, invoking Søren Kierkegaard's existential philosophy, it becomes evident that the pursuit of understanding the resurrection through scientific or empirical means is intrinsically misaligned with the nature of existential truth. Kierkegaard posited that true existential understanding arises not from dissecting and analyzing external evidence but through a subjective leap of faith. This leap transcends empirical evidence and logical reasoning, asserting that faith in the divine, including belief in the resurrection, exists within a sphere of personal commitment and existential truth that is impervious to conventional scientific scrutiny. Consequently, the fluidity and change inherent in scientific paradigms stand in stark contrast to the constancy of existential truths pursued through faith. The scientific method, characterized by its necessity for continual revision and falsifiability, is ill-suited to address or substantiate the metaphysical claims of religious faith. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ, as a cornerstone of Christian faith, should not be subjected to verification or refutation through empirical means. It ought to be embraced as a matter of faith, a domain where existential authenticity prevails and where, as Kierkegaard might argue, the absurdity of belief underscores its profound spiritual significance.  C. Seven Questions Here are seven reflective questions based on the paper, which include references to specific Bible verses and quotes from the paper to foster deeper reflection and discussion: 1. How does the concept of "existence precedes essence" (Kierkegaard) challenge traditional interpretations of the Resurrection? Related Bible Verse: John 20:29 - "Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'" Quote from Paper: "Kierkegaard emphasizes the primacy of personal authenticity and the notion that 'existence precedes essence.'" Question: In what ways does this perspective shift our understanding of faith and sight in the context of the Resurrection narrative? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. How does the idea of the apostles’ testimonies as 'authentic encounters with the transcendent' impact our interpretation of their sacrifices and the credibility of their witness? Related Bible Verse: Acts 5:41-42 - "The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah." Quote from Paper: "The apostles' testimonies are not merely reducible to psychological coping mechanisms but are authentic encounters with the transcendent." Question: What does it mean for us today to consider the apostles' testimonies as both a historical account and a personal existential commitment? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. How does the acknowledgment of textual and historical criticism (as articulated by Feyerabend) enhance or diminish the faith in the Resurrection? Related Bible Verse: 1 Corinthians 15:14 - "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Quote from Paper: "While Feyerabend's approach raises critical historical and textual issues, it fails to account for the existential reality of the apostles' faith experiences." Question: Can historical and textual criticisms coexist with a faith that embraces existential truths? How do we balance these perspectives? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. What role does 'leap of faith' play in accepting the Resurrection amidst scientific and historical skepticism? Related Bible Verse: Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Quote from Paper: "Kierkegaard argues that true faith arises from a personal leap into the absurd, where logical impossibilities bow to the realities of personal experience." Question: How does this concept challenge or support your personal faith journey, especially in areas where empirical evidence is lacking? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. How does the perspective that 'existence precedes essence' influence our understanding of religious experiences and doctrines? Related Bible Verse: 2 Corinthians 5:7 - "For we live by faith, not by sight." Quote from Paper: "This perspective situates existence as the fundamental attribute of being, thereby inverting Avicenna’s framework." Question: In what ways does prioritizing existence over essence change your approach to understanding Biblical narratives and doctrines? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. How can the acknowledgment of the apostles' existential engagement with their faith affect contemporary Christian practice and belief? Related Bible Verse: James 2:18 - "But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds." Quote from Paper: "The authentic Christian is not one who merely adheres to doctrinal certainties but one who lives out the implications of these existential encounters." Question: What practical changes might this perspective prompt in how we live out our faith today? 7. How does embracing Kierkegaard's view of existential authenticity provide a fresh lens for viewing the miracles and teachings of Jesus? Related Bible Verse: Mark 9:23 - "‘If you can’?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for one who believes." Quote from Paper: "Kierkegaard’s emphasis on personal experience as the cornerstone of existence suggests that even our most abstract conceptions... are anchored in the existential act of thinking." Question: How does focusing on existential authenticity affect your understanding of the miracles of Jesus and his teachings? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ These questions are designed to provoke thoughtful engagement with the themes of the paper, encouraging a deeper exploration of faith, historical credibility, and existential belief in Christian contexts. D. Play: Dialogues at UC Berkeley - Faith, Doubt, and Reason Setting: A lecture hall in Dwinelle Hall, UC Berkeley. The room is spacious, with tiered seating and a large blackboard filled with notes from the day's lecture. A podium stands at the front where Professor Feyerabend is gathering his papers, seemingly ready to leave. The air is filled with a mix of academic sterility and the lingering energy of a provocative lecture. Characters: Robert: A determined and intellectually curious Christian philosophy student at UC Berkeley. Professor Feyerabend: A renowned philosopher and lecturer, known for his skeptical views on traditional religious narratives. Kierkegaard: The spirit of the existential philosopher, appearing in a moment of need, embodying his philosophical ideals about faith and existence. Act I: The Confrontation (The stage is set with a dimly lit lecture hall in Dwinelle Hall at UC Berkeley. Professor Feyerabend is at the podium gathering his notes. The auditorium's energy reflects a blend of academic tension and anticipation. Robert hurries down the aisle as the professor prepares to exit.) Robert: (Catching his breath) Professor Feyerabend, may I have a word? It’s urgent, and it pertains to today’s lecture on the resurrection. Professor Feyerabend: (Pausing, intrigued) I suppose I have a moment. Speak, then. What troubles you about the lecture? Robert: (Determined) In your lecture, you stated, "The biblical texts, primary conveyors of divine communication, lack reliability as they are mere translations of now-lost Greek manuscripts." You argue that this undermines the resurrection as a historical event. But this morning, I had a personal encounter with Jesus. How can we dismiss such experiences that are real and transformative for many? Professor Feyerabend: (Raising an eyebrow) Oh? You met Jesus, you say? See, such claims are exactly why we scrutinize the texts. Personal experiences are deeply subjective and can be influenced by many factors, including the desire to believe in something profoundly wished to be true. (As the tension between historical skepticism and personal faith builds, a figure slowly forms next to Robert, taking the appearance of Søren Kierkegaard. His presence brings a calm, profound depth to the unfolding dialogue.) Kierkegaard: (Interjecting with a soft but firm voice) May I propose a reflection? Professor, you critique the texts and their transmission errors, leading you to conclude that the resurrection narrative was possibly a construct developed amid a crisis of faith. Yet, this perspective might be neglecting a crucial dimension of human experience—the existential. Professor Feyerabend: (Skeptically) Mr. Kierkegaard, is it? Your notions of existentialism are intriguing but how do they apply here? Kierkegaard: (With intensity) Existence precedes essence, Professor. The apostles’ experiences of the risen Christ were not mere psychological reactions to a crisis, as you suggest. They were encounters with something beyond themselves—encounters that transformed their understanding of existence and truth. As I have said, "The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays." Robert: Exactly! My experience this morning was real to me. It was an encounter that has profoundly affected me. Professor Feyerabend: (Challenging) Yet, how do you distinguish between a real encounter and a delusion shaped by cultural and psychological conditions? Kierkegaard: (Passionately) This is where faith enters, Professor. True faith is not the acceptance of empirical evidence but a leap into the absurd—a leap into what seems impossible. It is in this leap that authenticity emerges. The apostles might not have had empirical proof by your standards, but they had something more significant: an existential truth born from a genuine encounter. Robert: (Nodding) And isn’t it possible, then, that what we call reality is more than what can be verified in a laboratory or debated in a classroom? My meeting with Jesus this morning was as real to me as anything studied under a microscope. Professor Feyerabend: (Thoughtfully) Your point is well taken, though I remain skeptical. The challenge, then, is to understand how such personal truths can coexist with our demands for historical and empirical evidence. Kierkegaard: (Conclusively) Perhaps, Professor, it is not about resolving these truths into a single understanding but recognizing the multiplicity of ways in which truth manifests itself—sometimes empirical, sometimes existential. Each has its place in the tapestry of human understanding. (The stage lights dim slightly, emphasizing a moment of reflective silence between the characters. The scene ends with each character deep in thought, symbolizing the ongoing nature of this philosophical dialogue.)  Act II: The Debate (The small seminar room is softly lit, creating a more contemplative atmosphere. Three chairs are arranged in a semi-circle. Robert, Professor Feyerabend, and the ethereal figure of Kierkegaard are seated, each representing a different philosophical stance. The dialogue resumes with Robert's challenging question.) Robert: (With a tone of curiosity and challenge) Professor, your lecture pointed out the historical and textual uncertainties surrounding the resurrection narrative. You mentioned that these accounts could merely be psychological constructs, influenced by the apostles' crises. How then do we reconcile these doubts with the profound faith experiences reported across centuries? Professor Feyerabend: (Leaning forward, hands clasped) That’s precisely the crux, Robert. As I argued, "While my approach raises critical historical and textual issues, it inherently fails to account for the existential reality of the apostles' faith experiences..." These narratives could very well be constructions born out of their need to cope with the loss of their leader. Kierkegaard: (Interjecting thoughtfully) Professor, might I suggest that in dismissing the central event of the resurrection—what you've denoted as Part B—you overlook a fundamental aspect of existential truth? "According to my view, parts A, B, and C of the narrative are indispensable to each other's validation." The apostles' testimonies are not just historical data to be analyzed but lived experiences that spoke to their core being. Robert: Exactly, Kierkegaard. It’s about more than just aligning facts. It's about the authenticity and transformative power of those experiences. How can we dismiss them as mere delusions? Professor Feyerabend: (Rubbing his chin thoughtfully) I concede that there is a philosophical gap in purely empirical scrutiny. However, how do we then distinguish between what is a genuine spiritual experience and what might be self-deception? Kierkegaard: (Smiling warmly at the professor) That is where faith enters, and why it transcends the empirical. "The existential commitment of the apostles to their faith, evidenced through their willingness to suffer and die for their belief, underscores a profound and genuine encounter with the risen Christ." Faith, therefore, is not about eliminating doubt but about how these doubts are transcended through a leap into the absurd. Robert: (Nodding vigorously) And isn't this leap into faith what makes the resurrection a living truth for so many? "This calls for a scholarly reconsideration of the resurrection narrative that transcends textual criticism to embrace the complexities of existential authenticity in religious experience." Professor Feyerabend: (Slightly conceding) Perhaps there is merit in viewing these accounts through the lens of existential authenticity rather than through rigid empirical scrutiny. "From an existentialist perspective...the apostles' profound encounters with what they professed to be the risen Lord challenge our traditional methodologies." Kierkegaard: (Conclusively) Indeed, Professor. "By focusing solely on textual and historical critiques without considering the existential impact of these events on the witnesses, the analysis remains abstract and detached from the lived realities of those professing the resurrection." The truth of the resurrection, thus, lies in the transformative experience of the individual, which defies empirical encapsulation. Robert: (Reflectively) So, our understanding of such profound truths requires a balance of skepticism and openness to existential realities. Professor Feyerabend: (With a newfound reflective tone) Yes, Robert, perhaps there is more to the historical and existential interplay than my initial critique allowed. This discussion certainly opens up new avenues for rethinking how we engage with religious narratives. (The scene fades with the three characters deep in thought, symbolizing the ongoing nature of this philosophical exploration between faith, doubt, and reason. The dialogue has moved each to reconsider their positions, emphasizing the complex interplay of historical analysis and existential belief.)  