Kierkegaard

[Danielk]

I had not heard of this interpretation; it is an interesting angle; I do not think I would have thought of it.
Indeed, K offers a kindness for Issacs blind faith in his father, and the faith of his father. That Abraham would be justified in making himslef a monster to Issac's eyes, that Issac could then, in his last moments be comforted in his universal faith. Yet abraham does not.

I felt that one way of taking it was that faced with the kind of faith of Abraham, I tremble in fear because such a faith offends me so, that I cannot bring myself to realize such faith, that it is indeed absurd.

What is the silence of which K speaks in the third proiblemata ?

Yes, Kierkegaard just wants his Christian readers to realize how extreme faith really is, how passionate, how offensive to reason it is. So that Christians don't be so cavalier about the idea of faith.

The question is: Was Abraham Ethically Defensible in Keeping Silent About His Purpose?

Let's say Agamennon and Abraham comes up to you.

Agamennon says to you, I need to kill Iphigenia in order to save the city and save thousands of my fellow Greek citizens.
Abraham says to you, I need to kill Isaac because God told me to.

Ok, then which one makes more sense to you, and which one would you restrain and call the funny farm.
Being silent means one doesn't expose how ethically ludicrous your statement is, if it doesn't have any ethical justification in it.
If Agamennon didn't say anything and just killed Iphigenia without telling anyone, we would try to stop him and criticize him.
By telling us, he's letting us in on the ethical justification for his killing his daughter and we would rationally understand and comprehend it.

Abraham has no such luxury, telling us his purpose does not let us in on the ethical justification of killing Isaac because there is no ethical justification. Thus the answer to Was Abraham Ethically Defensible in Keeping Silent About His Purpose? is no. But the answer to Would Abraham be Ethically Defensible in Telling Sarah About His Purpose? would still be also no.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Thank you artisticsolution.



Good New Year to you!



.

[Danielk]

Anyway...getting back to the book, I think alot can be said about K's meaning on the absurdity of existence on the last page of fear and trembling:

"One must go further, one must go further.' This need to go on is of ancient standing. Heraclitus the 'obscure' who reposited his thoughts in his writings and his writings in the Temple of Diana (for his thoughts had been his armour in life, which he therefore hung up in the Temple of the Goddess), the obscure Heraclitus has said, 'One can never walk through the same river twice.' The obscure Heraclitus had a disciple who didn't remain standing there but went further and added, "One cannot do it even once.' Poor Heraclitus to have had such a disciple! This improvement changed the Heraclitian principle into an Eleatic doctrine denying movement, and yet all that disciple wanted was to be a disciple of Heraclitus who went further, not back to what Heraclitus had abandoned."

Does all our questioning about our existence always bring us back to the same place?

I would say so. Hegel thought he had a System to grasp the realities of the existence, to explain noumena that Kant couldn't explain. But that didn't turn out quite as Hegel had expected. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, had no pretensions of being a systematic philosopher to explain existence to us, he wanted to be a Socratic philosopher: to be a midwife of ideas of existence and of living. And a would-be Christian earnestly trying to appropriate Christianity into his own life.

[artisticsolution]

Agamennon says to you, I need to kill Iphigenia in order to save the city and save thousands of my fellow Greek citizens.
Abraham says to you, I need to kill Isaac because God told me to.

But then...suppose Isaac's fate is to become another Iphigenia? So still, I think K is saying that we can't know of our existence and if the things we do are right or wrong or that they even matter. That is where the fear and trembling come into play I think...at least for Christians....

[artisticsolution]

I would say so. Hegel thought he had a System to grasp the realities of the existence, to explain noumena that Kant couldn't explain. But that didn't turn out quite as Hegel had expected. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, had no pretensions of being a systematic philosopher to explain existence to us, he wanted to be a Socratic philosopher: to be a midwife of ideas of existence and of living. And a would-be Christian earnestly trying to appropriate Christianity into his own life.

I am not so sure that K was trying to "explain" existence to us. I think that is impossible. I think he was trying to get us to examine our beliefs and to question ourselves in our justifications and how we can ever know if we are "good." Surely, we would want to see justice served on a child murderer. But in Abraham's case...we are fooled by a narrative. We glorify him because our church has interpreted the meaning for us. A meaning which looked at in the light K provides is reduced to absurdity.

