kierkegaard set text Flashcards
preface - analogy and doubt
uses analogy of clearance sale in describing philosophy
people are so consumed by doubt that they discard ideas very quickly
this includes the idea of faith
they all try and go further than doubt – where do they think they are going?
Descartes used doubt, but ‘was no doubter in matters of faith’ (41)
But D did not impose his method on others – his philosophy was personal and did not impose the idea of doubt on others
Looks at opposite of faith: doubt
Personal nature of D’s philosophy key – K emphasises the individual and the first person
prologue - understanding faith
‘even if one were to render the whole of the content of faith into conceptual form, it would not follow that one had grasped faith’ (43)
- he does not try and conceptualise others’ minds as the Hegelian does
‘the present author is no philosopher, he is poetice et eleganter…he writes because for him doing so is a luxury’ (43)
- he is an anti-philosopher, not trying to be objective
- criticising Hegel’s hierarchy of reason over faith
- not being modest but disassociating himself from the philosophers of his day
- Hegelians have failed to understand what it means to have faith
attunement - number 1
Abraham poses as an idolater so Isaac doesn’t lose faith in God
- ‘Unlike Johannes’ ‘real’ Abraham – who as we shall see believes paradoxically on ‘the strength of the absurd’ that he will ‘get Isaac back’, and in this life, not merely in an afterlife – the Abraham of this first narrative is unequivocally resigned to having to kill Isaac. The matter for him, therefore, becomes one of how he can do so with the least damage possible to Isaac’s ‘soul’’ (Lippitt, p.23)
Link to theme of silence and concealment
See Problema III where A significantly does not conceal where he is leading Isaac
attunement - number 2
Abraham does not sacrifice Isaac and loses joy in his life
He sacrifices the ram instead of Isaac
‘Abraham became old, he could not forget that God had demanded this of him. Isaac throve as before; but Abraham’s eye was darkened, he saw joy no more’ (46)
motif of youth is used in next section, where A and Sarah are ‘young enough to wish’ for son
attunement - number 3
Abraham questions whether it is a sin for him to sacrifice that which he loves most – asks for forgiveness for contemplating killing his son
‘he begged God to forgive his sin at having been willing to sacrifice Isaac, at the father’s having forgotten his duty to his son’ (47)
he ‘found no peace. He could not comprehend that it was a sin to have been willing to sacrifice to God the best he owned…if it was a sin, if he had not so loved Isaac, then he could not understand that it could be forgiven; for what sin was more terrible’ (47)
concern = nature of ethics
should universalise one should not kill innocent son. Conflict of ethics
attunement - number 4
Isaac sees Abraham getting ready to sacrifice him and loses his faith.
‘as he turned away Isaac saw that Abraham’s left hand was clenched in anguish, that a shudder went through his body – but Abraham drew the knife…Isaac had lost his faith’ (47)
theme of silence – but in this case, Isaac becomes silent
‘never a word in the whole world was spoken of this, and Isaac told no one what he had seen’
speech in praise of Abraham - A abandonment of the universal
‘he left behind his worldly understanding and took with him his faith’ (50)
faith drove A to abandon earthly reasoning/the universal
he gave up everything but his faith
speech in praise of Abraham - A lack of doubt
‘But Abraham had faith, and had faith for this life’ (53)
he could have used eschatological hope as crutch
but his faith must be in this world
‘But Abraham had faith and did not doubt. He believed the absurd. If Abraham had doubted – then he would have done something…great and glorious’ (54)
- anaphoric repetition of ‘but Abraham had faith’ in three consecutive paragraphs
- he could have killed himself but then he would simply be a tragic hero, not the founder of faith
- ‘It…seems possible that the reason Johannes views this as less admirable is that it amounts to attempting to negotiate with God’ (lippitt, p.32)
problemata, preamble from the heart - anguish from son
whilst Abraham’s greatness comes in part from his sacrifice of his ‘best’, a poor man could equally be great through sacrificing all he had.