Act III: Resolution (The setting remains the same - a softly lit seminar room that provides a reflective and intimate atmosphere for profound discussions. The conversation has clearly impacted both Robert and Professor Feyerabend, encouraging them to reconsider their positions on faith, science, and the existence of spiritual truths. Kierkegaard's presence, though ethereal, brings a depth that bridges the chasm between empirical skepticism and existential belief.) Robert: (Contemplatively) You know, Professor, meeting Jesus this morning wasn't about proof or empirical validation. It was deeply personal, a testament to what Kierkegaard might call the ‘leap of faith.’ How do we reconcile this with philosophical scrutiny? Professor Feyerabend: (Thoughtfully) Robert, your experience challenges the conventional boundaries of philosophical inquiry. As I’ve stated, science and history provide tools for understanding the world, yet they fall short when it comes to the metaphysical, the deeply personal domains of existence. Kierkegaard: (Nodding affirmatively) Indeed, Professor. "The pivotal significance of Christ’s resurrection lies fundamentally in the theological domain, not within the grasp of scientific scrutiny or empirical rationalization." The nature of faith transcends what can be empirically observed or disproven, entering into the realm where "truth is subjective," and the "leap of faith" embodies a commitment to believe in the unbelievable. Robert: (Eagerly) That’s just it! My encounter, whether others believe it or not, speaks to the core of what you describe, Kierkegaard. It’s not something I can put under a microscope, yet it’s real and transformative for me. Professor Feyerabend: (Reflecting) "Science, inherently mutable and evolving, is predisposed to rationalizing phenomena within the bounds of current knowledge." This implies our scientific understanding is always provisional, subject to change. The resurrection, if true, falls outside these parameters, residing in a domain where personal experience and faith define reality. Kierkegaard: (Emphatically) "The historical skepticism about the capabilities of scientific knowledge...exemplifies the limitations of rational interpretation in matters of faith." Robert, your faith and the testimonies of countless others over millennia underscore a profound existential truth that does not neatly align with empirical evidence or logical deductions. Robert: (With a newfound resolve) So, the essence of faith is not in proving to others but in what it means to the individual believer. It’s an existential truth, profoundly personal and beyond the reach of conventional empirical methods. Professor Feyerabend: (Conceding) "Therefore, the resurrection of Christ, as an article of faith, is neither provable nor disprovable through scientific or rational means." This discussion has indeed opened my eyes to the possibility that there are truths beyond what our current methodologies can grasp. Kierkegaard: (Conclusively) "Faith in the resurrection is an individual existential commitment, not subject to conventional empirical verification or refutation." It is a journey each must undertake personally, where the leap into faith transcends the rational and enters the spiritual. (As the dialogue winds down, the figures of Robert and Professor Feyerabend are left to reflect on the profound discussions. Kierkegaard's figure fades slowly, leaving behind a lasting impact on their understanding. The curtain closes gradually, symbolizing the ongoing nature of this philosophical and existential exploration.) End of Play.  II. Essence Vs. Existence After concluding an enlightening course and finishing the paper on "The Resurrection of Christ," my academic journey led me to explore the intriguing philosophical dichotomy of 'essence versus existence.' This exploration was significantly deepened in a subsequent course where I delved into the nuances of this topic through a comprehensive paper. The paper centered on the contributions of Avicenna (980-1037), also known as Ibn Sina, a philosopher whose ideas left an indelible mark on both Eastern and Western philosophical traditions. Western philosophy often heralds the notion that 'existence precedes essence,' a concept popularized by existentialists who argue that human beings first exist and then each individual defines their essence through living. However, this perspective seems to eclipse the foundational thoughts that flourished in Persian philosophy, particularly through the work of Avicenna. Avicenna’s metaphysical framework provided a structured analysis that distinctly separates the essence of a thing from its existence—a philosophical inquiry that questions whether the essence of an object is necessary for its existence. This chapter aims to dissect Avicenna's philosophical stance on essence and existence, contrasting it with the views prevalent in Western philosophy. By examining Avicenna's influence, we can uncover how his ideas predate and possibly inform some of the modern discussions around existence and essence, providing a broader context to the existential debates that dominate contemporary philosophical discourse. Through this comparative analysis, the chapter will illuminate how Avicenna's insights from the 11th century still resonate in the philosophical debates of today, challenging and enriching our understanding of reality.  A. Essence Vs. Existence – Original Paper Avicenna, Avicenna (980-1037), also known as Ibn Sina, was a Persian philosopher, physician, and poet who is considered one of the most influential Islamic philosophers. His work had a profound impact on philosophy and medicine in Europe and the Islamic world. His medical theories helped shape Western medicine and have been cited as foundational texts into the modern era. one of the most influential and important Islamic philosophers, studied the science of Being(metaphysics) and applied it in his proof of the existence of God. A being, according to Avicenna, is the first concept acquired by the mind, and it can be given its distinctions. One distinction is between essence and existence. Moreover, Avicenna argues that the mind can think essences which do not now exist and even essences which can never exist. Since the question "what is it?" differs from "does it exist?" essence and existence are quite distinct. Existence, according to Avicenna, is superadded to essence or it is its accident, meaning it is extrinsic to essence. Another distinction concurrent with being is that between necessary and possible existence. According to Avicenna, when the essence of a being is existence, it is a necessary being whose non-existence is impossible. On the other hand, when the essence of a being is not the existence, it is a possible being whose non-existence is possible. Overall, Avicenna's theory is that an absolutely necessary being is God and, therefore, His non-existence is impossible; God has to exist. Although I agree with Avicenna's overall idea of God, that He is a necessary being and His existence is absolute, I find it impossible to agree with his distinction between essence and existence of a being. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with Avicenna’s argument stating that existence is extrinsic to essence, because I have a quite different conception for them. It is my belief that, contributing to Avicenna's idea, the essence is extrinsic to existence, and this conception can be discussed and proved in many different aspects. First of all, one of Avicenna's arguments was that the mind can think essences which do not exist and even essences which can never exist, implicitly meaning that existence is not essential to essence. But how is it possible for the mind to think and perceive essences which do not exist? And even more so, how is the mind possible to think essences which can never exist? Some examples and explanation should be presented in order to clarify these questions. Firstly, let us discuss and observe whether the mind can truly think essences which do not exist. Furthermore, I shall attempt to prove that the mind is incapable of thinking essences which do not exist. It is obvious that when I do something there has to be an existing thing, for I can not do anything without something; my "doing" will not possess the basic nature of "doing." "Doing" involves action, and action involves a subject and an object. In other words, if I intend to "do" A, then A has to exist as an object, in order for me to do anything with it. If A does not exist, my action of "doing" A would be meaningless; empty. Similarly, when I think, there has to be an existing thing for me to think. However, if that thing does not exist, it is nothing. Furthermore, in order for me to think nothing, the nothing has to exist in my mind. But when even this nothing does not exist, i.e., the absolute nothing, my mind is incapable of thinking. Of course, it is very easy for one to argue that he is capable of thinking about something which does not exist, such as a four-eyed monster. Then he can argue that since he is able to think about that creature, he can also think about its essences. This seems to be a logical argument. However, the flaw in his argument is that the something, i.e. the monster, does in fact exist - though it does not exist in the world, it certainly exists in his mind - which allows him to think. This sort of existence can be referred to as the conceptual existence. Therefore, when one thinks about an essence which does not exist, he is not thinking of something which exists in a physical form, but which exists in a conceptual form in his mind. It is certainly that for the mind to think essences which do not exist, some forms of existence must exist. If there is non-existence of being in our minds, the conclusion is that its essences cannot not exist. That is to say, the essence is extrinsic to existence. Secondly, let's also discuss and observe whether the mind can really think essences which can never exist in similar manner of the first case. Also, let's see if we can come to the same conclusion, i.e. essence is extrinsic to existence, by reasoning in similar manners. First of all, it is my primary task to find an example which can never exist. One simple example would be a four-sided triangle. Obviously, it is impossible for a triangle to be four sided, because its fundamental nature is being three sided. Therefore, it can be consider as a something which can never exist. By replacing this example, i.e. four-sided triangle, into Avicenna's conception, I can restate his statement in the following way: "The mind can think essence of a four-sided triangle". It is quite obvious that my mind can think essence of a four-sided triangle, but similar to a first case, the four sided triangle has to exist in my mind previously in order for my mind to think its essences. Since the four-sided triangle is something which can never exist in reality, it has to exist in a conceptual form; having a conceptual existence. The main argument here is that in order for my mind to think essences of which can never exist, something must exist in my mind previously having some form of existence. Therefore, I can conclude that the essence of a four-sided triangle lies in its existence. That is to say, for once more, essence is extrinsic to existence. In conclusion, Avicenna and I agree essentially that God exists and His non-existence is impossible. We, however, disagree on the issue of the superiority of essence and existence; Avicenna stresses the importance of essence and argues that existence is extrinsic to essence, whereas I am firmly convinced that the importance lies on the existence, and that essence is intrinsic to essence. Consequently, many examples were given in order to refute Avicenna's belief and came to the conclusion that the mind can not think essences of beings which do not and can not exist. Briefly summarizing the main points, the mind can not think essences of a four eyed monster, i.e., a being which does not exist, if it does not previously exist in the mind as a conceptual form. Similarly, the mind cannot think essences of a four-sided triangle, i.e., something which can never exist, if it does not previously exist in the mind as a conceptual form. In these ways, I can finally conclude that essence is extrinsic to existence, since essences of both the four eyed monster and the four sided triangle lie in their existence. It is clear that you put a good deal of thought into this paper. I don’t disagree that when we think of something, the thing thought of must exist in some sense at least in the mind - is good reminiscent of Anselm. However, you are arguing against a position which Anselm himself did not take. He said we may think of ideas of things which do not exist (are not actualized in your world), not that we can think of essences which themselves don’t exist. It seems that you also misunderstood the notion of existence being extrinsic to essence, i.e. does not mean that existence is inferior to essence, but only that there are essences (e.g., a four-eyed monster) which themselves could exist without also do not apply to anything which really exists. Thus to say that essence is extrinsic to existence means that things could exist without an essence, not that existence is somehow superior to essence - whatever that might mean.  