Kierkegaard

[lancek4]

Let me ask one question "what was Kierkegaard method of justification?"

Is this a qualification quiz? I already passed the class.

I am his justification. Is that a good method ?

Can you read that?

I didn't think so. Not in the coed play book; only pre packaged answers there.
Covers pulled; can we get back to the discussion now or is this thread dead from the one upping and card playing?

I was always kinda soft on the agnes merman thing.
Anyone?

[lancek4]

Puto, I give you permission to think inside the football field box. Or is it lacross?

Just kidding. I expect to be hit in debate.
Please tell me the answer so then maybe we can have a discussion.

[artisticsolution]

I think the merman story k is adding a further illustration to explain what he means. The same with the Tobias story. I think he is speaking of when you come to an individual awareness of right and wrong that is apart from the herd mentality. In such a way that it would be hard to explain to other people. In the way that Abraham could not justify his reasons for murdering Issac...as society has laws against that sort of thing. Even though society also tells you you have to obey God. Abraham could never explain to others what he was doing was good...because it was a "higher" ethical since God himself deemed it so. So then he would have to convince society that it was a God thing and thus...higher...but who would believe him.

The merman story I think stems from what was going on in K's life at the time. And why I don't believe he wrote fear and trembling to be just a book about Christian ethics. He was engaged to a woman who he loved but would not marry (for whatever reason...he never did give anyone a reason) Anyway, I guess back then when you were engaged it was kinda unheard of to drop the engagement and was a social taboo for the bride to be...which is why he father begged and pleaded with K not to "leave her at the alter." But K did anyway...even though he was quite in love with her. I think there was some reason that when he realized what that love meant...and realized that it would destroy her more to love her than to "leave her at the alter"...he went against society and their morality and moved away. There was some higher ethical there...but what we will never know. Just that it might have been the better choice for the lover to have a broken heart than to go ahead with the wedding and be in even more pain with the knowledge that K felt he could not speak...because no one would understand...like Abraham. Unfortunately, it must have been big...because I don't think he ever let on what it was...not that we could have understood it if he did.

Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts about the merman story since you were "soft" to it. Personally, being a mother, I was soft to the part when Abraham turned away from Issac and said to God, "Better he should see me as a monster than to lose his faith in you." I related to that not in a christian sense...but from a parents stand point that when you become a parent...you would sacrifice the dearest thing to you...even your childs love, if it meant your child would have a better way in life. It is this self sacrifice that may or may not be accepted by society, in all their innocence and ignorance...but when you reach a higher level of awareness...then you have no other option but to do the "ethical" thing. Not according to everyone else....but according to what you know as a higher level of thinking individual

[lancek4]

I think the merman story k is adding a further illustration to explain what he means. The same with the Tobias story. I think he is speaking of when you come to an individual awareness of right and wrong that is apart from the herd mentality. In such a way that it would be hard to explain to other people. In the way that Abraham could not justify his reasons for murdering Issac...as society has laws against that sort of thing. Even though society also tells you you have to obey God. Abraham could never explain to others what he was doing was good...because it was a "higher" ethical since God himself deemed it so. So then he would have to convince society that it was a God thing and thus...higher...but who would believe him.

The merman story I think stems from what was going on in K's life at the time. And why I don't believe he wrote fear and trembling to be just a book about Christian ethics. He was engaged to a woman who he loved but would not marry (for whatever reason...he never did give anyone a reason) Anyway, I guess back then when you were engaged it was kinda unheard of to drop the engagement and was a social taboo for the bride to be...which is why he father begged and pleaded with K not to "leave her at the alter." But K did anyway...even though he was quite in love with her. I think there was some reason that when he realized what that love meant...and realized that it would destroy her more to love her than to "leave her at the alter"...he went against society and their morality and moved away. There was some higher ethical there...but what we will never know. Just that it might have been the better choice for the lover to have a broken heart than to go ahead with the wedding and be in even more pain with the knowledge that K felt he could not speak...because no one would understand...like Abraham. Unfortunately, it must have been big...because I don't think he ever let on what it was...not that we could have understood it if he did.

Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts about the merman story since you were "soft" to it. Personally, being a mother, I was soft to the part when Abraham turned away from Issac and said to God, "Better he should see me as a monster than to lose his faith in you." I related to that not in a christian sense...but from a parents stand point that when you become a parent...you would sacrifice the dearest thing to you...even your childs love, if it meant your child would have a better way in life. It is this self sacrifice that may or may not be accepted by society, in all their innocence and ignorance...but when you reach a higher level of awareness...then you have no other option but to do the "ethical" thing. Not according to everyone else....but according to what you know as a higher level of thinking individual

The mothers blacken their breasts..
I am soft in my incorporateing the merman bit into the rest of the meaning of book instead of segregating it to some 'side' idea.

K could not do that be the monster, could not bring himself to have faith. But also that which is the object if his faith did not either, it seduced him, but did niot have the 'compassion' to release K from his delemma. So K ask 'why' and 'how' is this possible'.

[artisticsolution]

I think the merman story k is adding a further illustration to explain what he means. The same with the Tobias story. I think he is speaking of when you come to an individual awareness of right and wrong that is apart from the herd mentality. In such a way that it would be hard to explain to other people. In the way that Abraham could not justify his reasons for murdering Issac...as society has laws against that sort of thing. Even though society also tells you you have to obey God. Abraham could never explain to others what he was doing was good...because it was a "higher" ethical since God himself deemed it so. So then he would have to convince society that it was a God thing and thus...higher...but who would believe him.

The merman story I think stems from what was going on in K's life at the time. And why I don't believe he wrote fear and trembling to be just a book about Christian ethics. He was engaged to a woman who he loved but would not marry (for whatever reason...he never did give anyone a reason) Anyway, I guess back then when you were engaged it was kinda unheard of to drop the engagement and was a social taboo for the bride to be...which is why he father begged and pleaded with K not to "leave her at the alter." But K did anyway...even though he was quite in love with her. I think there was some reason that when he realized what that love meant...and realized that it would destroy her more to love her than to "leave her at the alter"...he went against society and their morality and moved away. There was some higher ethical there...but what we will never know. Just that it might have been the better choice for the lover to have a broken heart than to go ahead with the wedding and be in even more pain with the knowledge that K felt he could not speak...because no one would understand...like Abraham. Unfortunately, it must have been big...because I don't think he ever let on what it was...not that we could have understood it if he did.

Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts about the merman story since you were "soft" to it. Personally, being a mother, I was soft to the part when Abraham turned away from Issac and said to God, "Better he should see me as a monster than to lose his faith in you." I related to that not in a christian sense...but from a parents stand point that when you become a parent...you would sacrifice the dearest thing to you...even your childs love, if it meant your child would have a better way in life. It is this self sacrifice that may or may not be accepted by society, in all their innocence and ignorance...but when you reach a higher level of awareness...then you have no other option but to do the "ethical" thing. Not according to everyone else....but according to what you know as a higher level of thinking individual

The mothers blacken their breasts..
I am soft in my incorporateing the merman bit into the rest of the meaning of book instead of segregating it to some 'side' idea.

K could not do that be the monster, could not bring himself to have faith. But also that which is the object if his faith did not either, it seduced him, but did niot have the 'compassion' to release K from his delemma. So K ask 'why' and 'how' is this possible'.

Please cite passages from the book which hint to your idea that K "could not do that...be the monster, could not bring himself to faith." I think you are mistaken here. K makes no real value judgement either way. Only that there is a paradox present. He does not say it is better to be a herd thinker vs. an individual...I think. As in either/or he shoes no value judgment as well. I don't think he is saying have faith or don't have faith...he is simply saying he doesn't understand faith. He knows he hold his own ethical stance...and knows everyone does. The difference is how much their intellect allows them to understand things such as ethics...on a deeper level. He is making a statement of fact and not a judgment of him thinking he is "better" than another. We simply think he is better because he is explaining a truth to us that we may or may not have seen before. He did not see himself better than regine (his love interest) I don't think but he knew he was smarter...that was just a fact. I think she captured him the way agnes captured the merman because she had so much "pure" faith...that he could not maintain his intelligence and still take advantage of her...because he recognized something better than himself in her. Something he could not have....Faith. And not necessarily faith in God...faith in love....like agnes. K had a responsibility once he saw something "higher than himself. As intellect was just one thing he had....it was not a judgment he made...it was just truth...do you see?

[lancek4]

Yes. I regret that I have little time, and can't squeeze in getting to my book. I apologize. I will try to soon.

I ask: what informs K in what he is writing - what is the relationship between his experience with Regina, His topic here of Abrahams faith, and the merman thing ? I think to reduce intellect to an intellectual processing is short of the mark. Too hermunetical. We must bring in authorship.

