GENIUS FORUMS

This made me smile. Do you have a dog, mookestink? Schopenhauer at least had a dog. No friends, but a dog.

I always keep a dog around. Whenever one dies, I get a new one within a few months. I don't quite feel at home in a place without one. The varmints bond to me really fast; whenever a new dog comes in the house, within 2 or 3 days they've established that I'm their human.

emma wrote:So Tharan what's your building (besides ridiculing the beliefs of others which you do so well, a great skill, much needed)

I don't have a building that I am aware of. If I do, tell me what you see.

Cause and Effect. Only that, I think.

Mooke
I hold the same views as Emma........I think however that the "leap" is a leap of the mind and spirit and not a leap out of a buiding.......existentialism became silly after Kierkergaard.

Natan,

I hold the same views as Emma

I'm sure many people hold the same views as Emma. However, I find those views antithetical to serious philosophy. Kierkegaard produced an interesting thought experiment, and if I'm permitted to draw my own conclusions from his work, I would say he ended up showing how ridiculous Jewish heroes like Abraham are. He produced evidence that faith, as it is presented and valued, is an impossibility. To have faith is to be deluded because it is impossible to have faith. (It is, however, possible to be stupid -- but that goes without saying.)

I think however that the "leap" is a leap of the mind and spirit and not a leap out of a buiding

Yes, I understand that the building/cliff is just a metaphor. But when minds make leaps, it is nearly always into mistakes, so the metaphor and all the accompanying stupidity it implies is still valid. It is amazing how many wanna-be existentialists hear about this leaps of faith thing and imagine it to somehow be a good idea. I read about this sort of thing and imagine a herd of lemmings running off a cliff.

existentialism became silly after Kierkergaard.

Existentialism was silly with Kierkegaard. When I read Fear & Trembling I could taste the irony, and it was clearly intentional. He was having fun, and making fun.

After Kierkegaard, existentialism became serious; however, the movement is comic through and through. A whole herd of people trying to figure out what makes a joke funny. From what I understand, that whole century is an embarassment to academia. Nowadays, it's completely unfashionable to speak existentially in universities, and it's often best to pretend that these issues never gripped the collective imagination.

Mooke wrote
I'm sure many people hold the same views as Emma. However, I find those views antithetical to serious philosophy. Kierkegaard produced an interesting thought experiment, and if I'm permitted to draw my own conclusions from his work, I would say he ended up showing how ridiculous Jewish heroes like Abraham are. He produced evidence that faith, as it is presented and valued, is an impossibility. To have faith is to be deluded because it is impossible to have faith. (It is, however, possible to be stupid -- but that goes without saying.)

How is it "impossible to have faith",........ I have faith
How did he show that Abraham was ridiculous?

Existentialism was silly with Kierkegaard. When I read Fear & Trembling I could taste the irony, and it was clearly intentional. He was having fun, and making fun.

I havent read Fear and Trembling I have read his other wotrks including Provocations and I doubt he was making fun in the way you suggest

Nowadays, it's completely unfashionable to speak existentially in universities, and it's often best to pretend that these issues never gripped the collective imagination.

Ah because its unfashionable it must be wrong..right? It will return in a new form when our reason and logic has developed a bit more so new things can be understood.

Your views limit you because you will not leap into the dark ....You just banally echo the cynics of your time and follow the herd. No don't wander over there.......far too risky!

Fear and Trembling was one of K's early works written at a time when he hoped God would intervene and save his love for a woman.
Mooke read Provocations and you might get more of an insight

emma,

How is it "impossible to have faith",........ I have faith
How did he show that Abraham was ridiculous?

One of Kierkegaard's explicit statements was that very idea: that if Abraham is the father of faith, and if we are to understand his ordeal with Isaac properly, then faith is impossible. He squarely admitted that he doesn't have faith, and that he found it impossible that anyone else could have it either.

I'll summarize the ordeal of Abraham:
1) Abraham was told by God that he would father a nation that would be as numerous as the stars in heaven.
2) Abraham did not have a child until long after his wife had passed childbearing age
3) God told him to sacrifice this child
4) Abraham proceeds on a 3-day trek (Kierkegaard explores the psychology of this journey)
5) At the very last instant, Abraham is told to sacrifice a goat instead of his child.

The problem is that Abraham, despite his knowledge that God could not change his decree, loved and trusted his son and his God so much that he was convinced God would change his mind. He believed something that he knew was completely impossible. What makes this even a more remarkable problem is that it is unthinkable that any church would venerate a man who was willing to do such a horrible thing to his own child, yet Abraham is considered a hero.

Kierkegaard said that if what Abraham had was faith, then he cannot imagine anyone else who had it as well; and when it is said that even the slightest amount of faith can move a mountain, it is literal. If a person had faith, like the faith of Abraham, the mountain would literally move.

I havent read Fear and Trembling I have read his other wotrks including Provocations and I doubt he was making fun in the way you suggest

Fear & Trembling is very short, and there are copies distributed across the internet. If you enjoy K, there is no reason not to read it.

Ah because its unfashionable it must be wrong..right?

Existentialism is like countless other philosophies that arrive out of the blue, appear fashionable for a few decades, and then disappear. Romanticism, objectivism, modernism, postmodernism, existentialism... these sorts of philosophies come and go.

It will return in a new form when our reason and logic has developed a bit more so new things can be understood.