I don't think K intended for us to see others as being absurd in as much as he intended for us to look within at our own absurdity.

[artisticsolution]

.



Thank you artisticsolution.



Good New Year to you!



.

Thanks Bill! Good New Year to you too!

[Danielk]

Agamennon says to you, I need to kill Iphigenia in order to save the city and save thousands of my fellow Greek citizens.
Abraham says to you, I need to kill Isaac because God told me to.

But then...suppose Isaac's fate is to become another Iphigenia? So still, I think K is saying that we can't know of our existence and if the things we do are right or wrong or that they even matter. That is where the fear and trembling come into play I think...at least for Christians....

Kierkegaard explicitly denies that Isaac's fate is another Iphigenia. Kierkegaard writes:

The tragic hero does not know the terrible responsibility of solitude. In the next place he has the comfort that he can weep and lament with Clytemnestra and Iphigenia -- and tears and cries are assuaging, but unutterable sighs are torture. Agamemnon can quickly collect his soul into the certainty that he will act, and then he still has time to comfort and exhort. This Abraham is unable to do. When his heart is moved, when his words would contain a blessed comfort for the whole world, he does not dare to offer comfort, for would not Sarah, would not Eleazar, would not Isaac say, "Why wilt thou do it? Thou canst refrain"? And if in his distress he would give vent to his feelings and would embrace all his dear ones, this might perhaps bring about the dreadful consequence that Sarah; that Eleazar, that Isaac would be offended in him and would believe he was a hypocrite. He is unable to speak, he speaks no human language. Though he himself understood all the tongues of the world, though his loved ones also understood them, he nevertheless cannot speak -- he speaks a divine language...he "speaks with tongues."

Isaac doesn't know why he's being led to die; Iphigenia knows why, in order to save others.

[Danielk]

I would say so. Hegel thought he had a System to grasp the realities of the existence, to explain noumena that Kant couldn't explain. But that didn't turn out quite as Hegel had expected. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, had no pretensions of being a systematic philosopher to explain existence to us, he wanted to be a Socratic philosopher: to be a midwife of ideas of existence and of living. And a would-be Christian earnestly trying to appropriate Christianity into his own life.

I am not so sure that K was trying to "explain" existence to us. I think that is impossible. I think he was trying to get us to examine our beliefs and to question ourselves in our justifications and how we can ever know if we are "good." Surely, we would want to see justice served on a child murderer. But in Abraham's case...we are fooled by a narrative. We glorify him because our church has interpreted the meaning for us. A meaning which looked at in the light K provides is reduced to absurdity.

I don't think K intended for us to see others as being absurd in as much as he intended for us to look within at our own absurdity.

Yeah, Kierkegaard wasn't trying to "explain" existence to us, and he knows it's impossible. He wants to distance himself from people like Hegel who think they can explain existence: I prostrate myself with the profoundest deference before every systematic "bag-peerer" at the custom house, protesting, "This is not the System, it has nothing whatever to do with the System." I call down every blessing upon the System and upon the Danish shareholders in this omnibus -- for a tower it is hardly likely to become. I wish them all and sundry good luck and all prosperity.

I think you're right about K criticizing the Church's interpretation of Abraham. Indeed, 10 years later Kierkegaard does rally against the Church and all its problems.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Daniel,

D:Kierkegaard explicitly denies that Isaac's fate is another Iphigenia.

AS: I'm sorry Daniel, that post was wrote in haste on my way out to work this morning. I meant to say, but then suppose Isaac's fate is to become another Agamennon sacrifices someone to save thousands of people? I don't think K meant to imply that one person has a justification for his actions and another does not as I think he meant to say that no one can predict any outcome with any true accuracy when you look at the overall picture of existence. That being said, I think the Hypocrisy K eludes to is just not reserved for the Church, as I don't see him as one to believe that it is Christians are the only ones who share this trait. As in other books he does speak of similar hypocrisies in scenarios outside of the church.

My point is that K doesn't think we can be certain of anything...not even of ourselves. I think his whole point is that most of us are trap by our own minds and beliefs. We can justify almost anything simply by saying, "I did it for the greater good." But the thing is, that would be just a guess, because we have no way of knowing if our act had "good" consequences in the whole scheme of existence, we simply feel they do because we think we are "good" and thus anything "we" do is almost certain to have "good" results.