B. ‘Essence Vs. Existence’ through Kierkegaard’s Existential Lens Memo: This is re-write of my paper with the help of Charley. Avicenna, a seminal figure in Islamic philosophy, rigorously examined the metaphysical domain, particularly in his proofs for the existence of God. In his analysis, Avicenna posits that 'being' is the initial concept that the mind apprehends, which can subsequently be delineated into various categories. A critical distinction he makes is between essence and existence. Avicenna contends that while the mind is capable of conceiving essences that neither currently exist nor will ever manifest, essence and existence remain distinctly separate entities. He argues that existence is an accident of essence; it is an attribute that essence may or may not possess, thus existing externally to the essence itself. Further, Avicenna introduces the dichotomy between necessary and possible existence. A being whose essence inherently includes existence is deemed a necessary being, for whom non-existence is an impossibility. Conversely, if a being’s essence does not inherently include existence, it is classified as a possible being, one whose non-existence remains within the realm of possibility. Avicenna concludes that the concept of an absolutely necessary being aligns with the nature of God, making God’s non-existence inconceivable and affirming His necessary existence. In dialogue with Avicenna's assertions, Søren Kierkegaard’s existentialist philosophy provides a poignant contrast. While Avicenna emphasizes a metaphysical necessity for God’s existence, Kierkegaard shifts focus to the subjective human experience. He argues that truth is not merely an objective assertion of metaphysical facts but is intrinsically linked to the individual's lived experience and existential commitment. Kierkegaard posits that faith in God is not grounded in metaphysical necessity but in a personal leap of faith—a conscious choice that defies empirical and philosophical proof. This leap, according to Kierkegaard, is essential for authentic existence, underscoring a profound commitment to a reality that transcends rational explanation and metaphysical certainty. The juxtaposition of Avicenna’s emphasis on the ontological necessities of God’s existence with Kierkegaard’s existential approach enriches the philosophical discourse on the nature of divine existence. It highlights the tension between understanding God through metaphysical constructs and experiencing God through existential commitment. While I acknowledge the foundational elements of Avicenna's conception of God as a necessary being whose existence is absolute, I find myself at odds with his bifurcation of essence and existence. Contrary to Avicenna’s assertion that existence is merely an accident of essence, I propose a reverse relationship where essence is extrinsic to existence. This inversion prompts a robust reevaluation of metaphysical priorities and aligns with existentialist perspectives, particularly those articulated by Søren Kierkegaard. Avicenna argues that the human mind is capable of conceptualizing essences that do not currently exist and even those that can never manifest in reality. This premise supports his claim that existence is not inherent to essence. However, this raises critical epistemological questions: How can the mind conceive of non-existent essences, and what is the nature of such essences that are posited as never capable of existing? These questions necessitate a more detailed exploration of the cognitive processes involved in such conceptualizations. Incorporating Kierkegaard’s existentialism, which emphasizes the primacy of individual existence over abstract essences, offers a compelling counterpoint to Avicenna’s approach. Kierkegaard asserts that existence precedes essence, and it is through the act of existing that one’s essence is defined. This perspective situates existence as the fundamental attribute of being, thereby inverting Avicenna’s framework. According to Kierkegaard, the existential act of ‘becoming’ is where essence is actualized, challenging the notion that essence can be considered apart from existential experience. Furthermore, Kierkegaard’s concept of the "leap of faith" illustrates that existential commitment transcends rationalist and metaphysical explanations, asserting that the relationship between existence and essence is mediated through subjective experience rather than predefined ontological categories. This approach not only critiques but also revitalizes the discussion on the interplay between essence and existence, suggesting that our understanding of essence is contingent upon the existential conditions under which it is apprehended and lived. While Avicenna’s metaphysical schema provides a systematic approach to understanding divine necessity, incorporating Kierkegaard’s existentialism invites a dynamic interpretation where essence is not a static precursor but a consequence of existential engagement. This synthesis underscores a more fluid and experientially grounded understanding of being, where essence is realized in the act of existence itself. Firstly, let us discuss and observe whether the mind can truly think essences which do not exist. Furthermore, I shall attempt to prove that the mind is incapable of thinking essences which do not exist. It is obvious that when I do something there has to be an existing thing, for I can not do anything without something; my "doing" will not possess the basic nature of "doing." "Doing" involves action, and action involves a subject and an object. In other words, if I intend to "do" A, then A has to exist as an object, in order for me to do anything with it. If A does not exist, my action of "doing" A would be meaningless; empty. Similarly, when I think, there has to be an existing thing for me to think. However, if that thing does not exist, it is nothing. Furthermore, in order for me to think nothing, the nothing has to exist in my mind. But when even this nothing does not exist, i.e., the absolute nothing, my mind is incapable of thinking. Of course, it is very easy for one to argue that he is capable of thinking about something which does not exist, such as a four-eyed monster. Then he can argue that since he is able to think about that creature, he can also think about its essences. This seems to be a logical argument. However, the flaw in his argument is that the something, i.e. the monster, does in fact exist - though it does not exist in the world, it certainly exists in his mind - which allows him to think. This sort of existence can be referred to as the conceptual existence. Therefore, when one thinks about an essence which does not exist, he is not thinking of something which exists in a physical form, but which exists in a conceptual form in his mind. It is certainly that for the mind to think essences which do not exist, some forms of existence must exist. If there is non-existence of being in our minds, the conclusion is that its essences cannot not exist. That is to say, the essence is extrinsic to existence. First, let us examine the claim that the mind can conceive essences of non-existent entities. I propose to challenge this assertion by demonstrating that the mind is fundamentally incapable of thinking about essences that truly do not exist. The very act of "doing" presupposes the existence of an object; without an existing entity, any action becomes inherently nonsensical as it lacks a subject or an object. For instance, to "do" A implies that A must exist in some form for any action to be meaningful. Absent this existence, the purported action toward A is devoid of substance. Similarly, the act of thinking necessitates the existence of a content to think about. If the object of thought does not exist, even as a concept, then the process of thinking itself is rendered void. One might argue, superficially, that it is possible to conceive of non-existent entities, such as a four-eyed monster. While this creature does not exist in the empirical world, it holds a form of conceptual existence in the mind, which facilitates the thought process. This delineation introduces the idea of conceptual existence, which differs from physical existence but is equally valid within the cognitive realm. Consequently, any essence that the mind contemplates must possess some form of existence, albeit conceptual, thereby making it impossible for the mind to engage with the essence of absolute non-being. Engaging with Søren Kierkegaard’s existentialist philosophy, we find a resonant argument in his exploration of subjectivity and existence. Kierkegaard posits that existence precedes essence, underscoring the primacy of individual experience in defining reality. From this vantage, the act of thinking about an essence already ascribes a form of existence to it—conceptual existence, as previously discussed. Kierkegaard’s emphasis on personal experience as the cornerstone of existence suggests that even our most abstract conceptions, including the hypothetical non-existent entities, are anchored in the existential act of thinking. Thus, in the existential framework, essence is always mediated by the conditions of existence; it is through existing that essence becomes discernible and meaningful. This interplay between Kierkegaard's existentialism and the critique of Avicenna’s separation of essence from existence enriches our understanding of metaphysical and existential debates. It posits that while metaphysics might seek to categorize essence and existence as distinct, existentialism reveals them as inextricably linked through the lived experience and the subjective reality of the thinker. Secondly, let's also discuss and observe whether the mind can really think essences which can never exist in similar manner of the first case. Also, let's see if we can come to the same conclusion, i.e. essence is extrinsic to existence, by reasoning in similar manners. First of all, it is my primary task to find an example which can never exist. One simple example would be a four-sided triangle. Obviously, it is impossible for a triangle to be four sided, because its fundamental nature is being three sided. Therefore, it can be consider as a something which can never exist. By replacing this example, i.e. four-sided triangle, into Avicenna's conception, I can restate his statement in the following way: "The mind can think essence of a four-sided triangle". It is quite obvious that my mind can think essence of a four-sided triangle, but similar to a first case, the four sided triangle has to exist in my mind previously in order for my mind to think its essences. Since the four-sided triangle is something which can never exist in reality, it has to exist in a conceptual form; having a conceptual existence. The main argument here is that in order for my mind to think essences of which can never exist, something must exist in my mind previously having some form of existence. Therefore, I can conclude that the essence of a four-sided triangle lies in its existence. That is to say, for once more, essence is extrinsic to existence. In conclusion, while Avicenna and I concur fundamentally on the existence of God and the impossibility of His non-existence, our perspectives diverge significantly concerning the primacy of essence versus existence. Avicenna underscores the autonomy of essence, positing that existence is ancillary and extrinsic to essence. Contrarily, I uphold that existence is paramount, and that essence is inherently contingent upon existence. Through various examples, I have endeavored to challenge Avicenna's position, ultimately arguing that the mind is incapable of conceiving the essences of non-existent entities unless they first hold a conceptual form within the cognitive realm. Specifically, it is impossible for the mind to contemplate the essence of hypothetical constructs such as a four-eyed monster or a four-sided triangle without their prior conceptual existence. These illustrations lead me to assert that essence is, in fact, extrinsic to existence, as the essence of both the four-eyed monster and the four-sided triangle is dependent on their conceptual existence. This analysis echoes the ontological arguments of Anselm, though with a critical distinction. While Anselm acknowledged that we can conceive ideas of entities that do not materially exist—thus existing at least notionally in the mind—he did not extend this to suggest that we can apprehend essences devoid of any form of existence. My argument that existence is foundational to essence does not imply its superiority but rather its necessity for the conceptualization of essence. Engaging with Søren Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy enriches this discussion. Kierkegaard’s assertion that existence precedes essence aligns with my critique of Avicenna, emphasizing the existential act of 'becoming' as foundational to the development of essence. Kierkegaard posits that essence is realized through individual existence and experience, challenging the notion of pre-existing essences independent of existential conditions. This perspective underscores that essence, rather than being a fixed and antecedent property, emerges through and is inextricably linked to the processes of existing and experiencing. Thus, in light of Kierkegaard’s existentialism, the debate over the primacy of essence or existence gains new dimensions, highlighting the dynamic interplay between being and becoming as central to understanding the nature of essences. This approach not only questions traditional metaphysical dichotomies but also affirms the existential foundations of conceptualization and essence formation.  