# What is the connection between objective uncertainty and truth as subjectivity in Kierkegaard?

I just want to understand clearly what is the possible connection between the objective uncertainty and the truth as subjectivity of Soren Kierkegaard. Since we cannot find much in his books his concept of Objective uncertainty except in his definition of truth "objective uncertainty held fast in the appropriation-process in the most passionate inwardness which is the truth" CUP. Is/are there significant connection in between the two? if there is/are, what are the contrasting characteristics in between the two?

(I haven't done any formal training in philosophy, I'm a mathematics student who likes philosophy.)

This is just my take on it and I may be completely wrong.

Suppose you have two pencils which are identical to you (as perceived by your five senses). Now their might be other independent sets of properties of pencil which we can't perceive. (By independent sets, I mean sets whose elements can only be compared with the elements of that same set. For example, you can't compare a colour with a sound or an odour.)

So subjectively, w.r.t you, those two pencils are identical, but objectively, they might be different.

Form sets of all objects such that any set contains identical (as perceived by us) objects and no two sets have objects which identical to each other. In an objective sense, these sets are equivalence classes of objects with the equivalence relation being our subjective truth.

We can also try to construct five abelian groups corresponding to our five different senses and take direct sum of all those five group and take the result to be a normal subgroup of an abelian group corresponding to the objective reality.

Then by theory on group extensions, we can see that the objective group may not be unique.

• If you have a reference that explores this further that would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. In particular I am not sure what "unique" has to do with the argument, but I might be missing something. Regardless, welcome to Philosophy! Mar 19, 2019 at 19:13
• There is indeed a difference between the objective and the subjective, as what i have understood from your answer. But bear in mind that there is also a difference between the objectively certain and the objectively uncertain. And kierkegaard rather used objective uncertainty in his definition of truth. In his book CUP, the objectively certain are the historical facts, or the dogmas etc. (refer to the chapter one of his book) and from what i see from your comment, these are categorized as objectively certain. Thus, you did not really answer my question. But still welcome to philosophy! Mar 20, 2019 at 2:05
• Thank you Frank and neil for your kind replies. I'll read more on this topic and then see if my answer makes any sense. If it does, I'll try my best to explain. Mar 29, 2019 at 17:42

There can be no connection between the two. You can hold on to certainty at the expense of objectivity, or you can hold on to objectivity at the expense of certainty, but you can't hold on to both. That would imply possession of objective certainty, better known as divine truth.