Your views limit you because you will not leap into the dark ....

And you'll be the first one to jump onto the new fashion. I'm well aware of this. The problem is, you still haven't healed from all the bumps and bruises you received last time you jumped off the cliff blindfolded.

You just banally echo the cynics of your time and follow the herd.

I rather enjoy listening to the genuine cynics. They often have the shrewdest insights, since they try not to delude themselves. I echo them only out of the deepest respect, and not out of my own cynicism; if you find this banal, perhaps you are being a bit too cynical?

As to following the herd, I hardly see how doing nearly the same thing every day according to a schedule that I decided entirely on my own counts as "herdly". In fact, it sounds pretty much the opposite of that. The herdliest thing I do is attend a few classes at the university.

No don't wander over there.......far too risky!

If a big yellow sign says "look out for falling blindfolded existentialists" I'd rather take the detour, even if it takes a little longer.

Natan, I don't like existentialism. I've read enough of that crap. I never gained any valuable insights.

If something doesn't work the first time, I'm not one to try it again and again and again. Emma frequently takes leaps of faith, and they don't seem to work all that well because she keeps having to do it.

Mooke wrote
One of Kierkegaard's explicit statements was that very idea: that if Abraham is the father of faith, and if we are to understand his ordeal with Isaac properly, then faith is impossible. He squarely admitted that he doesn't have faith, and that he found it impossible that anyone else could have it either.

I'll summarize the ordeal of Abraham:
1) Abraham was told by God that he would father a nation that would be as numerous as the stars in heaven.
2) Abraham did not have a child until long after his wife had passed childbearing age
3) God told him to sacrifice this child
4) Abraham proceeds on a 3-day trek (Kierkegaard explores the psychology of this journey)
5) At the very last instant, Abraham is told to sacrifice a goat instead of his child.

The problem is that Abraham, despite his knowledge that God could not change his decree, loved and trusted his son and his God so much that he was convinced God would change his mind. He believed something that he knew was completely impossible. What makes this even a more remarkable problem is that it is unthinkable that any church would venerate a man who was willing to do such a horrible thing to his own child, yet Abraham is considered a hero.

Kierkegaard said that if what Abraham had was faith, then he cannot imagine anyone else who had it as well; and when it is said that even the slightest amount of faith can move a mountain, it is literal. If a person had faith, like the faith of Abraham, the mountain would literally move.

Allow me to answer this, you clearly do not understand what K was referring to . Abraham transcended human morals to serve God. he knew well he could be seen as a child murderer and yet he showed absolute Faith. This is the issue. God prevented the murder (he doesnt with terrorists because they are not hearing God, only themselves)
The story of Abraham is just that .a story, to show what is required to have faith. All our lives we must aspire to have Faith like Abraham. These characters are examples of the highest. You will not be called upon to sacrifice your son........if you understand the story of Abraham



"....To illustrate the difference between the ethical and religious
spheres, Kierkegaard cites Abraham, the “father of all those who
believe.” Abraham, a righteous man, is the paragon of faith because
instead of heeding the moral law – “Thou shall not kill” –
he heeded God’s command to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham acted as
a true individual because his relationship to God, not to the
moral law, was primary in his life. He did not merely perceive
God through morality or reduce God to the moral law. As a
man of faith, Abraham subjected everything, including his ethical
actions, to God. He was willing to sacrifice Isaac for the sake
of his own relationship to God. He acted because God commanded
him to act. He stood before God, answering to no one
but God.
When an individual stands before God he no longer sees
himself as self-sufficient. He recognizes his own inability to
transform himself. The religious person strives to allow himself
to be transformed by God. Such transformation includes three
things: (1) Infinite resignation – dying to the world, the willingness
to sacrifice any finite good for the sake of God. (2) Suffering
– undergoing a transformation of the self, though not by
the self. It is the process of undergoing “self-annihilation” so
that God, not self, can do his transforming work. (3) Guilt – the
feeling of one’s inability to give oneself completely, unreservedly,
to God."........ Introduction to Provocations Charles E Moore

Did Abraham know God wouldn't change his mind. Did Abraham think that it was his own weakness telling him to stop at the last minute?........Who really knows............you are not meant to know
In the Jewish Torah (and I can quote this quite happily knowing that The Jews were faithful scribes) the story is
Verse 1: After these events, El-him tested Avraham and said to him, "Avraham!" and he [Avraham] said, "Here I am."

Verse 2: He said, "Please take your son, your only one, who you love---Yitzchok--- and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains which I will designate to you.

Verse 3: Avraham awoke early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took his two attendants with him, and also his son, Yitzchok. He split the wood of the burnt-offering, rose, and went to the place that El-him had designated to him.

Verse 4: On the third day, Avraham raised his eyes and saw the place from afar.

Verse 5: Avraham said to his attendants, "Remain here with the donkey and I and the lad will go to that place. We will prostrate ourselves [in worship] and return to you."

Verse 6: Avraham took the wood of the burnt-offering and placed it on his son Yitzchok. In his hand he took the fire and the knife, and they both went together.

Verse 7: Yitzchok spoke to Avraham, his father, and said, "Father," and he [Avraham] said, "Here I am, my son." He said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt-offering?"

Verse 8: Avraham said, "El-him will show the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son." And the two of them went together.

Verse 9: They came to the place that El-him had designated to him. Avraham built the altar there, and arranged the wood. He bound his son Yitzchok, and placed him on the altar, on top of the wood.