I was having this discussion with one of my much older friends today who was telling me of her past. She absolutely hated her husband/father of her children back then...she felt suffocated...almost close to committing suicide (I am speaking of her feelings in the past). So she cheated with her sister in law's husband. They had a torrid affair for years, right under the noses of the siblings they were both married to. Well when the siblings found out and, of course they were devastated. But to this day she doesn't see it as something that she did that was wrong (wrong as in it hurting 2 other people)...she has justified it and told me she thinks she was the heroine in that instance as it was her "survival instinct" kicking in. No matter how I asked her to suppose that her actions might have caused harm...she will not see it. It's not even something she can even step back and look at objectively....even if to laugh at something a silly girl did years ago. No...to her she was a goddess for doing the "right" thing by cheating. So for her is was the right thing...she has no concept of how another could view it. Although, it's weird....in the very next breath she mentioned how she was cheated on once and while her action of cheating was "good" his (The guy who cheated on her) action of cheating on her was "bad." I asked how she could tell that his was a bad action and her doing the same thing was a good action. Her answer was motive. His motive to cheat on her was simply to get a piece of ass while her action was to save herself.

Do you see the justification there? It has nothing to do with religion in this instance as she is not religious. It's just a way most humans deal with the "fear and trembling". We push it deep away with a justification.

[lancek4]

I truely appreciate these posts.
So,
Is there a spspension of the ethical? Does is occur for only one, such as Abraham, or for all?

I mean, K is certainly indiating an absurdity here, but what does that really mean?

What does it mean that Abraham cannot speak, that it would be non sense if he did?

I think K is trying to explain existance but is indicating existance through his dialectic of system. I think Christianity was more prevalient than it is now, as a maxim through which reality was determined and so he addressed existance likewise through the Christian medium.

Ethics seems key here. What is the distniction, so far as what existance is, that he is making?

But what is he saying through the merman story? This one was more enigmatic for me.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Lance,


L:Is there a spspension of the ethical? Does is occur for only one, such as Abraham, or for all?

AS: I don't think K answers this question for us. I think it is part of the problem he sees with the individual vs. the universal. I think he is merely bringing it to our attention that there is a judgment to be made when we suspend the ethical. The difference is do we allow society to make that decision for us or do we take full responsibility for it own our own right?

L:I mean, K is certainly indiating an absurdity here, but what does that really mean?

AS: I think he is saying that our beliefs as humans cannot be proven and that we are so superficial to think we "know" without a shadow of a doubt what is good or what is evil. And that we fool ourselves into believing (whatever that belief happens to be...it could be that we believe that all americans suck...and nothing could get us to believe otherwise...and how those type of beliefs are merely aesthetic and not based on any true knowledge that is certain. But that we continue to believe without being able to know or explain it in any real way that another can understand is absurd. (Again, I think it is a mistake to think K is only talking about Christians as I think it would be superficial and out of character for him to believe that Christians were separate from atheists or any other group in the respect that Christians are the only ones who hold beliefs such as the difference between right and wrong.

L:What does it mean that Abraham cannot speak, that it would be non sense if he did?

AS: Suppose someone said to you that God told them they had to kill you. Would you be able to understand that? Would you believe that God actually told them you needed to die and that it was the right thing to do. Or would you think they were insane...or ill...or perhaps evil? It is in this sense that Abraham could not speak. No matter what he said or how he relayed this bit of information he knows...Issac could not understand Abraham. One could only understand it if God came to one and said, "You must let Abraham kill you....trust me it's a good thing." AND you believe that God was indeed God...in other words, in order for you to understand you would have to be the knight of faith like Abraham.

But then the absurdity comes into play when you consider this scenario...that if you were the knight of faith...you would have to be really stupid/absurd to think that you weren't insane, ill, or perhaps evil. As at some point...if you really wanted to be ethical, you would have to ask yourself the tough questions...which is, "How can a God expect me to murder and make me a being who deep down knows murder is wrong?" Is it really God...or is it the devil in the disguise of God tempting me to do wrong? Or perhaps I am having some sort of mental illness that is telling me to go against what I know is right? Or perhaps I am the devil...