C. Seven Questions Here are seven reflective questions based on the paper "‘ESSENCE VS. EXISTENCE’ THROUGH KIERKEGAARD’S EXISTENTIAL LENS," incorporating relevant Bible verses and quotes from the paper to guide theological reflection and spiritual inquiry: 1. How does the concept that "existence precedes essence" challenge traditional Christian views of creation and existence? Bible Verse: Genesis 1:27 - "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Quote from Paper: "Kierkegaard asserts that existence precedes essence, and it is through the act of existing that one’s essence is defined." Question: In light of this perspective, how might we reinterpret the biblical account of creation where existence is bestowed before identity (essence)? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. What does the assertion that 'the mind cannot think essences that do not exist' reveal about the limitations of human understanding in grasping divine mysteries? Bible Verse: Isaiah 55:8-9 - "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Quote from Paper: "It is impossible for the mind to contemplate the essence of hypothetical constructs... without their prior conceptual existence." Question: How does this align with our understanding of God’s transcendent nature and the limitations of human comprehension? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. How can Kierkegaard's idea of a 'leap of faith' enhance our understanding of the biblical concept of faith? Bible Verse: Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Quote from Paper: "True faith arises from a personal leap into the absurd, where logical impossibilities bow to the realities of personal experience." Question: How might this philosophical viewpoint deepen our engagement with acts of faith described in the Bible? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. What does the existential commitment of the apostles tell us about the authenticity of Christian witness? Bible Verse: Acts 5:29 - "Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than human beings!'" Quote from Paper: "The existential commitment of the apostles to their faith, evidenced through their willingness to suffer and die for their belief, underscores a profound and genuine encounter with the risen Christ." Question: How should this existential authenticity influence our own approach to living out Christian doctrines today? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. In what ways does the philosophical debate between essence and existence provide insight into the controversies over Christ’s nature as fully human and fully divine? Bible Verse: John 1:14 - "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Quote from Paper: "Essence is extrinsic to existence." Question: How might this philosophical perspective help us navigate the dual nature of Christ in theological discussions? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Considering the 'existential act of becoming' where does personal transformation fit into the life of a believer? Bible Verse: Romans 12:2 - "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will." Quote from Paper: "The existential act of ‘becoming’ is where essence is actualized." Question: How does this idea influence our understanding of spiritual growth and transformation in Christ? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. How can the notion that 'the apostolic experiences were not mere psychological constructs' challenge modern Christian apologetics and evangelism? Bible Verse: 1 Peter 3:15 - "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," Quote from Paper: "Their subsequent preaching is an authentic expression of this encounter, rendering their testimony not just a narrative element but a lived existential truth." Question: How should this perspective shape our approach to defending and sharing the faith in contemporary contexts? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ These questions are designed to promote deep theological reflection and dialogue, encouraging believers to consider how existentialist philosophy and traditional Christian teachings intersect and inform each other.  D. Play: Existential Crossroads at Brown Coffee Act I: Gathering at Brown Coffee Setting: A modern, airy Brown Coffee shop inside Aeon Mall 2 in Phnom Penh. The cafe bustles with the energy of a mid-morning rush. The window reveals a bustling cityscape that contrasts sharply with the serene atmosphere inside the cafe. Characters: Robert: Now an elderly scholar, wise and reflective, with a lifetime of philosophical inquiry behind him. Avicenna: Portrayed as a timeless sage, dressed in traditional Persian attire, he carries an air of deep intellectual authority. Kierkegaard: Appearing as a contemplative 19th-century thinker, his intense demeanor betrays a passionate commitment to existential truth. (Robert sits alone at a table, his gaze occasionally drifting to the busy street outside. Avicenna and Kierkegaard approach, each with a discernible presence of thought and timelessness. They greet warmly and sit.) Robert: (Smiling warmly) Ah, my dear friends, how rare and splendid to convene here, where the pulse of the new world meets timeless inquiry. Avicenna: Indeed, Robert. It seems fitting to weave our discourse here, amidst the confluence of so many paths—both old and new. Kierkegaard: (Nods thoughtfully) Yes, and in such times as these, the existential threads of our philosophies beckon with even greater urgency. Robert: (Opening his notebook) I've been revisiting our vigorous debates, Avicenna. Your profound distinctions between essence and existence still captivate my thoughts, though I find myself persistently wrestling with them through the lens of Christian existentialism. Avicenna: (With a reflective pause) And it is through such wrestling that the deeper truths often reveal themselves. Tell me, Robert, how have your thoughts evolved on this matter? Robert: "Avicenna, you rigorously examined the metaphysical domain, particularly in your proofs for the existence of God. You posited that 'being' is the initial concept apprehended by the mind, leading to a distinction between essence and existence. You argued that existence is an accident of essence—an attribute that essence may or may not possess, existing externally to the essence itself." (They pause as a server brings their coffee, allowing the scene to transition deeper into discussion.) Robert: "Further, you introduced the dichotomy between necessary and possible existence. A necessary being, whose essence includes existence, is inherently immortal, making God’s non-existence inconceivable. Yet, this metaphysical certainty you describe seems to sit at odds with the existential dynamism I’ve come to embrace." Avicenna: (Nodding thoughtfully) Indeed, the metaphysical framework offers a structure, but I am curious—how does Kierkegaard's existentialism challenge this structure? Kierkegaard: "While you, Avicenna, emphasize the metaphysical necessity for God’s existence, I argue that truth is not merely an objective assertion of metaphysical facts but is deeply entwined with the individual's lived experience. It is not through empirical proof but through a personal leap of faith that one truly engages with the divine. This leap is essential for authentic existence, underscoring a profound commitment to a reality that transcends rational explanation." Robert: "The juxtaposition of your views, Avicenna, with Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the existential, not only enriches our discourse but also highlights a critical tension between understanding divinity through metaphysical constructs and experiencing it through personal existential commitment." Avicenna: (Contemplatively) It is indeed a rich tapestry of thought we weave. Your insights, Kierkegaard, remind us that the essence of divine understanding may lie beyond the reach of mere logic. Robert: "In our discussions, we navigate the profound waters between metaphysical rigidity and existential fluidity. Perhaps, Avicenna, the essence is not merely intrinsic or extrinsic to existence but may manifest through its dynamic interplay with individual existence." Kierkegaard: "And in this interplay lies the journey of every soul—a journey marked not by the clarity of predefined paths but by the courage to forge one's path through the existential wilderness." Avicenna: (With a wise smile) "Then let us consider that our dialogue itself mirrors the very essence of existence—it evolves, transforms, and finds its truth in each moment of genuine engagement." Robert: "So, may our conversation today inspire those who listen to not only reflect upon these philosophical ideals but to live them out in the fullness of their personal quests for truth." (The three philosophers lean back, their conversation winding down as the cafe's morning rush ebbs. The scene fades out on their thoughtful faces, suggesting a continuing journey)  Act II: Essence vs. Existence Robert: (Opening his notebook) Avicenna, your argument that "being is the initial concept that the mind apprehends" provides a critical starting point. You contend that essence and existence are distinct, with existence merely accidental to essence. Avicenna: Correct, Robert. This distinction underpins my proofs for the existence of God, positing that essence inherently carries the potential for existence but does not necessitate it. Kierkegaard: (Interjecting thoughtfully) But consider, Avicenna, the existential dimension where existence precedes essence. Is not our essence shaped by the lived experiences, by the choices we make in the void of existence? Robert: Precisely, Søren. This perspective challenges traditional metaphysical views, suggesting a dynamic where essence is not a precursor but a consequence of existence. "This inversion prompts a robust reevaluation of metaphysical priorities," aligning more closely with existential thought. Avicenna: (Pensively) While that poses an intriguing contrast, how do we then account for the continuity of the soul, its immortality, which I argue is defined by a persistent essence? Kierkegaard: The soul’s essence, Avicenna, might be considered not in predefined terms but as something that emerges through existence—through our engagement with life’s existential challenges. Robert: Indeed, Kierkegaard. You argue that "faith in God is not grounded in metaphysical necessity but in a personal leap of faith." This leap transcends empirical proofs and philosophical rationalizations, engaging directly with the essence of being. Avicenna: (Reflecting) This brings to light the complexity of defining essence purely through metaphysical constructs without considering the existential conditions under which it is experienced. Robert: Let us then propose that while metaphysical constructs provide a framework, the existential conditions—our actions, our faith, our choices—breathe life into these frameworks, making them relevant. Kierkegaard: Exactly, Robert. It is through existing, through 'becoming', that we actualize our essence. Our philosophical discourses must therefore not only engage with what is, but also with what could be—how we interpret and influence our being. Avicenna: (Nodding in agreement) I see now that our views, though originating from different epochs and ideologies, converge on the point that essence and existence are deeply interwoven, each influencing the understanding of the other. Robert: As we sit here, at this crossroads of culture and philosophy in Phnom Penh, let's embrace the richness of this dialogue, acknowledging that our diverse perspectives on essence and existence enrich our collective philosophical journey. Kierkegaard: (Raising his coffee cup) To the existential journey, then, that each of us undertakes, and to the dialogues that inspire us to examine and re-examine the essence of our existence. (The philosophers toast to their continued exploration of philosophy, as the cafe's ambient sounds of chatter and clinking cups fade into the background.)  