Verse 10: Avraham extended his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.

Verse 11: An angel of Ad-noy called to him from heaven and said, "Avraham, Avraham!" and he said, "Here I am."

Verse 12: He [G-d] said, "Do not touch the lad, nor do anything to [harm] him; for now I know that you are one who fears El-him and have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me."

Verse 13: Avraham looked up and beheld a ram after it had been caught in the thicket by its horns. Avraham went and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt-offering instead of his son.

.No wonder you dont believe in God . You have so missed the point. To have Faith is to transcend all ethics/morals and be prepared to sacrifice your son...only Abraham our Forefather
experienced that for us. You, to follow God may only have to sacrifice your ego

BTW where does it say Abraham was convinced God would change his mind. his is an important point to answer. Abraham did as he was asked with a heavy heart but he did not think God would change his mind


[
Kierkegaard never said that either and it is not in the Bible

He believed something that he knew was completely impossible. What makes this even a more remarkable problem is that it is unthinkable that any church would venerate a man who was willing to do such a horrible thing to his own child, yet Abraham is considered a hero.

.Again erroneous conclusion reached by not having read something carefully

Kierkegaard said that if what Abraham had was faith, then he cannot imagine anyone else who had it as well; and when it is said that even the slightest amount of faith can move a mountain, it is literal. If a person had faith, like the faith of Abraham, the mountain would literally move. [/quote]

Abraham is a shining example of Faith at the highest level.

I too close my eyes and often leap...and it never goes wrong

When quoting from the Bible it is wrong to treat it as actual fact as you cannot prove it is factual (your logic not mine) Therefore you have to treat them as stories and that is exactly what the Bible is......Parables/lessons/Gods guidance.
Therefore see beyond the Abraham was a potential child-killer nonsense and ask yourself what is the lesson
The lesson is that it requires a huge amount of faith to follow God , but the burden is not so heavy after all...... God will never destroy you
Maybe you'd better go back to the Jews you know so well and ask forgiveness for insulting one of their own. Its a start anyway

Allow me to answer this, you clearly do not understand what K was referring to

Unfortunately for you, your interpretation is actually poorer than mine. I judge you incapable of making such statements about my understanding, no matter how clear they seem to you.

Abraham transcended human morals to serve God. he knew well he could be seen as a child murderer and yet he showed absolute Faith. This is the issue.

That is most definitely not the issue; perhaps you would like to reconsider your phrasing. Abraham did not worry about how he would be seen by other people at all. You're making Abraham sound like a high school freshman preparing for the first day at school. K was very clear, and I'm surprised you missed this, that Abraham was torn because he held a belief that all his knew with all his heart to be impossible. His son was going to die, by his own hand -- but somehow, even though this went against his entire conception of God, God was going to change his mind.

The story of Abraham is just that .a story, to show what is required to have faith.

And, K showed quite adequately I might add, that what is required to have faith is something beyond anything any man can do. It would be delusional, in K's analysis, to believe otherwise. If you disagree with this statement, you are disagreeing with Kierkegaard's early beliefs on this matter. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

blah blah blah

At least post Kierkegaard's thoughts if you are going to inject something long and pointless into the conversation.

BTW where does it say Abraham was convinced God would change his mind. his is an important point to answer. Abraham did as he was asked with a heavy heart but he did not think God would change his mind

It said it in Fear and Trembling, within the first half of the book. Unfortunately, I gave my copy away, so I don't have the passage in front of me. I'm afraid you'll have to hunt for it yourself, if you want the exact phrasing.

Kierkegaard never said that either and it is not in the Bible

I'm really starting to think you didn't read the book, you read it a long time ago (in which case, shut up about it until you reread it), you're an incredibly poor reader, or you only bother to remember the parts of books that sync with what you already believe.

Again erroneous conclusion reached by not having read something carefully

I think you have a poor understanding the "absurd", as it is explored by existentialists. K was very explicit when he talked about Abraham's faith being impossible, and that his apparent heroism would be considered monstrous by all rational members of the church. It is only a tiny extrapolation to realize that Kierkegaard is trying to draw attention to the hypocritical praise that Abraham receives; if I may make a judgement, K appears quite dubious about Abraham even being a hero at all.

Abraham is a shining example of Faith at the highest level. [/qutoe]
For God's sake, that was what Kierkegaard was trying to call into question! Do you have the foggiest notion how to read philosophy? Do you know what it means to read carefully and skeptically? Do you understand that shrewd authors -- and Kierkegaard was a particularly shrewd author -- do not always mean what it seems they mean?

I too close my eyes and often leap...and it never goes wrong

I can tell you leap a lot, but I wouldn't romanticize it too much. Your last post reads like you just leapt headfirst into a wall.

Try taking a few baby steps next time you think about jumping at me. If you try to disprove me all at once, you'll just embarass yourself again.

oh, and btw (i'm not even giong to bother capitalizing or spell-checking because i don't care that much)

When quoting from the Bible it is wrong to treat it as actual fact as you cannot prove it is factual (your logic not mine)

wtf does this mean? i don't think you have the faintest clue what "my logic is", let alone my views on the bible.

Therefore see beyond the Abraham was a potential child-killer nonsense and ask yourself what is the lesson

i'd ask, but i assume you're about to tell me...

