Philosophy Now Forum

Here it is! Someone wanted to start a thread on Soren, so have at it.

Where shall we begin?

(Maybe he should be under another heading? I don't know. This seems fine though. ).

lancek4 wrote:Here it is! Someone wanted to start a thread on Soren, so have at it.

Where shall we begin?

(Maybe he should be under another heading? I don't know. This seems fine though. ).

Thank you for your thoughtful gesture. It is much appreciated. My favorite books of his so far are :

Fear and Trembling
Either/Or
The Sickness unto death
Purity of heart is to will one thing (which I am still reading...)

Let me know which one you want to discuss first and I will try to find it. I have to warn you I am very busy with work this holiday season so I might be slow to respond.

Thanks again for creating this thread.

Do you agree with Kierkegaard's conception of philosophy as a way to discover something about yourself, to transform yourself and to learn how to live an existentially fulfilling life? Or should philosophy be more concerned with bald French kings and the word différance?

Danielk wrote:Do you agree with Kierkegaard's conception of philosophy as a way to discover something about yourself, to transform yourself and to learn how to live an existentially fulfilling life? Or should philosophy be more concerned with bald French kings and the word différance?

I would tend toward the former version.
So perhaps "fear and trembling" might be a good book to start with.

Perhaps we might discuss what we think about what we think about what kierkegaard has to say before we get into our own arguments upon the whatever issue (if this is possible).

What is going on with the questiuon: is there a teleological suspension of the ethical ?

can a god who demands that you murder to show your obedience be worthy of it?

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:can a god who demands that you murder to show your obedience be worthy of it?

-Imp

Yeah, I would say that is an overt but 'light' reading of him; indeed, I don't think we would be reading K today if that was all he was posing.

Of course, we Should know, that K says 'yes' to this question. But why does he affirm it. And not only murder, but murder of one's most loved.

Why does Sartre call K the 'first existentialist'?

What is K suggesting?

Is K offering in his books one or many philosophical subjects?

-

Danielk wrote:Fear and Trembling is a meditation and serious contemplation about the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) revering Abraham as a father of faith and not as a cold-blooded murderer. Kierkegaard doubts whether Abraham deserves Christians' admirations:

"Is it because Abraham had a prescriptive right to be a great man, so that what he did is great, and when another does the same it is sin, a heinous sin? In that case I do not wish to participate in such thoughtless eulogy. If faith does not make it a holy act to be willing to murder one’s son, then let the same condemnation be pronounced upon Abraham as upon every other man. If a man perhaps lacks courage to carry his thought through, and to say that Abraham was a murderer, then it is surely better to acquire this courage, rather than waste time upon undeserved eulogies."

Either Abraham and every other child-murderer be admired, or Abraham and every other child-murderer be condemned. But Christians don't think so. They think Abraham has faith, while every other murderer of children do not. Thus, it is Kierkegaard's intention to: "to draw out from the story of Abraham the dialectical consequences inherent in it, expressing them in the form of problemata, in order to see what a tremendous paradox faith is, a paradox which is capable of transforming a murder into a holy act well pleasing to God."

The only way Abraham can get away with it, is if a teleological suspension of the ethical exists and exists for Abraham's case. The TSE is if the individual (Abraham) he became higher than the universal (universal Kantian morality) in order to express his actions absolutely (God's will). Kierkegaard calls the TSE a paradox which cannot be rationally explained:

"This is the paradox which does not permit of mediation. It is just as inexplicable how he got into it as it is inexplicable how he remained in it. If such is not the position of Abraham, then he is not even a tragic hero but a murderer. To want to continue to call him the father of faith, to talk of this to people who do not concern themselves with anything but words, is thoughtless."

The other two problematas, an absolute duty to God, and the difference between a tragic hero and Abraham's condition, doesn't excuse Abraham's actions either. One cannot rationally prove Abraham had an absolute duty to God, nor is Abraham's action akin to Agamennon sacrificing his daughter to save a city. The latter case sacrifices one ethical duty for a higher ethical duty which can be rationally explained. Abraham sacrifice of Isaac has no ethical/universal justification.

Kierkegaard concludes that faith is not something many Christians have. They admire Abraham but they don't understand him. Those who claim to have faith, and want to go further than faith (like Hegel) are simply delusional.

A perefctly wonderful synopsis and explnation. Did you come on this yourself?
I would say that K moreso than delusional, says this situation is absurd.
Is there no more discussion then? You understnad I so thhouroughly I wonder what else is to be said.
I would wonder about your explanation of why he calls it 'fear and trembling'.?

.















..........................................................











.

lancek4 wrote: A perefctly wonderful synopsis and explnation. Did you come on this yourself?
I would say that K moreso than delusional, says this situation is absurd.
Is there no more discussion then? You understnad I so thhouroughly I wonder what else is to be said.
I would wonder about your explanation of why he calls it 'fear and trembling'.?

This is how I read F&T; I'm aware of many other interpretations, but this is the interpretation I got when I read it.
F&T is a pretty rich book, I'm sure after re-reading it several times, I'll gain new interpretations from it.

It's called Fear and Trembling because unlike previous interpretations of Abraham by Christian philosophers, Kierkegaard draws out the absurdity of Abraham's situation. Kierkegaard argues that Abraham realized that his act of sacrifice conflicts with everything he knows to be just and good. That by doing this he may very well lose his son. Abraham's action to sacrifice (nay, murder) Isaac does NOT elicit a response of blind faith and blind obedience, but rather of "fear and trembling", the conflict between reason and the absurd.