Act III: Convergence and Conclusion Robert: (Smiling warmly) Today, I find our past debates resonating more deeply as I delve into the nuances of essence and existence. Avicenna: Indeed, Robert. It's essential that we revisit these fundamental concepts. As I've posited, "being" is the initial concept apprehended by the mind, which leads us into the distinction between essence and existence, where essence may or may not possess existence. Kierkegaard: (Nodding thoughtfully) And yet, Avicenna, while you see existence as an accident of essence, I argue from a different perspective where existence fundamentally precedes essence, shaped by the subjective experiences of the individual. Robert: Precisely, Søren. This perspective of essence being extrinsic to existence, rather than intrinsic as traditionally viewed, has led me to reevaluate our philosophical grounding deeply. (They are served coffee, marking a pause, as the conversation deepens.) Robert: "First, let us examine," as I've noted, "whether the mind can conceive essences of non-existent entities." Avicenna, your view suggests that the mind is capable of conceptualizing such essences. However, this assumes a pre-existing framework where these essences are distinguishable from existence. Avicenna: Correct, Robert. My arguments hinge on the capacity of the mind to handle abstract concepts, irrespective of their physical manifestation. "The mind can think essence of a four-sided triangle," for instance, which, although it cannot exist in reality, holds conceptual existence. Kierkegaard: (Interjecting) But therein lies a pivotal flaw. If we argue that conceptual existence validates the essence of entities that do not empirically exist, are we not merely dancing around the true nature of existence? It is not the mental conception that validates essence but the act of existing itself. Robert: Indeed, Søren. "The very act of 'doing' presupposes the existence of an object," which challenges Avicenna's notion that essence can be divorced from existential reality. Each act of existence lends credence to essence, not the other way around. Perhaps, then, our views aren't so disparate but are different explorations of the same existential spectrum. Avicenna explores from a metaphysical standpoint, while Kierkegaard and I venture into the existential realm. Avicenna: (Reflectively) It is clear, through our discourse, that the essence, while abstract, gains true significance only through existence. This dialogue enriches our collective understanding, blending metaphysical and existential insights. Kierkegaard: (Firmly) And so, we must continue to challenge the preconceived boundaries between essence and existence, embracing the uncertainties and freedoms that come with existential thought. The essence is not a static precursor but evolves dynamically through our lived experiences. Robert: (Raising his coffee cup) To our philosophical journey, then, which remains ever dynamic and deeply enriching. Avicenna: (Raising his cup) To the continuous exploration of being, in all its forms. Kierkegaard: (Raising his cup) And to the courage to live authentically, wherever and however that journey unfolds. (They toast, reflecting a deep bond forged through rigorous debate and mutual respect. The ambient sounds of the café gradually fade as they continue their discussion, leaving the audience with a sense of intellectual fulfillment and curiosity.) Curtain falls.   III. Immortality of the Soul In the autumn of 1982, two years after penning my first philosophical inquiries as a freshman at UC Berkeley, I embarked on an exploration of Socrates' arguments for the immortality of the soul as depicted in Plato’s Phaedo. This paper, which I submitted for Professor Mates's Philosophy 160A course, was an attempt to scrutinize and understand the cyclical argument Socrates presented on the very day designated for his execution. It received an 'Excellent' remark and an 'A' grade, affirming my analytical skills and deep engagement with complex philosophical issues. Now, 42 years later, as I sift through the yellowed pages of my early academic endeavors, I realize how these essays have subtly defined the contours of my spiritual journey. The process of revisiting these works has been akin to unearthing a treasure map that delineates the philosophical pathways I have traversed, from a wide-eyed, impressionable freshman to the person I am today. Each paper, a stepping stone in its own right, reflects a pivotal moment of existential and theological reckoning—moments where I wrestled with concepts of existence, essence, and eternity. This reflective journey has been more than an academic exercise; it has been a profound personal rediscovery. Unpacking the dense arguments around Socratic philosophy and its implications on soul's immortality, I find reflections of my own evolving faith and understanding. These papers were not merely academic assignments; they were the early articulations of a deep-seated quest for meaning—a quest that has shaped my beliefs, my values, and my approach to life's most profound questions. I am immensely thankful for having unearthed these documents—almost as if they were crying out from the confines of an old cabinet, eager to remind me of my philosophical and spiritual journey. The convergence of events, ideas, people, and places that these papers represent is nothing short of a divine tapestry, intricately woven by God’s sovereign hand. It is with a heart full of gratitude that I now set out to weave these separate strands into a cohesive narrative, to better understand and appreciate the journey that has led me to where I am today. Praise the Lord for the opportunity to reflect, understand, and give thanks for a journey that has been as intellectually challenging as it has been spiritually enriching.  A. Immortality of the Soul – Original Paper Socrates, in the Phaedo, attempts to prove the immortality of the soul on the day of his death. He supports his belief by several arguments. In this paper I will examine Socrates' cyclical argument (69 e6- 72 e2) to see if the immortality of the soul is verifiable. The scope of this paper would be focused on the Phaedo, and I will refer to the other materials only when it is necessary. In the beginning of Phaedo, when Cebes objects to Socrates that the soul may not survive death, Socrates leads him into the cyclical argument. He begins by appealing to the principle that opposites come from opposites, and cyclical processes between every pair of opposites. Some opposite pair examples are 'smaller' and 'larger', 'beautiful' and 'ugly', and 'just' and 'unjust'. Moreover, between the members of every pair of opposites, Socrates argues that "Since they are two, there are two processes of coming-to-be, from one to the other, and back again from the latter to the former." For example, being awake comes to be from sleeping, and sleeping from being awake. After confirming this point with Cebes, Socrates begins a new phase of the cyclical argument. He holds that being dead is opposite to living, and that they come to be from each other. That is to say, the living people are born from the dead, and the dead people from the living. Therefore, he holds that the souls of the dead must exist somewhere, since they are born again. Socrates affirms his belief by an additional argument: "If everything that has some share of life were to die, and if after death the dead remained in that form and did not come to life again, then it would be quite inevitable that in the end everything should be dead." This, so far, is the crux of Socrates' cyclical argument. Let us now examine the validity of the cyclical argument for immortality. First of all, the concept of an 'opposite', though critical for the argument here, in never defined. Socrates illustrates it merely with some opposite pairs such as 'beautiful' and 'ugly', and 'just' and 'unjust'. However, these pairs seem to be contrary rather than contradictory opposites, because they may both be truthfully denied, although they may not both be truthfully asserted of a given subject at the same time. For example, one can never truthfully say a thing is 'just' and 'unjust' at the same time. Yet they can both be truthfully denied, and inferences cannot be made from the denial of one member to the affirmation of the other. Something which is not 'just' is not necessarily 'unjust'. Likewise, something which is not 'beautiful' is not necessarily 'ugly'. It is important to notice this difference, because it greatly affects the later argument of 'living' and 'dead'. Although Socrates applies these terms, 'living' and 'dead', as contradictory opposites, in fact, they are not. They are not extremes, nor can things be 'very living' or 'very dead'. Nonetheless, 'living' and 'dead' are contrary opposites, because they may be both be truthfully denied of a subject. Something that is living need not necessarily earlier have been dead. For their logical asymmetry, compare 'married' and 'divorced'. To argue that what is living must earlier have been dead, and therefore still earlier living, is like arguing that someone who is, at a given time, married must at some earlier time have been divorced, and therefore still earlier married. However, just as it does not follow from 'x is not married' that 'x is divorced', so also, it does not follow from 'x is not alive' that 'x is dead'. Now let me be more specific. From 71 a12 a new phase of the argument begins. Socrates argues, "Between the members of every pair of opposites, since they are two, aren't there two processes of coming-to-be, from one to the other, and back again from the latter to the former?" This passage seems to introduce a further argument to show that the living are born from the dead. After concluding at 71 e2 that our souls exist in Hades, Socrates will insist that there must be a process of coming to life again, and will continue! "In that way too, then, we're agreed that living people are born from the dead." Here, one can see that the claim that there must be processes in both directions is vital for any effective use of the principle that opposites come from opposites. If one holds the principle that 'whatever comes to be x must previously have been y requires that there actually be such a process as 'coming to be x'. However, if, for a given opposite x, there is no such process as 'coming to be x', the argument will break down. For example, if there is no such process as 'coming to be undone', it cannot be inferred from a thing's coming to be undone which it was previously done. For this reason the appeal to reciprocal processes is not really a separate argument, but is essential for the working of the cyclical argument as a whole. Then, is there such a process as 'coming to be alive'? In one sense there clearly is. Things come to be alive when they come into being at birth or conception. But from a thing's coming to be alive in this sense, the proper inference is not that it was previously dead, but that it did not exist previously at all. The sense of 'coming to be alive' required for the argument is not that in which a living thing comes into being, but that in which a soul 'becomes incarnate' in a living body. Yet it cannot do this unless it already exists before birth or conception. Socrates applies his belief on the reciprocal process in 71 c1-d13. He asks Cebes, "Well then, is there an opposite to living, as sleeping is opposite to being awake?", and he answers, "certainly—(it is) being dead." Here, one notices that Socrates' parallel between dying and going to sleep owes its appeal, in part, to a superficial resemblance between sleep and death. Sleep, however, is a temporary state, whereas the permanence of death could not be denied without begging the question. Also, it is not obvious to me that every interval of 'being asleep' in a person's life is preceded by an interval of 'being awake', and that every interval of 'being awake' is preceded by an interval of 'being asleep'. If the intervals were even of a few seconds' duration, one would have had to have lived for an infinitely long time in order to be awake now. Moreover, there is a basic difficulty in the analogy between waking up and coming to life again. Someone who wakes up exists before waking, whereas someone who comes to life, in the sense of being born or conceived, has not previously existed. A thing cannot be said to 'come to life again' in the sense required by the argument, unless the persistence of an independent subject, 'the soul', is already assumed. However, this is just what has to be proved. Let us now, for the sake of argument, assume that the cyclical argument does work and that there is such a process as 'coming to be alive'. Even granting all these, one still runs into a problem. There is a peculiar difficulty in understanding what 'coming to life again' means. It seems that Socrates is not thinking of 'resurrection' or 'rising from the dead', in which bodily identity is maintained, but rather of 'reincarnation', in which the soul is conceived as entering a fresh body. However, the whole idea of the soul's entering a body is perplexing. If the soul is somehow able to enter a body, then it seems to require that the body be thought