The lesson is that it requires a huge amount of faith to follow God , but the burden is not so heavy after all...... God will never destroy you

how much of that is true?

Maybe you'd better go back to the Jews you know so well and ask forgiveness for insulting one of their own. Its a start anyway

you have no fucking clue what my relationship to jews is (if you bothered, you'd've read that i actually grew up in a jewish household)... and telling me where to start? how fucking presumptuous. you have no clue where i am, how long i've been doing philosophy... etc etc. if you were FARTHER than me, i'd consider your advice. but i don't think so.

Oh I cant be arsed with this
tell you what here is the text and also K's other writings on Abraham....go educate yourself, but check first who K was, what shaped his life his thoughts etc . Pay particular attention to his religious father's depression and the question how can such a good religious man be so depressed with God........Kierkegaard was a true Christian who gave his life for religion nit just philosopher


24 Fear and Trembling
When Abraham and Isaac reached the place that
God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged
the wood on it. He bound Isaac, lit the fire, drew his
knife, and thrust it into Isaac!
At that moment God stood by Abraham’s side in bodily form
and exclaimed: “What have you done? Oh wretched old man!
That was not what was asked of you at all. You are my friend, I
only wanted to try your faith! I called to you at the last moment.
Didn’t you hear me? I cried, “Abraham, Abraham, refrain!”
Didn’t you hear my voice?
Then Abraham answered God with a voice that betrayed a
half mystic adoration and a half disheveled weakness that belongs
to mental derangement: “Oh Lord, I did not hear you. Yet
now that you mention it, I seem to remember that I did hear
some kind of voice. Oh when it is you, my God, who commands
a father to murder his own child, then a man at such a time is
under terrible strain. Therefore, I did not hear your voice. And
if I had, dared I have believed it was yours? If you commanded
me to sacrifice my child, which you did command me to do,
and then at the decisive moment a voice is heard saying, ‘Refrain,’
am I not obliged to believe it is the voice of the Tempter
that wants to keep me from fulfilling your will? I had journeyed
long, and now, when the moment at last had come, I was intent
on doing only one thing. My options were: Either I should have assumed from the start that the voice that spoke to me, ‘Sacrifice
Isaac,’ was the Tempter’s voice, and then not gone forth as I
did, or when I had assured myself that it was indeed your voice
from the start, I should have concluded that this other voice,
this voice at the decisive moment, was the Tempter’s. It was the
latter I chose.”
So Abraham went home, and the Lord gave him a new Isaac.
But Abraham did not look upon him with any joy. When he
looked on him he shook his head and said, “This is not my
Isaac.”
But to Sarah he spoke differently. To her he said: “This is all
so very strange. That it was God’s demand that I should offer
Isaac is certain, absolutely certain. God himself cannot disavow
that. Yet when I took it seriously, it was a mistake on my part. It
was, in the end, not God’s will.”
Yet, as we know from the story (Gn. 22), it did not go like this
with Abraham. His obedience lies just in the fact that at the very
last moment he immediately and unreservedly obeyed as he
did. This is amazing. When a person has for a long time been
saying “A”, then humanly speaking he is rather bothered at having
to say “B.” It is even harder, when one has actually drawn the
knife, to be able and willing, with implicit obedience, to recognize
that after all no demand is made, that it is not necessary after
all to set forth to Mount Moriah with the purpose of sacrificing
Isaac. The decision whether to sacrifice one’s only child or to
spare him, oh, this is indeed great! Greater still, however, is it to
retain, even at the last moment, the obedience, and if I may venture
to say so, the agile willingness of an obedient soldier. Such
a one, even when he has almost reached his goal, does not mind
having to run back again, even if it renders all his running in
vain. Oh, this is great! No one was so great in faith as Abraham –
who can comprehend him?