The list of questions goes on and on....if one wants to be honest and step outside of the "ethical" understanding one has been taught or has instinctively known all ones life. K is suggesting that to truly become an individual is torturous because in order to do that one must step outside of ones deeply imbedded beliefs and take a cold hard look at themselves in a light that is not flattering. And that most people can't do this because it is too painful is why they follow the herd. Because there is comfort there...almost like saying...well, I didn't know it was wrong cause everyone said it was right. But Abraham was not able to do that...because he had innocence in his faith. As the knight of faith he did not question anything... he wasn't aware that he was being led by a belief. He was innocently unaware...so he was not responsible...but the moment he would became aware, he would then be an individual and aware...and thus responsible. And then would come the pain of life and the responsibility of being free. Because then he would know his beliefs were merely aesthetic...and in that knowing he would be responsible. And it is that responsibility that is the burden...the depth of lonesomeness. No comfort, no scapegoats, only being isolated in the knowledge that you could never make yourself be understood (to any real degree) nor can you ever understand anyone. It's the epitome of that that is an eternal nightmare. You might as well be the only human among a world of robots. It's the isolation...and is it then you start questioning...am I even an individual? How can I know for sure?

[lancek4]

Hi Lance,


L:Is there a spspension of the ethical? Does is occur for only one, such as Abraham, or for all?

AS: I don't think K answers this question for us. I think it is part of the problem he sees with the individual vs. the universal. I think he is merely bringing it to our attention that there is a judgment to be made when we suspend the ethical. The difference is do we allow society to make that decision for us or do we take full responsibility for it own our own right?

-----LK4 : I tend to disagree here. How does one "when we suspend the ethical" ? Merely decide that we may not wish to follow the rules?
If I am not mistaken, teleolgical has to do with the ends of being, as in purpose. The question he asks then would go: can I have a purpose that suspends, or is beyond, ethics. Is there a knowing that is not ethical ? The point that I gather is that judgement is defacto of ethics. Thus to suggest that I may choose to suspend the ethical begs the question of his question (is absurd). So he is pointing to this possibility with Abraham.
The question becomes: how could i decide to have a purpose that is beyond my judgement?




L:I mean, K is certainly indiating an absurdity here, but what does that really mean?

AS: I think he is saying that our beliefs as humans cannot be proven and that we are so superficial to think we "know" without a shadow of a doubt what is good or what is evil. And that we fool ourselves into believing (whatever that belief happens to be...it could be that we believe that all americans suck...and nothing could get us to believe otherwise...and how those type of beliefs are merely aesthetic and not based on any true knowledge that is certain. But that we continue to believe without being able to know or explain it in any real way that another can understand is absurd.

----LK4: I think he is saying that he has no faith. And that abraham does.



(Again, I think it is a mistake to think K is only talking about Christians as I think it would be superficial and out of character for him to believe that Christians were separate from atheists or any other group in the respect that Christians are the only ones who hold beliefs such as the difference between right and wrong.



L:What does it mean that Abraham cannot speak, that it would be non sense if he did?

AS: Suppose someone said to you that God told them they had to kill you. Would you be able to understand that? Would you believe that God actually told them you needed to die and that it was the right thing to do. Or would you think they were insane...or ill...or perhaps evil? It is in this sense that Abraham could not speak. No matter what he said or how he relayed this bit of information he knows...Issac could not understand Abraham. One could only understand it if God came to one and said, "You must let Abraham kill you....trust me it's a good thing." AND you believe that God was indeed God...in other words, in order for you to understand you would have to be the knight of faith like Abraham.

But then the absurdity comes into play when you consider this scenario...that if you were the knight of faith...you would have to be really stupid/absurd to think that you weren't insane, ill, or perhaps evil. As at some point...if you really wanted to be ethical, you would have to ask yourself the tough questions...which is, "How can a God expect me to murder and make me a being who deep down knows murder is wrong?" Is it really God...or is it the devil in the disguise of God tempting me to do wrong? Or perhaps I am having some sort of mental illness that is telling me to go against what I know is right? Or perhaps I am the devil...