of as already existing, prior to incarnation. However, there is no separate body existing before conception. Moreover, Socrates argues that separation of the body and the soul is death, which suggests that the soul is 'life-principle', therefore it would be contradicting to suppose that the soul enters the body at any point after conception has occurred. For it is natural to associate the start of life with conception itself. Socrates' last part of cyclical argument holds that everything could not conceivably end up dead. The logical role of this argument is not very clear, and it is left unexplained. There must have been a basic mutual understanding between Socrates and Cebes in order for them to agree on this point without argument. For the world's end is quite conceivable to a modern reader, and it will likely to happen than otherwise. We can easily conceive this by picturing a few newly developed nuclear bombs. However, Plato's frame of reference must have been different. In any case, it must be noticed that a process of coming to life again must be assumed to prevent everything from ending up dead. Yet assuming something which has to be proved is begging a question. After holding that is would be quite inevitable that everything would ultimately be dead, Socrates argues as the following at 72 c3-c6: "If the living thing were generated from other living things, and if the living things were to die, what will prevent all living things from being swallowed up in death?" But what are the 'other living things'? They cannot be 'living' because Socrates holds that living things actually come from the dead. If the 'other living things' are conceived as 'sources' from which new things are generated, then there has been a shift from the sense in which opposite things were originally said to 'come to be' from each other. Finally, it seems to me that Socrates is unsuccessful in verifying the immortality of soul by his cyclical argument in Phaedo. These are the reasons. First, the concept of an 'opposite', though critical for the argument here, is never defined. Second, Socrates uses the terms 'living' and 'dead' as contradictory opposites when they are contrary opposites. Third, Socrates' belief on the reciprocal process of 'coming to be alive' assumes that soul exists before it 'becomes incarnate' in a living body. Forth, he does not account for the basic difficulty in the analogy between waking up and coming to life again. Lastly, Socrates' argument at Phaedo 72 c3-c6 is quite perplexing since he uses the term 'the other living thing' inaccurately.  B. ‘Immortality of the Soul’ through Kierkegaard’s Existential Lens Memo: This is re-write of my paper with the help of Charley. In his dialogue Phaedo, Socrates endeavors to establish the immortality of the soul, presenting his arguments on the very day designated for his execution. This paper focuses specifically on his cyclical argument, delineated in sections 69e6 to 72e2 of the text, to scrutinize the verifiability of the soul's immortality, with references to additional materials only as required for clarity and depth. Socrates introduces the cyclical argument by responding to Cebes's skepticism regarding the soul's persistence post-mortem. He initiates his defense by invoking the principle that opposites originate from their counterparts, emphasizing a cyclical interrelation among all dualities. He cites common dichotomies such as 'smaller' and 'larger', 'beautiful' and 'ugly', and 'just' and 'unjust' to illustrate this perpetual interplay. Further elaborating on this dynamic, Socrates posits that each pair of opposites is engaged in a continuous process of transformation—one into the other and then reciprocally. For instance, the state of wakefulness emerges from sleep, and vice versa, suggesting a natural oscillation between two states. Advancing his argument, Socrates equates life and death to such a pair of opposites, proposing that life arises from death and conversely, death from life. This cyclical perspective leads him to contend that the souls of the deceased must persist in some form, awaiting rebirth, given their participation in this eternal cycle of coming-to-be and passing-away. He reinforces his thesis with a further deduction: if every living entity were to die and remain perpetually inert, unable to be reanimated, it would logically conclude that eventually, all existence would cease, contradicting observable life's resilience and continuity. Integrating Søren Kierkegaard's existential philosophy into this analysis brings an intriguing dimension to Socrates' argument. While Socrates focuses on a metaphysical cycle to substantiate the soul’s immortality, Kierkegaard shifts the discourse to a more existential plane, emphasizing subjective experience over objective metaphysics. He argues that true understanding stems not from observing external cycles of nature but from an inward existential journey. According to Kierkegaard, the immortality of the soul would not be an empirical verity derived from logical deduction, as Socrates suggests, but a truth apprehended through personal faith and existential commitment. Incorporating Kierkegaard’s perspective challenges the classical interpretation, suggesting that the essence of life and death transcends cyclical metaphysical arguments. It posits that the immortality of the soul is less a philosophical certainty and more an article of faith, experienced and affirmed through individual existential engagement. This interpretation invites a profound reflection on the nature of belief, existence, and the eternal, proposing that the essence of these concepts may indeed be as much about existential choice as about logical deduction. Let us critically evaluate the cyclical argument for immortality as posited by Socrates. A fundamental concern arises from his employment of 'opposites', a concept that, while central to his reasoning, remains undefined within the discourse. Socrates provides examples like 'beautiful' versus 'ugly', and 'just' versus 'unjust', which represent contrary rather than contradictory opposites. This distinction is crucial as contrary opposites allow for the possibility that both can be simultaneously negated—something can be neither 'just' nor 'unjust' at the same time, indicating that these are not strict dichotomies. This observation casts significant doubt on the applicability of this framework to the terms 'living' and 'dead', which Socrates treats as contradictory opposites. In reality, these terms do not represent the extremities of a spectrum, nor does something exist as 'very living' or 'very dead'. They are instead contrary opposites; both can be denied without necessitating the truth of the other. For instance, something that is living was not necessarily once dead. Analyzing this through the lens of logical asymmetry—consider the terms 'married' and 'divorced'. Asserting that a living being must have previously been dead, and therefore, prior to that, living, mirrors the flawed logic that someone who is currently married must have once been divorced, and therefore once again married prior to that. This is a logical fallacy; from the negation that 'x is not married', it does not logically follow that 'x is divorced'. Similarly, the absence of life does not inherently imply a prior state of death. Incorporating Søren Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy, we find a richer, more nuanced interrogation of these concepts. Kierkegaard, focusing on subjective experience and the primacy of individual existence, might argue that such metaphysical categorizations ('living', 'dead') obscure the deeper existential realities. He would likely emphasize that true existential understanding arises from the individual's direct engagement with life and death, beyond mere logical categorization. Kierkegaard's critique would pivot on the idea that existential truths—such as the essence of life and death—are not adequately captured by binary logical structures but are deeply personal, lived experiences that defy simple binary opposition. He posits that understanding one's existence and essence transcends empirical or logical validation and instead requires a personal confrontation with one's own subjective reality. Thus, while Socrates seeks to use logical structures to assert the immortality of the soul, a Kierkegaardian perspective would challenge us to look beyond these structures towards a more profound, existential engagement with the concepts of life and death. This existential approach not only questions the validity of logical binaries in understanding life and immortality but also invites a deeper reflection on the personal and subjective dimensions of existing. In the Phaedo, beginning from 71a12, Socrates embarks on a refined phase of the cyclical argument, positing that "Between the members of every pair of opposites, since they are two, aren't there two processes of coming-to-be, from one to the other, and back again from the latter to the former?" This line of reasoning aims to substantiate the notion that the living emerge from the dead, leading Socrates to assert postulation, following his argument that the soul resides in Hades, that there must indeed be a regeneration of life, thereby concluding, "In that way too, then, we’re agreed that living people are born from the dead." This assertion underscores the necessity for reciprocal processes in the principle that opposites derive from each other. The assertion that a state 'x' must have formerly been in a state 'y' presupposes an actual transitional process from 'y' to 'x'. However, should there be an absence of such a process for a given state 'x', the cyclical argument collapses. For instance, without a recognizable process of 'coming to be undone', it cannot logically follow from something being undone that it was previously done. Thus, the invocation of reciprocal processes is not merely supportive but foundational to the cyclical argument’s coherence. Further, the question arises: Is there genuinely a process of 'coming to be alive'? Ostensibly, yes—beings come to life at birth or conception. However, this observation does not inherently imply that these beings were previously dead but rather that they did not exist prior. The specific iteration of 'coming to be alive' necessary for Socrates’ argument entails a soul becoming incarnate in a living body, presupposing the soul’s pre-existence prior to birth or conception. Integrating Søren Kierkegaard’s existential insights into this discussion illuminates the limitations of Socrates' logic from an existential perspective. Kierkegaard would argue that existential truths are not deduced through logical sequencing of metaphysical states but are understood through individual subjective experience. The existential query shifts from an empirical analysis of life’s origins to a profound engagement with the nature of existence itself. For Kierkegaard, the existence and nature of the soul are matters of personal faith and existential commitment, not merely logical deduction. Kierkegaard's focus on the subjective, the 'leap of faith', and the individual’s direct encounter with existence challenges the empirical and reciprocal frameworks of Socrates. He suggests that the essence of life, death, and what lies between—potentially the soul’s journey—is rooted in existential experience rather than in logically reciprocal processes. This approach invites a reevaluation of the assumptions underlying philosophical inquiries into life and death, emphasizing personal existential realization over abstract metaphysical speculation. In the Phaedo, Socrates articulates his theory on the cyclical process of life and death in dialogue 71c1-d13, questioning Cebes, "Well then, is there an opposite to living, as sleeping is opposite to being awake?" to which he responds affirmatively, equating being dead with being asleep. This analogy, however, hinges largely on a superficial resemblance between sleep and death—sleep being a reversible state, whereas death traditionally is viewed as permanent. Thus, equating these two states without further scrutiny tends to oversimplify the complexities involved, and risks circular reasoning by presupposing what it seeks to prove—that death, like sleep, is a state from which one might awaken. Additionally, the premise that every instance of sleep is necessarily preceded by wakefulness, and vice versa, does not universally hold as periods of wakefulness or sleep can be discontinuous or variably spaced. If this cyclical pattern were a requisite of existence, it would imply an infinite regression of alternating states, which is practically and philosophically untenable. The analogy between awakening from sleep and rebirth or resurrection is further problematic. When one awakens, they continue a life that was temporarily suspended; they do not commence existence anew. In contrast, to be born or to be conceived initiates a new existence that was not previously there. This crucial difference underscores that a 'coming to life again' as argued by Socrates presupposes the existence of an enduring entity—'the soul'—whose continuity post-death is the very conclusion Socrates aims to establish. Therefore, the argument is fundamentally circular as it assumes the existence of the soul to prove the soul's existence. Incorporating Søren Kierkegaard's existential philosophy offers a profound