I agree with much of what you say AS.
Yet- love. Think of the love of Song of Solomon, this loving relationship one has with God. Why could K not have the faith of love for Regina? He loved her, yet could not love her - this is his quandry. Why? Why would he imagine to preserve her innocence he would, if he truely loved her, let her have an image of him as a monster that had been playing with her? That would allow her to remain in her respect, her integrity, her idea of what love is?
Of what cannot 'the individual' speak?
In these questions we find the distniction between Hegals system, which is ethical, the universal, and The Absolute.

What ethics is being suspended in silence?
This is the dellemma K is presenting for us to consider.

[lancek4]

Ok book stuff:
Hong hong pg 7 F nT :
"The presnt author is by no means a philosopher. He has not understood the system.". Philosophers are those who propose to understand the system and by means of which understand faith. "Even if someone were to be able to .. It does not follow .. He has comprehanded faith".

How could K make this statement? If he himself had no clue as to waht faith is then this statement means nothing. .

K is not speaking of an intellectual situation, but one of experience.

And in the begining of the preface: "everything can be had at such a bargin price.." Where are these people going (who take these bargain deals)? They who supposedly have doubted everything (and got the bargain) make this move beyond faith so easily, yet no one thinks to ask how it is the enormous task (the doubted everything and moved beyond faith) was made so easily.

If these philosophers have doubted everything, how did they do it? They did it by taking the product at a cheap price so they can no longer have to doubt, but instead assert what is true and what faith is. What it means. They have the system. And therefore know nothing of faith, of existance.


Indeed this can be read as an internal choice of sorts, but K only indicates the possibilities of various choices - And so does suggest something about our existential situation.

Philosophy demands doubt of everything. Who can do this?

[zinnat13]

Hi friends'

Let me provide some fuel to the thread.

Let us talk about the Abraham and his son first.

There is a difference of opinion about the son with reference to this incident in Islam and Christianity. Islam says that it was Ismail, but, I do not think that is a big issue as it does not make much difference to the ethical point of view.

But, there is another difference too, which is important and worth noticeable; Quran, verses 037.102.

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/qur ... hp#037.102

Quran very categorically says that God did not give any order to Abraham to sacrifice his son. He just had a dream or rather vision in which he sacrificed his son. Thus, he interpreted his dream wrongly and concluded that he should sacrifice his son to fulfill the God’s command. This is the interpretation of the Sufi version, not the conservatives.

The second difference is that Abraham told his son about his dream and asked what to do. The son said that he (Abraham) should follow the command of God, irrespective of the outcome. This is to say that the son was very much aware about his sacrifice while going to the hill. Thus, he also falls into the category of higher individual and it is more important given the age of the son. Hence, there is no possibility of seeing Abraham as a monster.

And thus, when Abraham was going to sacrifice his son, the divine sound interrupted.

As I have not read the book of K, thus, I am not clear about his take of the God, but, I gone through the wiki and SEP pages of K.

He is very clear in his perspective of ethics and says it is relative. He says that each and every one defines ethics according to his understanding. IMHO, he is right. All of us use to do the same all the time. There is nothing extraordinary in it.

Let me take an example.

Let us imagine that a child gets injured and due to negligence, his foot becomes infected seriously. The stage comes that gangrene develops in his foot and there is no choice but to cut his foot to save his life.

Now, let us visualize the take of the parents and the doctor.

Parents are in blind love with their son and do not want to his foot to be cut. But, due to their ignorance of medical knowledge, they are just unable to understand the real situation and not letting the doctor what is desired. On the other hand, doctor, even looking crude for the moment in the view of parents, is on the right track. So, the take of doctor and the parents is different. But, in their respective opinion, both of them are well wishers of the child.

with love,
sanjay

[lancek4]

Hi friends'

Let me provide some fuel to the thread.

Let us talk about the Abraham and his son first.

There is a difference of opinion about the son with reference to this incident in Islam and Christianity. Islam says that it was Ismail, but, I do not think that is a big issue as it does not make much difference to the ethical point of view.

But, there is another difference too, which is important and worth noticeable; Quran, verses 037.102.

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/qur ... hp#037.102

Quran very categorically says that God did not give any order to Abraham to sacrifice his son. He just had a dream or rather vision in which he sacrificed his son. Thus, he interpreted his dream wrongly and concluded that he should sacrifice his son to fulfill the God’s command. This is the interpretation of the Sufi version, not the conservatives.