and more

7 Suspending the Ethical
The ethical dimension of existence has to do with
the universal, of doing what is unconditionally right. The ethical
applies to everyone and at every moment. It possesses its
own validity. That is, it has nothing outside itself as its end or
purpose. It has no further to go. By contrast, the single individual
is the particular that has its purpose in the universal. The
individual’s task is always to express himself within the confines
of duty, to limit his particularity and to forgo his own interests
so as to fulfill his universal duty. Thus, as soon as an individual
wants to assert himself in his particularity, in direct opposition
to the universal, he sins. Only by recognizing this can he again
reconcile himself with the universal. He can free himself only by
surrendering to the universal in repentance.
If this is the highest that can be said of our existence, then the
ethical and a person’s happiness are identical. The philosopher
is proved right. The ethical is the universal and, in turn, the divine.
The whole of human existence is entirely self-enclosed,
and the ethical is at once the limit and completion of our lives.
Doing one’s duty becomes sufficient, with the result that God
becomes an invisible, vanishing point, an impotent thought unrelated
to my life. His being is no more than the ethical itself,
which fills all existence.
But what about the question of faith? Is the ethical the final
reality? No. The philosopher goes wrong when it comes to this question. Actually, he fails to protest loudly and clearly enough
against the honor and glory given to Abraham as the father of
faith. If the ethical is final, if it is the ultimate determination of
life’s meaning, then Abraham should really be remitted to some
lower court for trial and exposed as the murderer he is.
Now faith is just this paradox, that the single individual,
though under the demands of the universal, is higher than the
universal. If that is not faith, then Abraham is done for and faith
has never existed in the world. If the ethical life is the highest
and nothing incommensurable is left over, except in the sense
of what is evil, then one needs no other categories than those of
the philosophers. Goodbye to Abraham! But faith is just this
paradox, that the single individual, though bound by the universal,
is higher than the universal. As a single individual, as the
particular, he stands in an absolute relation to the Absolute. The
ethical is thus suspended. Faith is this paradox.
The story of Abraham contains just such a suspension of the
ethical. Abraham acts on the strength of the absurd. As a single
individual before God he found himself to be higher than the
universal. This paradox cannot be mediated – there is no middleterm
to explain it. If Abraham had tried to find an explanation,
he would have been in a state of temptation, and in that case he
would have never sacrificed Isaac, or if he had done so he would
have had to return as a murderer repentant before the universal.
In his action Abraham overstepped the ethical altogether. He
had a higher aim outside it in relation to which he suspended it.
How else could one ever justify Abraham’s action? Not in terms
of the ethical. How could any point of contact ever be discovered
between what Abraham did, or planned to do, and the universal
other than that Abraham overstepped it? It was not to
save a nation that Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, nor to appease
angry gods. Abraham’s whole action stands above and apart from the universal. It is ultimately a private undertaking,
an act of purely personal conscience. To judge Abraham’s action
according to the ethical – in the sense of the moral life – is therefore
quite out of the question. In so far as the universal was there
at all, it was latent in Isaac, concealed as it were in his loins, and
it would have to cry out from Isaac’s mouth: “Don’t do it, you
are destroying everything.”
Then why does Abraham do it? For God’s sake, and what is
exactly the same, for his own. He does it for the sake of God because
God demands this proof of his faith. He does it for his
own sake in order to be able to produce the proof.
Abraham’s situation is a kind of trial, a temptation. But what
does that mean? What we usually call a temptation is something
that keeps a person from carrying out a duty, but here the
temptation is the ethical itself (“Thou shalt not kill”) which
would keep him from doing God’s will. But what then is duty?
In Abraham’s case, duty is found in the doing of God’s will,
which is itself higher than the universal. His duty transcends
the ethical.
Now when the ethical is suspended, as in Abraham’s case,
how or in what way, does the individual in whom it is suspended
exist? Does this mean he sins? Not necessarily. Take a
child for example. In one sense a child’s bad behavior is not sin
because the child is not yet fully conscious of its own existence.
Looked at ideally, however, the child sins; he falls short from the
demands of the ethical. Does this mean Abraham also sinned?
No. Then how did Abraham exist? He had faith. He lived by and
in faith. That is the paradox that kept him at the summit and
which he could not explain or justify to himself or to anyone
else. His faith was grounded in the paradox that as the single
individual he was higher that the universal. He had an absolute relation to the Absolute. Was he justified? His justification is,
once again, the paradox. He was not justified by being virtuous,
but by being an individual submitted to God in faith.
This doesn’t mean that the ethical is to be done away with.
No. Only that it receives an entirely different expression, so that
for example, love of God can cause the knight of faith to love his
neighbor in a way that is quite opposite from what is usually
demanded by the ethical. Unless this is how it is, faith has no
place in existence. Faith becomes a temptation, and Abraham,
since he gave into it, is done for.
But faith’s paradox is precisely this, that the single individual
is higher than the universal, that the individual determines his
relationship to the universal through his relation to the Absolute
(i.e. God), not his relation to the Absolute through his relation
to the universal. That is, to live by faith means that one has
an absolute duty to God and to God alone. In this tie of obligation
the individual relates himself absolutely, as the single individual,
to the Absolute – the God who commands. This duty
alone is absolute and for this reason the ethical, for the person
of faith, is relegated to the relative. In fear and trembling, this is
faith’s paradox – the suspension of the ethical.
Any way we look at it, Abraham’s story contains a suspension
of the ethical. He has, as the single individual, become higher
than the universal. This is the paradox of faith that cannot be
explained. How Abraham got himself into it is just as inexplicable
as how he stayed in it. If this is not how it is with Abraham,
then he is not even a tragic hero, but a murderer. To want
to go on calling him the father of faith, to talk of this to those
who are only concerned with words, is thoughtless. A tragic
hero can become a human being by his own strength, but not
the knight of faith. When a person sets out on the tragic hero’s
arduous path there are many who are ready to lend him advice.

The problem is that Abraham, despite his knowledge that God could not change his decree, loved and trusted his son and his God so much that he was convinced God would change his mind. He believed something that he knew was completely impossible.

This is your error. Abraham knew no such thing. It is implied he knew what he was being asked to do was ethically wrong but as K makes clear its all about transcnding ethics
In other words Abraham knew that on an ethical level what God was aking him to do would be seen as wrong by all including himself and yet he ventured forth without debate.

yawn

if i'm going to be interested in any of this, it's only because i have a passing fancy on how you misinterpreted it. because of that, if you actually intend me to read any of whta you just posted, take a small passage that you think is particularly telling and comment on it.

otherwise, stop trying to educate me.

for one thing, i've already established that you have a poor understanding of kierkegaard's thoughts (why would you think that reading a biography is in any way relevant to me grasping a piece of literature?) and existentialism in general (do any existentialists understand what they're talking about?)

for another, i really don't care.