counterpoint to this discussion. Kierkegaard, emphasizing individual experience and subjective reality, posits that existence precedes essence and that truths about existence, such as life and death, are intrinsically tied to personal and subjective understanding. From an existentialist viewpoint, the empirical continuity presumed by Socratic logic overlooks the deeper, existential engagement with being. For Kierkegaard, the essence of life and the understanding of death are not to be discerned through logical analogies but through a personal confrontation with existence itself. Kierkegaard would likely critique Socrates’ approach as abstract and detached from the subjective realities of individual existence. He would argue that understanding death and the potential immortality of the soul requires an existential rather than a purely logical inquiry. This existential inquiry emphasizes faith and personal meaning over empirical verification, suggesting that the true nature of life and death transcends cyclical metaphysical arguments and rests within the domain of personal existential commitment and faith. Thus, while Socrates seeks to use logical structures to prove the immortality of the soul, Kierkegaard invites a deeper, more personal exploration of what it means to live and confront death. For the sake of discussion, let us provisionally accept the validity of the cyclical argument and the existence of a process termed 'coming to be alive.' Yet, even under these concessions, an intrinsic complication remains concerning the meaning of 'coming to life again.' It appears that Socrates does not conceptualize this as 'resurrection'—wherein bodily identity is preserved—but rather as 'reincarnation', where the soul inhabits a new body. This notion, however, introduces perplexities about the mechanics of such an incarnation: if a soul enters a body, it presupposes that the body exists independently prior to this union, which contradicts the idea that no body exists separate from its conception. Furthermore, Socrates' assertion that the separation of soul and body constitutes death positions the soul as the essence of life. It is, therefore, contradictory to propose that the soul would enter into the body post-conception, as life is traditionally understood to commence at conception itself. The final part of Socrates’ cyclical argument posits that not everything can conceivably end in death, yet he does not elucidate the logical underpinnings of this claim. This assumption likely relies on a foundational agreement between Socrates and Cebes, obscure to the modern reader, for whom the cessation of all life is a conceivable outcome, illustrated by scenarios such as global nuclear annihilation. Nonetheless, within Plato's philosophical framework, the necessity of a recurring process of coming to life is posited to avert the total cessation of life, which, if assumed without substantiation, constitutes a circular argument, begging the question at issue. Incorporating Søren Kierkegaard's existential insights provides a critical perspective on these discussions. Kierkegaard would likely critique the abstraction of Socrates’ argument, emphasizing the individual and subjective nature of existence and the concept of 'becoming.' For Kierkegaard, existential truth does not reside in metaphysical speculations about the soul's mechanics but in the lived experience of the individual grappling with existence and non-existence. From an existentialist viewpoint, the notion of the soul as a transmigrating entity might be seen not as a metaphysical truth to be logically demonstrated but as a metaphorical expression of deeper existential realities—each individual must confront and interpret the mysteries of life, death, and spiritual continuity on a personal level. Thus, while Socrates seeks to establish a universal and cyclical nature of life and death through logical argumentation, Kierkegaard redirects the inquiry towards the internal and personal dimensions of these concepts, suggesting that what matters is not the speculative mechanics of how life and soul interact but how each individual understands and engages with these concepts in the context of their own existential journey. In his dialogues within Phaedo, Socrates posits a cyclical argument to substantiate the immortality of the soul, culminating in a perplexing assertion at 72c3-c6: "If the living thing were generated from other living things, and if the living things were to die, what will prevent all living things from being swallowed up in death?" This question ostensibly aims to highlight the absurdity of an eternal cessation of life but introduces ambiguities about the nature of these 'other living things.' Socrates implies that living beings originate from the dead, contradicting the conventional understanding of life emerging from life and complicating the logical structure of his argument. This analysis reveals several critical shortcomings in Socrates' cyclical argument. First, the foundational concept of 'opposites' remains undefined, which muddies the logical waters when considering what constitutes 'life' and 'death.' These terms, which Socrates employs as though they are strict opposites, more accurately represent contrary states rather than contradictory ones, challenging the coherence of his argument. Furthermore, the argument hinges on the presumption that the soul exists prior to its incarnation, which presupposes the conclusion it seeks to prove. Additionally, the analogy drawn between the processes of waking from sleep and returning to life fails to account for the intrinsic differences between these states. Lastly, Socrates' argument about 'other living things' suffers from a lack of clarity, as it shifts the established meaning of life emerging from opposites, thereby weakening his philosophical position. Integrating Søren Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy offers a profound critique of Socrates’ approach. Kierkegaard would likely argue that the search for empirical proofs of the soul’s immortality, as attempted through logical argumentation in the Phaedo, overlooks the inherently subjective and personal nature of existential reality. From Kierkegaard’s perspective, the immortality of the soul is not a hypothesis to be debated but a truth to be embraced through individual faith and existential commitment. He emphasizes that existential truths are accessed not through deductive reasoning but through a personal leap of faith, where the individual confronts and engages with the mysteries of existence, life, and death in a deeply personal manner. Kierkegaard’s existentialism suggests that the questions of life, death, and soul transcend the capacities of logical debate and enter the realm of personal existential inquiry. This approach challenges the premises of Socratic logic, proposing that true understanding of such profound matters lies in the individual's subjective experience rather than in the objective rationalizations that Socrates attempts to construct. In essence, while Socrates seeks universal answers through logical sequences, Kierkegaard invites a more introspective exploration that prioritizes personal meaning and existential authenticity over philosophical abstraction.  C. Seven Questions Here are seven reflective questions based on the paper "‘IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL’ THROUGH KIERKEGAARD’S EXISTENTIAL LENS," incorporating relevant Bible verses and quotes from the paper to guide theological reflection and spiritual inquiry: 1. How does Socrates' cyclical argument about life and death challenge our understanding of biblical teachings on resurrection and eternal life? Bible Verse: John 11:25-26 - "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die.'" Quote from Paper: "Socrates equates life and death to such a pair of opposites, proposing that life arises from death and conversely, death from life." Question: In what ways does this philosophical approach align with or differ from the Christian doctrine of resurrection? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. What does Kierkegaard's existential focus on subjective experience reveal about the personal nature of faith in the context of soul's immortality? Bible Verse: Romans 8:16 - "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children." Quote from Paper: "According to Kierkegaard, the immortality of the soul would not be an empirical verity derived from logical deduction, but a truth apprehended through personal faith and existential commitment." Question: How can this perspective enhance our understanding of personal salvation and eternal life as taught in Christianity? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Considering the cyclical nature of life and death, how can believers reconcile the idea of an eternal soul with the physical reality of death? Bible Verse: Ecclesiastes 3:11 - "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end." Quote from Paper: "This cyclical perspective leads him to contend that the souls of the deceased must persist in some form, awaiting rebirth." Question: Does this philosophical argument offer a plausible explanation for the Christian belief in the eternal soul? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. How does the concept of 'existence precedes essence' challenge or support the Christian understanding of being created in the image of God? Bible Verse: Genesis 1:27 - "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Quote from Paper: "Kierkegaard posits that existence precedes essence, and it is through the act of existing that one’s essence is defined." Question: How can this existential assertion reshape our understanding of human nature and divine purpose? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. What role does the leap of faith play in accepting the teachings of the Bible concerning life after death? Bible Verse: Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Quote from Paper: "Kierkegaard’s concept of the 'leap of faith' illustrates that existential commitment transcends rationalist and metaphysical explanations." Question: How can Kierkegaard’s ideas help us to better understand and embrace the biblical teachings on faith and the afterlife? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. In what ways can the cyclical arguments of Socrates be used to discuss the biblical concept of death and resurrection? Bible Verse: 1 Corinthians 15:22 - "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Quote from Paper: "He reinforces his thesis with a further deduction: if every living entity were to die and remain perpetually inert, unable to be reanimated, it would logically conclude that eventually, all existence would cease." Question: Can this philosophical reasoning be aligned with Paul’s teachings on death and resurrection in 1 Corinthians? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. How does the existential emphasis on personal and subjective truths influence our approach to biblical doctrines like the immortality of the soul? Bible Verse: 2 Corinthians 4:18 - "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." Quote from Paper: "The existential act of ‘becoming’ is where essence is actualized, challenging the notion that essence can be considered apart from existential experience." Question: How does this perspective encourage a more personal and introspective faith journey in understanding eternal truths? Your Response: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ These questions are intended to facilitate deep theological reflection and spiritual growth by integrating philosophical insights with biblical teachings.  