The second difference is that Abraham told his son about his dream and asked what to do. The son said that he (Abraham) should follow the command of God, irrespective of the outcome. This is to say that the son was very much aware about his sacrifice while going to the hill. Thus, he also falls into the category of higher individual and it is more important given the age of the son. Hence, there is no possibility of seeing Abraham as a monster.

And thus, when Abraham was going to sacrifice his son, the divine sound interrupted.

As I have not read the book of K, thus, I am not clear about his take of the God, but, I gone through the wiki and SEP pages of K.

He is very clear in his perspective of ethics and says it is relative. He says that each and every one defines ethics according to his understanding. IMHO, he is right. All of us use to do the same all the time. There is nothing extraordinary in it.

Let me take an example.

Let us imagine that a child gets injured and due to negligence, his foot becomes infected seriously. The stage comes that gangrene develops in his foot and there is no choice but to cut his foot to save his life.

Now, let us visualize the take of the parents and the doctor.

Parents are in blind love with their son and do not want to his foot to be cut. But, due to their ignorance of medical knowledge, they are just unable to understand the real situation and not letting the doctor what is desired. On the other hand, doctor, even looking crude for the moment in the view of parents, is on the right track. So, the take of doctor and the parents is different. But, in their respective opinion, both of them are well wishers of the child.

with love,
sanjay

The quarans version is interesting
It appears to comfirm a theory I have about Christianity and Islam, which is basically: Mohammed was attempting to clear up the ambiguity involved in the practical application of this God thing. He does it by situating god In practical living and gives definate rules and reasons; in the example of Abrham, he clears up the practical by movng the ambiguity presented in abrham by putting it into a non-practical arena, there by is able to draw practical application from it, as if it is a parable. A 'what if' for rationalilty.

Yet k avoids this by creating his own version of abraham that goes exactly to the 'absurd', not the practical, but the impracticalilty of coming upon an absoulte duty to god.

It does seem in the quaran that issac and abrham are on equal footing as ones of faith. Which would be consistent with my view (above) where there is the Law of God by which everyone of faith abides. Submission to God takes the form of submission to the Law; by this all who do have equal access to God, and prophets are merely wise men or thoughtful thinkers or men of the past. Those who don't live by the law are de facto heretics and should die.

Ks Abrham donotes a different tact. Here we have those who abide by the law and those who don't upon a grey scale, differentiated by various dogmas. K offers us not a question about Law abiders. He does not equivocate everyone, but points to an very unequivocal element: the one who may or may not have a absolute duty if god calls to him. An absolute duty has nothing to do with Law, it has to do with one thing: faith or no faith. Does the one who is called have faith with no doubt or does one quibble. And he offers that this is not based in a series of choices, but one choice: will you kill your most cherished loved one for Me (god). In this there is no decision. The decison K speaks about here is the possobilty of rationality behind one who Could do without question, one who solely relies upon God. And in this consideration the decision is already 'no', and yet K asserts that there is a teleological suspension of the ethical (read: is there purpose without or beyond ethics).
Thus the paradox.

If abraham merely drempt of the sacrifice, the we have a reasonable disclaimer against an absolute duty toward god in that A confers with Issac and Issac say yes do as God says, because that is the Law. The absolute duty becomes a relative discussable issue upon which, by everyone being in on the discussion. The Law is the universal, which is ethics, which is relative.
K rejects this, offering Johannes Silencio (the psudeononymous author of 'Fear and Trembling'.

Of course, K was the son of a Lutheran pastor: protestant. And protestants, especially Luthranism, which I know first hand, advocates having a personal relationship with God. No mediaries.

F and T
It is not a long book, and is divided into subsections, each entertaining a problem relevent to the whole book. The wiki is a good primer, but is much to crass. I suggest giving the book a shot.

[lancek4]

Another asapect of the mermans story which has caused me wonder is what does K mean here at the beginning of it: "Now I shall develop a sketch along the lines of the demonic.."

What does he mean? Why is the story of the merman 'demonic' ?

[lancek4]

Perhaps this means: that K is poseing the possibility of two aspects of God that one could have a duty toward, a good aspect and an evil aspect. ?

[zinnat13]

Hi lance,

I am sorry for being late in reply due to some family reasons.

with love,
sanjay