This is your error. Abraham knew no such thing. It is implied he knew what he was being asked to do was ethically wrong but as K makes clear its all about transcnding ethics
In other words Abraham knew that on an ethical level what God was aking him to do would be seen as wrong by all including himself and yet he ventured forth without debate.

Slap yourself in the face, wait a few seconds, and then give yourself a hearty congratulatory pat on the back. You've just recognized your own error. Kierkegaard's faith is not a moral issue: it's an epistemological one. His obsession with the absurdity of Abraham's actions has entirely to do with Abraham's inability to reconcile knowledge with belief.

In Kierkegaard's later writings, as in Either/Or, he explores similar issues from an ethical perspective, and you are reading too much of that into this piece. One of the keys to understanding why Abraham's plight is epistemological and not moral is you must realize that Abraham spoke to God. There is nothing ordinary that needs to be transcended, because God is as mundane as everything else; God is like another person that Abraham knows. Abraham's God is not the god you imagine you talk to when you're bored, and play dolls with at church, and have dreams about when you do something naughty. He's a concrete character in Abraham's life.

There is nothing absurd about Fear & Trembling if you are reading it to glean insight into ethics. Remember: it is supposed to be absurd. It is supposed to present an impossibility, to show you that something is seriously wrong. That cannot be done, in this case, unless you are looking at the knowledge claims.

Why do I argue with peons?

What;s the use in eductaing you. You made several derogatory comments about jews and their beliefs in other posts to Emma (Do I really have to dig them upand give them another airing) and then you say some of my best friends are Jews and I was only stabbing you with a fork.and I cant control my temper etc etc

Kierkegaard was a deeply religious person who in actuality died defending his faith......he did not see himself as a mere philosopher, he was a servant of God pure and simple

Again

The story of Abraham contains just such a suspension of the
ethical. Abraham acts on the strength of the absurd. As a single
individual before God he found himself to be higher than the
universal. This paradox cannot be mediated – there is no middleterm
to explain it. If Abraham had tried to find an explanation,
he would have been in a state of temptation, and in that case he
would have never sacrificed Isaac, or if he had done so he would
have had to return as a murderer repentant before the universal.
In his action Abraham overstepped the ethical altogether. He
had a higher aim outside it in relation to which he suspended it.
How else could one ever justify Abraham’s action? Not in terms
of the ethical. How could any point of contact ever be discovered
between what Abraham did, or planned to do, and the universal
other than that Abraham overstepped it? It was not to
save a nation that Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, nor to appease
angry gods. Abraham’s whole action stands above and apart from the universal. It is ultimately a private undertaking,
an act of purely personal conscience. To judge Abraham’s action
according to the ethical – in the sense of the moral life – is therefore
quite out of the question. In so far as the universal was there
at all, it was latent in Isaac, concealed as it were in his loins, and
it would have to cry out from Isaac’s mouth: “Don’t do it, you
are destroying everything.”
Then why does Abraham do it? For God’s sake, and what is
exactly the same, for his own. He does it for the sake of God because
God demands this proof of his faith. He does it for his
own sake in order to be able to produce the proof.

What;s the use in eductaing you. You made several derogatory comments about jews and their beliefs in other posts to Emma (Do I really have to dig them upand give them another airing) and then you say some of my best friends are Jews and I was only stabbing you with a fork.

No, I said I grew up in a Jewish household. Quite literally, I grew up Jewish. My acquaintances still think of me as Jewish. When I say things about Jews, they are meant to be accurate generalizations about my experiences with the culture and values. I went to Saturday school for several years. I know quite a bit of Hebrew. I had a goddamn Bar Mitzvah (which requires that one be able to read a significant portion of the Torah). That said, I find Judaism as repugnant and backward as any religion I've encountered. Try to get a Jew, even a rabbi, to explain why they only eat kosher food (for instance), and you will be bombarded with an earfull of bullshit.

I don't hate Judaism more than I hate any other religion.

and I cant control my temper etc etc

I never said anything to this effect. Don't put words into my mouth. I've been very temperate this entire time; I've turned thinking of new insults into a sort of game. As it stands, I have no intention of changing to a less provocative tone. I'd go into the details, but I already gave emma the "philosopher's explanation": for you, I'll just say that you evidently have not had your beliefs insulted enough. There's way too much ego in them. (Don't deny it, the quotation is right here: you sunk so low as to try to put words into my mouth, jackass.)

Kierkegaard was a deeply religious person who in actuality died defending his faith......he did not see himself as a mere philosopher, he was a servant of God pure and simple

Unless you think this somehow makes him better than a "mere" philosopher, I see no reason you'd tell me this. In which case: I disagree.

The story of Abraham contains just such a suspension of the ethical. Abraham acts on the strength of the absurd.
....
To judge Abraham’s action according to the ethical – in the sense of the moral life – is therefore quite out of the question.
...
He does it for the sake of God because
God demands this proof of his faith. He does it for his
own sake in order to be able to produce the proof.
...
etc, fucking etc.

How carefully do you read? It's not an ethical problem. K warns us here against looking at it ethically. "Out of the [fucking] question."

What does it mean when he's acting on the "strength of the absurd"? Does it mean that he's entered some realm where the problem can't be looked at ethically? Yes! It's now a question of epistemology, a question of faith, a question of proving things, of reconciling beliefs with knowledge. When you get to the end of the story, it should be beyond clear that Abraham was forced to do an impossible act, to believe one thing while knowing it to be impossible.