Danielk wrote:

lancek4 wrote: A perefctly wonderful synopsis and explnation. Did you come on this yourself?
I would say that K moreso than delusional, says this situation is absurd.
Is there no more discussion then? You understnad I so thhouroughly I wonder what else is to be said.
I would wonder about your explanation of why he calls it 'fear and trembling'.?

This is how I read F&T; I'm aware of many other interpretations, but this is the interpretation I got when I read it.
F&T is a pretty rich book, I'm sure after re-reading it several times, I'll gain new interpretations from it.

It's called Fear and Trembling because unlike previous interpretations of Abraham by Christian philosophers, Kierkegaard draws out the absurdity of Abraham's situation. Kierkegaard argues that Abraham realized that his act of sacrifice conflicts with everything he knows to be just and good. That by doing this he may very well lose his son. Abraham's action to sacrifice (nay, murder) Isaac does NOT elicit a response of blind faith and blind obedience, but rather of "fear and trembling", the conflict between reason and the absurd.

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 ?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.















..........................................................











.

Ahh, leave it to Bill...

Might I ask: what footing is to be lost? And what is this self that one would lose if he does not dare?

Hi Daniel and Lance,

I thought that was a wonderful explanation too. I do think lance touches on an important point of absurdity. If we take a look at fear and trembling in just a Christian context then I think when K spoke about absurdity he meant that there is no way to follow God's word and be a 'good' christian or a 'good' human being at the same time. But I don't think K's writing are meant as an examination of only Christianity. Not only is the story about Abraham unexamined by most Christians in their own Hypocrisy of condemning things they could not know, but I believe he is not only speaking of Christians as Christians aren't the only ones who do not examine or inspect their own beliefs or lives in such a manner. It is my belief K could have chosen just about any story in the bible or in everyday life with atheists to show this 'absurd' dynamic but because Christianity was so strong handed in society, it was an easy way for him to explain a difficult concept.

I believe the fear and trembling comes when you realize that even if you pin your hopes on that there is a God...then you will be held accountable for the choices you make as an individual or worse, there is no accountability and existence means nothing. Once I was having a conversation with my kids about whether or not I would kill one of my sons if God asked me to. I said I would not...and not even God could convince me to do so. My oldest son (who is an atheist/agnostic) said, "Then you would go against God." I said, "No. I would tell God that I can't kill because it says in the 10 commandments "thou shall not kill"' that coupled with my belief "killing is wrong" would make me go against God's commands. Simply because if I killed I would be going against God and if I didn't kill I would be going against God...So I am left with myself to make the grand decision...and I choose to not kill. He said, "Oh...so you have God on a technicality." LOL

My point is, that I am a knight of faith in that respect, in that, I don't believe it's not a "God" who tells me that it is wrong to kill or not kill...as one can never know the motives of an outside influence i.e. God/society/mom/dad etc. one can only know oneself...(and maybe not even oneself as even we can be wrong about ourselves.) I could never know if it was really God or just an evil powerful being there to deceive me and make me go against the true God. So I stand alone...with no God I can actually know without a shadow of a doubt to tell me right from wrong.

For me the fear comes in the thought that I am alone for all eternity or until death...in doubt...lost and questioning if I can even know my own mind much less any one elses. And not being able to fully communicate everything that is happening to me internally to anyone else. Much like Abraham's problem of never being full able to explain such a thing to society in a way they could understand...and yet...Abraham never once questioned if God was actually THE God. Never once did he think he might have been being duped by a devil. Never once did he think, "I could be insane...or worse...I could actually BE the devil." There just was not an internal examination of any kind.

I wonder if it is possible that Abraham was the knight of infinite resignation instead of the knight of faith? As surely it is society that taught Abraham about God to make it possible for him to even know God. So then if Abraham did not believe in societies stories of God or did not know of such stories to begin with...would he had ever had faith to begin with? So his "faith" could have just been the mass delusion of society. And he was acting out of human desire to justify his actions with blaming an outside influence on his behavior? Only was was justifying internally instead of how most justify externally. This is what I mean about not fully knowing oneself.

One thing I have noticed is that out of all the people I come in contact with...it seems to me that the people with the most fear and trembling are Christians. Atheists I know, including my son, do not seem to have the same fear. I wonder if deep down Christians know the absurdity of a God who can be so cruel as to abandon us to our own devices....allowing us to not know wrong from right and deliberately setting traps that we may fail and burn in hell.

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?

lancek4 wrote:
Might I ask: what footing is to be lost? And what is this self that one would lose if he does not dare?

Hi Bill and Lance,

I like the quote Bill. Here is a passage from Fear and trembling which explains it nicely I think.



The knights of infinity are ballet dancers and have elevation. They make the upward movement and come down again, and this, too, is not an unhappy diversion and is not unlovely to see. But every time they come down, they are unable to assume the posture immediately, they waver for moment, and this wavering shows that they are aliens in the world. It is more or less conspicuous according to their skill, but even the most skillful of these knights cannot hide this wavering. One does not need to see them in the air; one needs only to see them in the instant they touch and have touched the earth -- and then one recognizes them.