The list of questions goes on and on....if one wants to be honest and step outside of the "ethical" understanding one has been taught or has instinctively known all ones life. K is suggesting that to truly become an individual is torturous because in order to do that one must step outside of ones deeply imbedded beliefs and take a cold hard look at themselves in a light that is not flattering. And that most people can't do this because it is too painful is why they follow the herd. Because there is comfort there...almost like saying...well, I didn't know it was wrong cause everyone said it was right. But Abraham was not able to do that...because he had innocence in his faith. As the knight of faith he did not question anything... he wasn't aware that he was being led by a belief. He was innocently unaware...so he was not responsible...but the moment he would became aware, he would then be an individual and aware...and thus responsible. And then would come the pain of life and the responsibility of being free. Because then he would know his beliefs were merely aesthetic...and in that knowing he would be responsible. And it is that responsibility that is the burden...the depth of lonesomeness. No comfort, no scapegoats, only being isolated in the knowledge that you could never make yourself be understood (to any real degree) nor can you ever understand anyone. It's the epitome of that that is an eternal nightmare. You might as well be the only human among a world of robots. It's the isolation...and is it then you start questioning...am I even an individual? How can I know for sure?

( My comments are above by the. -----LK4: )

[bus2bondi]

i found this the other night looking through some back issues of PN and thought of this thread, it's the beginning of an article by Dan Sinykin in issue 75 (from PN) http://philosophynow.org/issue75/We_Hav ... w_Bout_You

"Dan Sinkykin says that Kierkegaard is worried about you.

Preface: For the love of God, consider this a primer, a warm-up, a teaser, but certainly not a substitute for the work analyzed within. One is a ragtag attempt at accessible jottings about the other, which is a timeless masterpiece on the human condition. You can guess which is which.

A stranger with whom you’re having a casual conversation on, say, a short flight suggests after a few minutes of innocent banter that your life lacks something vital – literally vital, as if without this mystical something you’re a walking corpse. He suggests your living death to you subtly, not with pamphlets or Hell-threats, not in the name of any gods or religions; he maybe even less suggests than implies that you’re missing something, showing only indirect concern for your well-being."

[artisticsolution]

Hi Lance,

-----LK4 : I tend to disagree here. How does one "when we suspend the ethical" ? Merely decide that we may not wish to follow the rules?

AS: Yes. One example of this may be when one "suspends the ethical" when one does not follow the rules of society. Another example of this is when one suspends the ethical of what they always knew deep down inside was wrong but allows themselves to break their own code in order to be in keeping with another one of their other " ethical codes". For example, in the movie "The third man", a woman is unconditionally in love with a man who is a murderer. She does not know he is a murderer when she falls in love. But to her the act of being in love means to forsake all others ...perhaps even forsake her own moral code. Her love is absurd because she has suspended the ethical for it. She refuses to even see her love as a murderer. She ignores everything logical that she ever knew...in order to have "faith" in her love. Much like Abraham having "faith" that God would make everything right...or ethical in the end. That even if God told Abraham to commit an unethical act, Abraham does not question that God also told him not to murder. It is unfathomable (absurd) that anyone could be so blind as to not question God in this instance.

----LK4: I think he is saying that he has no faith. And that abraham does.

AS: I think we are saying the same thing only differently. He is saying that he can't understand Abraham's "faith" and that upon closer inspection most people could not understand Abraham's faith unless one was innocent, like a child. The moment one becomes aware of a higher ethical, then one can no longer be innocent.

[lancek4]

i found this the other night looking through some back issues of PN and thought of this thread, it's the beginning of an article by Dan Sinykin in issue 75 (from PN) http://philosophynow.org/issue75/We_Hav ... w_Bout_You

"Dan Sinkykin says that Kierkegaard is worried about you.

Preface: For the love of God, consider this a primer, a warm-up, a teaser, but certainly not a substitute for the work analyzed within. One is a ragtag attempt at accessible jottings about the other, which is a timeless masterpiece on the human condition. You can guess which is which.

A stranger with whom you’re having a casual conversation on, say, a short flight suggests after a few minutes of innocent banter that your life lacks something vital – literally vital, as if without this mystical something you’re a walking corpse. He suggests your living death to you subtly, not with pamphlets or Hell-threats, not in the name of any gods or religions; he maybe even less suggests than implies that you’re missing something, showing only indirect concern for your well-being."

The stranger, though speaking about how he has never flown before and how he is excited about this trip, how safe flying is. And out of nowhere something has caught you and you look at him sideways. He is smiling a giddish smile and going on about the few places he's been in the world and their interesting features. And in your chest, maybe your stomach, you have a feeling. And as you listen to him you realize it is getting worse as he speaks, because he's talking about something else, underneath his words. You are feeling anxious. With each word he says - this is absurd, you say to your self.