When K says THIS IS NOT ETHICAL DO NOT LOOK AT THIS AS AN ETHICAL PROBLEM what part of it do you not understand? He wrote several pages of the book explaining how not to read it, and then you go and read it that way anyway.

I AM NOT READING IT THAT WAY...It was all about K's faith.You are not listening to me, it is beyond ethics.its about faith...
I said

Abraham is a shining example of Faith at the highest level.

You said "

For God's sake, that was what Kierkegaard was trying to call into question! Do you have the foggiest notion how to read philosophy? Do you know what it means to read carefully and skeptically? Do you understand that shrewd authors -- and Kierkegaard was a particularly shrewd author -- do not always mean what it seems they mean? "

Maybe we agree, maybe we are not arguing. I implied that K was deeply religious first and a philosopher second because you said he admitted he had no faith.......he died for his faith, It made him ill, poor and yet he persevered

The problem is that Abraham, despite his knowledge that God could not change his decree, loved and trusted his son and his God so much that he was convinced God would change his mind.

You said this ......this, (if it were true would not be Faith it would be gambling)
Abraham questioned nothing...complete blind faith. Kierkegaard makes it clear to be with God we have to admit we are nothing, no questions, no knowledge ....just blind faith

Anyway I was born Jewish and like you turned my back on the hypocrisy and petty custom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but that does not give you the right to insult a strand of Gods hair. it works for some and should not be abused in word/deed .but that's just my feeling

Until you recognize that Abraham's problem is not an ethical issue, and K is approaching it epistemologically, you will not be able to understand the irony of K. Once you fifth-graders see it as epistemologically, ask yourself: is K being forward or ironic when he tells his readers not to read Abraham's problem as ethical? (Is Abraham acting ethically? Is he a good model? Is faith itself ethical... or an absurdity?)

...Which leads itself nicely into my response.

Kierkegaard makes it clear to be with God we have to admit we are nothing, no questions, no knowledge ....just blind faith

Kierkegaard is a fucking subtle writer. He's good at what he does; that's why he ranks among the geniuses, and that's also why few people get him. You got a grade-school interpretation going there. There is a lot in Kierkegaard that should make you laugh, or go: oh shit that has two (or three) meanings. He uses irony a lot. He makes fun of people constantly. He plays games.

Anyway I was born Jewish and like you turned my back on the hypocrisy and petty custom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but that does not give you the right to insult a strand of Gods hair. it works for some and should not be abused in word/deed .but that's just my feeling

I never insulted God (although I'm sure if you tried to explain what you meant by God, I'd gladly insult Him). I insulted stupid Jewish customs. I insulted stupid philosophies that don't even understand their own roots enough to know how wrong they are.

I didn't originally turn my back on the hypocricy of Jews. I turned my back on my own hypocricy. I could be honest about every other religion but my own. When I learned to recognize my own hypocricy, I realized to check my own thoughts a bit more carefully. There is a huge difference between turning your back on a religion to adopt another stupid point of view, and realizing that you had been a complete and utter fool the whole time.

I AM NOT READING IT THAT WAY...It was all about K's faith.You are not listening to me, it is beyond ethics.its about faith...

Such a shame... okay, have fun being an existentialist. Please don't land on me next time you decide to leap off a cliff blindfolded.

You know what ..You have insulted me....and we do not agree............I have carefully studied Kierkegaards Provocations and these statements of yours show your lack of understanding.

I would say he ended up showing how ridiculous Jewish heroes like Abraham are. He produced evidence that faith, as it is presented and valued, is an impossibility. To have faith is to be deluded because it is impossible to have faith.
Existentialism was silly with Kierkegaard. When I read Fear & Trembling I could taste the irony, and it was clearly intentional. He was having fun, and making fun.
One of Kierkegaard's explicit statements was that very idea: that if Abraham is the father of faith, and if we are to understand his ordeal with Isaac properly, then faith is impossible. He squarely admitted that he doesn't have faith, and that he found it impossible that anyone else could have it either.

Kierkegaard said that if what Abraham had was faith, then he cannot imagine anyone else who had it as well; and when it is said that even the slightest amount of faith can move a mountain, it is literal. If a person had faith, like the faith of Abraham, the mountain would literally move.

And, K showed quite adequately I might add, that what is required to have faith is something beyond anything any man can do. It would be delusional, in K's analysis, to believe otherwise. If you disagree with this statement, you are disagreeing with Kierkegaard's early beliefs on this matter. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

I think you have a poor understanding the "absurd", as it is explored by existentialists. K was very explicit when he talked about Abraham's faith being impossible, and that his apparent heroism would be considered monstrous by all rational members of the church. It is only a tiny extrapolation to realize that Kierkegaard is trying to draw attention to the hypocritical praise that Abraham receives; if I may make a judgement, K appears quite dubious about Abraham even being a hero at all.

With Abraham, K was showing his admiration, that one can transcend ethics and have such pure Faith Nowhere do I get the idea that K was dubious about Abraham As for quoting Ks early beliefs, these changed as the man aspired to be as Abraham

Seems like the philosophy you did at College only covered Ks early years

Anyway....for someone who thinks exist. is all a load of rubbish you argue fervently ...more double standards?
Anyway I'm glad you have done a bit of Kierkegaard reading over the last couple of hours........I'm sure we'll cross swords again

Seems like the philosophy you did at College only covered Ks early years

Stop making judgements like this. I'm completely and utterly offended. I skimmed over Fear & Trembling once, like 2 years ago, decided it was cute but kinda shitty for philosophy, and immediately gave my brand new copy to my friend.

