In Chapter 3 Kierkegaard provides the scriptural verse which forms the basis of the work, clarifies that to will one thing is to will the Good, and begins his list of Barriers to Willing One Thing.
In regards to the first element of the chapter, he begins with the following:
“So let us, then, upon the occasion of a time of Confession speak about this sentence: Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing as we base our meditation on the Apostle James’ words in his Epistle, Chapter 4, verse 8:“‘Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts ye double-minded.’ For only the pure in heart can see God, and therefore, draw nigh to Him; and only by God’s drawing nigh to them can they maintain this purity.”
And adds:
“Let us speak of this, but let us first put out of our minds the occasion of the office of Confession in order to come to an agreement on an understanding of this verse, and on what the apostolic word of admonition ‘purify your hearts ye double-minded’ is condemning, namely, double-mindedness.”
James 4:8 is the springboard for the rest of the work and what James 4:8 condemns is double-mindedness – what Kierkegaard will essentially interpret as ulterior motives to willing the Good in simplicity. These ulterior motives are what he will elaborate on and call Barriers to Willing One Thing in subsequent chapters.
After briefly expounding on James 4:8, Kierkegaard goes on to clarify that willing one thing is to will the Good.
“The person who wills one thing that is not the Good, he does not truly will one thing.”
“...for the Good is one thing.”
“...it is certain that a man in truth wills one thing, then he wills the Good…”
“Only the Good is one thing in its essence and the same in each of its expressions.”
“In truth to will one thing, then, can only mean to will the Good, because every other object is not a unity.”
Although in the Introduction Kierkegaard calls God “the one thing,” for the remainder of the work he will call “the one thing” the Good. For Kierkegaard only the Good is One Thing. All else is a striving after multiplicity. For example, when speaking of the goal of pleasure, he says:
“In the time of pleasure see how he longed for one gratification after another. Variety was his watchword. Is variety, then, to will one thing that shall ever remain the same? On the contrary, it is to will one thing that must never be the same. It is to will a multitude of things. And a person who wills in this fashion is not only double-minded but is at odds with himself. For such a man wills first one thing and then immediately wills the opposite, because the oneness of pleasure is a snare and a delusion.”
I think the equation of the Good being the only goal that is “one thing” is somewhat confusing. Could we not as easily say that the goal of Power is “one thing”? Or the goal of Fame? Or Wealth? And because “the Good” looks different in each concrete situation, could it not just as easily be spoken of as a multiplicity? For this reason, I think the work would have been more clearly titled Purity of Heart is to Will Only The Good (but that doesn’t have quite the same ring to it…). Regardless, for Kierkegaard the Good, and only the Good, is One Thing.
Finally, Kierkegaard begins his Barriers to Willing One Thing.
In this chapter, Kierkegaard essentially names all varieties of worldly ambition and labels them as barriers to willing the Good.
“For pleasure and honor and riches and power and all that this world has to offer only appear to be one thing.”
Nothing in the world is the proper aim of attainment. These goals will all prove themselves to be a multiplicity – endlessly changing and ultimately empty.
At the end of the chapter, Kierkegaard talks about more noble goals:
“Love, from time to time, has in this way helped a man along the right path. Faithfully he only willed one thing, this love. For it, he would live and die. For it, he would sacrifice all and in it alone he would have his eternal reward. Yet the act of being in love is still not in the deepest sense the Good. But it may possibly become for him a helpful educator, who will finally lead him by the possession of his beloved one or perhaps by her loss, in truth to will one thing and to will the Good. In this fashion a man is educated by many means; and true love is also an education towards the Good.”
“Perhaps there was a man whose enthusiasm reached out toward a definite cause. In his enthusiasm he desired only one thing. He would live and die for that cause. He would sacrifice all for that in which alone he would have his happiness, for love and enthusiasm are not satisfied with a divided heart. Yet his endeavor was perhaps still not in the deepest sense the Good. Thus enthusiasm became for him a teacher, whom he outgrew, but to home also he owed much.”
Even the more noble ends of love or a giving oneself for a good cause are ultimately only teachers which – because they are myopic and limited in scope – one must outgrow to will the Good in simplicity.