D. Play - Echoes of Eternity Act 1: At the Crossroads of Thought Setting: The Kierkegaard Research Center in Sejeong City, Korea. The room has a large window overlooking the Gold River, with walls lined with bookshelves brimming with philosophical texts. In the center, a circular table with three chairs, where Socrates, Robert, and Kierkegaard are seated, each with a steaming cup of coffee. Characters: Socrates: A venerable philosopher from ancient Greece, known for his foundational contributions to Western philosophy. In this play, Socrates represents the classical logical perspective, utilizing structured arguments to explore profound philosophical questions. He is steadfast, analytical, and deeply committed to pursuing truth through reasoned debate and the Socratic method. His focus is on establishing universal truths about the immortality of the soul through cyclical reasoning, emphasizing a rational approach to understanding life and death. Kierkegaard: A 19th-century Danish philosopher, often considered the father of existentialism. In the play, Kierkegaard challenges the more traditional views held by Socrates by emphasizing the importance of individual experience and subjective reality. He is introspective, passionate, and deeply concerned with the personal dimensions of faith, existence, and the human condition. Kierkegaard argues that true understanding comes not from empirical evidence or logical deduction but from personal faith and the lived experience of existing. Robert: A contemporary philosopher and the mediator in the discussions between Socrates and Kierkegaard. He is thoughtful, open-minded, and seeks to find a balance between the logical rigor of Socratic philosophy and the existential depth of Kierkegaard's thought. Robert is intrigued by the philosophical discourse and contributes by posing critical questions that bridge old philosophies with new realities. His role is crucial in navigating the conversation, making connections, and highlighting the complementary aspects of both Socratic and existential approaches. (Scene Opens) Socrates: (Gesturing towards the flowing river outside) In the words of my dialogue, Phaedo, I argued that life and death are cyclical, much like the flow of this river—continuous and eternal. "Each pair of opposites is engaged in a continuous process of transformation—one into the other and then reciprocally." This cycle proposes that life arises from death, and death from life. Robert: (Nodding thoughtfully) Socrates, your cyclical view connects the opposites but may overlook the unique essence of each individual's existence. Does this universal cycle adequately account for personal experiences and the variations therein? Kierkegaard: (Leaning forward, his eyes intense) Robert raises a poignant question. While your cyclical model offers a macroscopic view, Socrates, it indeed might miss the intimate nuances of life's experiences. "True understanding stems not from observing external cycles of nature but from an inward existential journey." The immortal essence of the soul, then, isn't something to be proven through logic alone but felt deeply and personally through one's faith and existential commitment. Socrates: But is not the pursuit of universal truths the foundation upon which we can discuss life’s profound mysteries? If each experience is purely subjective, how shall we ever find common ground? Kierkegaard: (Smiling slightly) "It is not the speculative mechanics of how life and soul interact that matter most," but rather, how each individual confronts these eternal questions in their personal journey. We must appreciate these narratives, though they differ, for they all grapple with the same existential concerns. (The discussion intensifies, with each philosopher elaborating on their viewpoints.) Robert: Socrates, you assert that life necessitates death and vice versa, but does this framework not reduce our personal experiences to mere inevitabilities dictated by nature? Socrates: Logic is the lens through which we can discern truth from fallacy, Robert. Without it, are we not cast adrift in a sea of uncertainty? Kierkegaard: "The soul’s immortality isn’t a theorem to be proved but a truth to be embraced through personal faith and commitment." Philosophy ought to transcend the confines of empirical proof and venture into the realm of personal belief and spiritual understanding. Robert: There lies value in both logical and existential approaches. Perhaps, our challenge is to integrate these perspectives to better grasp the complexities of existence. Kierkegaard: "By engaging with different viewpoints, we uncover layers of meaning that a solitary inquiry might never reveal." It’s through this philosophical discourse that we enrich our understanding of the profound mysteries of life and death. (The night deepens, and the room dims, save for the soft glow of a desk lamp, symbolizing their journey into deeper philosophical territories.) Socrates: This dialogue has been most illuminating. I concede that while my theories provide a framework, they do not encompass the entirety of existence’s mysteries. Your insights, particularly on personal and existential experiences, have broadened my understanding. Robert: Today’s discourse has revealed philosophy to be more than the search for absolute truths; it is equally about exploring personal and existential meanings. It's a rich tapestry of intertwined threads—logical, personal, and spiritual. Kierkegaard: Our gathering here has demonstrated the power of philosophical dialogue. As we share and reflect on our diverse perspectives, we delve deeper into understanding not just life and death but the very essence of being. Socrates: Let this new dawn symbolize our continued quest for knowledge and understanding. May our diverse paths enrich our collective journey and deepen our insights into life’s enduring questions. Robert and Kierkegaard: (Together) To the journey of understanding, in all its forms. (They raise their coffee cups in a silent toast.)  Act 2: Delving Deeper Setting: The conversation continues in the dimly lit room of the Kierkegaard Research Center, the outside darkness contrasting sharply with the single lamp that casts an introspective glow over the three philosophers. Robert: Socrates, your argument hinges on logical structures that deduce the immortality of the soul through cyclical reasoning. "Analyzing this through the lens of logical asymmetry—consider the terms 'married' and 'divorced'. Asserting that a living being must have previously been dead, and therefore, prior to that, living, mirrors the flawed logic that someone who is currently married must have once been divorced, and therefore once again married prior to that. This is a logical fallacy; from the negation that 'x is not married', it does not logically follow that 'x is divorced'." Doesn't this somewhat detach us from the personal impact of these concepts? Socrates: Logic, Robert, serves as the beacon through which we navigate the murky waters of philosophical inquiry. Without it, are we not merely casting about in a sea of speculation and superstition? Kierkegaard: "But isn’t that the very crux of human existence, Socrates? To dwell within the confusion and chaos, embracing the existential leaps of faith? The soul’s immortality isn’t a theorem to be proved but a truth to be embraced through personal faith and existential commitment." We must not overlook the individual’s profound encounter with the reality of life and death. Robert: Both of your insights are compelling. It seems our discourse is not merely about determining the correct argument but rather exploring the multifaceted nature of existence itself. It's akin to observing the same landscape through different windows—each perspective offers a unique view, yet all gaze upon the same vista. Kierkegaard: "Exactly, Robert. And in sharing these diverse views, we enrich our collective understanding of life and death, moving beyond the confines of mere cyclical or existential frameworks." This dialogue deepens our comprehension, weaving together a more complete tapestry of human understanding. (The room now feels smaller, the philosophical weight of the discussion pressing in as the three thinkers probe deeper into the nature of existence.) Socrates: "In the Phaedo, I posited that between every pair of opposites, there are two processes of coming-to-be, from one to the other and back again. This cyclical nature suggests a perpetual recurrence, leading us to conclude that life springs from death, just as wakefulness follows sleep." Kierkegaard: "Yet, Socrates, this assertion relies on the existence of a recognizable process, akin to the transition between states such as sleep and wakefulness. But if we accept that the coming into being does not inherently imply a prior state of non-being, your cyclical argument risks collapsing under its own structural weight. The soul’s journey might instead be rooted in an existential experience, not merely in reciprocal logical processes." Socrates: "Your critique, Kierkegaard, challenges the very foundation of my argument. However, if we forsake these logical structures, how shall we discourse on the nature of the soul’s immortality?" Robert: "Perhaps the truth lies not in discarding these structures but in augmenting them with our personal narratives and existential experiences. By integrating both our logical understanding and our subjective realities, we can forge a path that respects both the universal and the individual." Kierkegaard: "Indeed, Robert. The essence of life and death transcends our logical debates and is deeply embedded in our personal and subjective experiences. 'Understanding one's existence and essence transcends empirical or logical validation and instead requires a personal confrontation with one's own subjective reality.'" Robert: "This dialogue has illuminated the vast landscape of philosophical inquiry. It is clear that while we may start from different premises, our journeys converge on the shared path of seeking understanding." Kierkegaard: "And so, our night of discussion draws to a close, not with definitive answers but with deeper questions and a renewed commitment to exploring the mysteries of existence. For it is in the journey, not the destination, where true wisdom lies." Socrates: "Let us then embrace this journey, armed with both our reason and our experiences, as we continue to seek the truths of life and immortality. In this pursuit, may we find not only answers but also a greater understanding of ourselves and our place within the cosmos." (The three philosophers stand, their discussion concluded for the moment, but the philosophical journey far from over.)  Act 3: Resolution and Reflection Setting: The first light of dawn filters through the expansive windows of the Kierkegaard Research Center. The room, filled with philosophical texts and overlooking the tranquil Gold River, glows with the amber hues of sunrise. Socrates: (Reflecting deeply) "This dialogue has indeed been enlightening. I understand now that while my cyclical arguments provide a logical framework, they do not encapsulate the entirety of existence's mysteries. Your perspectives, particularly on the subjective nature of experience, have broadened my understanding of the soul's journey." Robert: "And I have gleaned that philosophy is not merely the pursuit of objective truths but also an exploration into the depths of personal experiences and existential commitments. It is indeed a richer tapestry than I had previously imagined, where the personal and the metaphysical intertwine." Kierkegaard: "Our discourse tonight stands as a testament to the power of philosophical dialogue. By engaging with various viewpoints, we uncover layers of meaning that solitary inquiry might never reveal. The personal narratives we bring to the table enhance our collective understanding of these profound topics." (They stand together, gazing out at the sunrise over the river—a symbol of continuous flow and renewal, much like their ongoing philosophical journey.) Socrates: "As the new day dawns, let us carry forward the spirit of open inquiry and mutual respect. May our divergent paths continue to illuminate the complex mysteries of life, death, and what may lie beyond. 'The final part of my cyclical argument posits that not everything can conceivably end in death, yet this assumption relies on a foundational agreement which remains obscure to the modern reader.'" Robert and Kierkegaard: (Together) "To the journey of understanding, in all its forms." Kierkegaard: "Indeed, Socrates, while you seek to establish a universal and cyclical nature of life and death through logical structures, I advocate for a redirection of our inquiry towards the internal and personal dimensions of these concepts. What truly matters is not the speculative mechanics of how life and soul interact but how each individual understands and engages with these ideas on their own existential journey." Socrates: "Your critique, Kierkegaard, brings a critical perspective that I appreciate. The abstraction of my argument might indeed overlook the subjective nature of human existence and the concept of 'becoming.' Existential truth, as you rightly point out, does not reside in the metaphysical speculations about the soul's mechanics but in the lived experience of the individual grappling with existence and non-existence." Robert: "This introspection prompts us to think beyond the empirical and the logical. It suggests that our understanding of life and death should not be confined to debates that seek empirical proofs but should also embrace the complexities of personal faith and existential commitment." Kierkegaard: "Exactly, Robert. The notion of the soul as a transmigrating entity is less a metaphysical truth to be demonstrated logically and more a metaphorical expression of deeper existential realities. Each of us must confront and interpret the mysteries of life, death, and spiritual continuity on a deeply personal level." Socrates: "I concede that my approach, while seeking universal truths through logical sequences, might benefit from integrating more of these personal and existential insights. The dialogues we engage in should not just seek to resolve questions but to deepen our understanding and appreciation for the mystery that is human existence." (As they raise their coffee cups in a silent toast, the scene fades to black, the gentle sounds of the morning mingling with the reflective mood in the room. The river outside continues its eternal course—much like the ongoing journey of human thought and the quest for understanding that defines our existence.) Curtain Falls  Support Information I greet you in the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you so much for your love and support! Robert Oh ◆Email: oikosbishop@mac.com ◆ Internet:  www.blesscambodia.com   You can use PayPal from this site.   ◆ USA : KAGMA (Korean American Global Mission Association) Write the check to: KAGMA and Note: 'Cambodia Project' PO Box 4885 Cerritos, CA 90703 ◆ Korea : KEB Hana Bank Acct : 166-18-07737-7 Name : Oh Sukhwan   3 9