I'd be thoroughly surprised if it was as deep and inspired as I'm insisting it was. In fact, I'm quite certain Kierkegaard was every bit as cheap, inane, and crappy as you've indicated. The guy sounds like another tedious Christian apologist, although that might just be your spin.

Anyway, you've inadvertantly furthered my real argument (insults aren't arguments), that existentialists have nothing of substance to say. Off the top of my head, I thought of a whole pack of things that K could have done to spice up his writing and make more interesting statements. But all he ended up saying was essentially the whole "jump off a cliff blindfolded" thing.

Anyway I'm glad you have done a bit of Kierkegaard reading over the last couple of hours........

Don't insult me. I didn't even bother reading the K stuff you posted. I glossed over to find clippings I could use. As I said, I hate existentialism.

I'm sure we'll cross swords again

I really hope not.

I think the misunderstanding we had came about when I said

Abraham transcended human morals to serve God. he knew well he could be seen as a child murderer and yet he showed absolute Faith. This is the issue.

This means he didnt get stuck on the ethics issue BUT instead showed Faith...he transcended ethics
Very similar to the Tao ie When the Tao is lost we have ethics and Morals, when ethics and morals are lost we have ..etc etc

Natan, in the “Kierkegaard” thread you wrote:

I think K had a major problem with Faith as he spent most of his life considering why his Father, a devout man was so depressed......shouldn't he have been happy in the presence of God.

From the piece you posted (“Fear & Trembling”), looks to me Kierkegaard figured out exactly why his father was depressed: he never knew God at all.

In that excerpt, such an understanding is evident in the first two paragraphs. He opens with the Biblical story of “Abraham’s dilemma” taken to its final conclusion.

So Abraham went home, and the Lord gave him a new Isaac. But Abraham did not look upon him with any joy. When he looked on him he shook his head and said, “This is not my Isaac.” But to Sarah he spoke differently. To her he said: “This is all so very strange. That it was God’s demand that I should offer Isaac is certain, absolutely certain. God himself cannot disavow that. Yet when I took it seriously, it was a mistake on my part. It was, in the end, not God’s will.”

Then, he points out quite clearly that that conclusion and any consideration of it by way of reason is entirely missing in the Bible itself:

Yet, as we know from the story (Gn. 22), it did not go like this with Abraham. His obedience lies just in the fact that at the very last moment he immediately and unreservedly obeyed as he did.

This is amazing. When a person has for a long time been saying “A”, then humanly speaking he is rather bothered at having to say “B.” It is even harder, when one has actually drawn the knife, to be able and willing, with implicit obedience, to recognize that after all no demand is made, that it is not necessary after all to set forth to Mount Moriah with the purpose of sacrificing Isaac.

And it concludes:

Oh, this is great! No one was so great in faith as Abraham – who can comprehend him?

This is most definitely irony!

You also wrote in the abovementioned thread:

I agree K uses reason and logic to bring him to the edge of the precipice, but he concludes that when reason and logic reach their conclusion it requires an act of Faith to go on.

But this is what Kierkegaard says in the “Suspending Ethics” excerpt:

In so far as the universal was there at all, it was latent in Isaac, concealed as it were in his loins, and it would have to cry out from Isaac’s mouth: “Don’t do it, you are destroying everything.” Then why does Abraham do it? For God’s sake, and what is exactly the same, for his own. He does it for the sake of God because God demands this proof of his faith. He does it for his own sake in order to be able to produce the proof.

Abraham’s situation is a kind of trial, a temptation. But what
does that mean? What we usually call a temptation is something that keeps a person from carrying out a duty, but here the temptation is the ethical itself (“Thou shalt not kill”) which would keep him from doing God’s will. But what then is duty? In Abraham’s case, duty is found in the doing of God’s will, which is itself higher than the universal. His duty transcends the ethical…

But faith’s paradox is precisely this, that the single individual is higher than the universal, that the individual determines his relationship to the universal through his relation to the Absolute (i.e. God), not his relation to the Absolute through his relation to the universal. That is, to live by faith means that one has an absolute duty to God and to God alone. In this tie of obligation the individual relates himself absolutely, as the single individual, to the Absolute – the God who commands. This duty alone is absolute and for this reason the ethical, for the person of faith, is relegated to the relative. In fear and trembling, this is faith’s paradox – the suspension of the ethical.

I think your idea of an “act of faith” is quite different to what Kierkegaard is speaking of here. Paying particular attention to the italised text, an act of faith is found in the ability to reason what is right action; this ability manifesting as duty. He clearly distinguishes between those who have “faith” in the universal (moral) from those whose universality (morality) is directly determined by their (Biblical) relationship with God. In the latter case, “faith” is the regular, run-of-the-mill interpretation of the word; that is, blind faith. In the former, the man of “faith” sees very clearly to the total absence of temptation: transcending the “ethical” (the blind faith of the Biblically moral kind).

Personally, I wouldn’t call it faith at all -- since it implies that one is still attached to such Biblical moralities. I’m not sure why, apparently, the term “man of truth” does not suffice for Kevin et al. I have always questioned his notion of “faith in truth.” But, I guess it can be useful to make gradient distinctions.

.