What distinguishes Abraham ‘is the anguish; for while I am under no obligation to money, to a son the father has the highest and most sacred of obligations’ (58)
People miss the horrific aspect of the story – the fear and trembling that results from facing the burden
Cannot think and speak about the story, you need to live it
problemata, preamble from the heart - potential misunderstanding of story
Abraham story could be misunderstood
- E.g. if a priest did a sermon on it and someone took it seriously
‘the comic and the tragic converge on each other here in absolute infinity. The priest’s speech was no doubt laughable enough in itself, but became infinitely more so in its consequence’ (59)
- if sinner went and killed son he would be ‘executed or sent to the madhouse’
- people would forget that the priest actually preached Abraham’s exemplarity
- priests etc. leave out the anguish in the story
problemata, preamble from the heart - ethical contradiction
Only Abraham can commit the act and everyone else is a sinner?
However, ‘if faith cannot make it into a holy deed to murder one’s own son, then let the judgment fall on Abraham as on anyone else’ (60)
Contradiction is that ethically, A was willing to murder, religiously, A was willing to sacrifice – ‘in this contradiction lies the very anguish that can indeed make one sleepless’ (60)
Someone can easily imitate the ethical side and murder their son
What makes A different is his faith
Divine love sanctified by a terrible act = sustainable. Transient love is not
problemata, preamble from the heart - dig at Hegel
- says that Abraham in comparison to Hegel is infinitely harder to understand
Hegel’s difficulty lies in the fact that he isn’t clear - Abraham’s is in the ‘monstrous paradox that is the content of Abraham’s life’ (62)
- Views it as ‘dishonest of philosophy to offer something else instead and to slight faith. Philosophy cannot and should not give us an account of faith’ (63)
- Slating Hegel
- ‘what he and the Hegelian have in common is that neither of them inhabits the form of life of what the Hegelian might call ‘mere’ faith. Where they differ is that whereas the Hegelian thinks he has got ‘beyond’ faith, Johannes admits that the form of life he – Johannes – occupies is ‘lower’ than that out of faith’ (39)
problemata, preamble from the heart - speaker’s own lack of faith
Speaker acknowledges that ‘my courage is not of faith and not at all to be compared with it. I cannot close my eyes and hurl myself trustingly into the absurd, for me it is impossible…I am convinced that God is love…but I do not have faith; this courage I lack’ (63)
- Acknowledges that if he had obeyed God out of love and had sacrificed his son, he would be unable to find rest in himself afterwards
problemata, preamble from the heart - strength of the absurd
- With A, ‘all along he had faith, he believed that God would not demand Isaac of him, while still he was willing to offer him…he believed on the strength of the absurd…for all human calculation had long since been suspended’ (65)
- ‘the movement of faith must be made continually on the strength of the absurd…I for my part can indeed describe the movements of faith, but I cannot perform them’ (67)
difference between knight of faith and knight of infinite resignation
‘the knights of infinite resignation are readily recognisable, their gait is gilding…but those who bear the jewel of faith can easily disappoint, for their exterior bears a remarkable similarity to what infinite resignation itself as much as faith scorns, namely the bourgeois philistine’ (67)
- dig at Hegel??
pain of knowing the infinite and being rooted in the universal
‘and yet this man has made and is at every moment making the movement of infinity. He draws in infinite resignation the deep sorrow of existence, he knows the bliss of infinity, he has felt the pain of renouncing everything…and yet to him finitude tastes just as good as to one who has never known anything higher’ (70)
- nothing outwardly heroic abut figure
- what makes him distinctive is in his ‘inwardness’
difference between knight of faith and resignation
renounces the claim to love which is what makes him happy (like other knight)
he is reconciled in pain (like other knight)
but he goes further in making ‘one more movement…for he says: ‘I nevertheless believe that I shall get her, namely on the strength of the absurd’ (75)
- absurd does not mean improbable
- ‘the moment the knight resigned he was convinced of the impossibility, humanly speaking…in an infinite sense, however, it was possible, through renouncing it (as a finite possibility); but then accepting that (possibility) is at the same time to have given up’ (75)
- ‘all that can save him is the absurd; and this he grasps by faith’ (76)
definition of faith
‘faith is therefore no aesthetic emotion, but something far higher, exactly because it presupposes resignation; it is not the immediate inclination of the heart but the paradox of existence’ (76)
For J, faith is the ‘paradox, that the single individual is higher than the universal’ (84)
It is a state of ‘absolute relation to the absolute’ (85)
problemata 1: teleological suspension of the ethical - Hegel view of ethics
The ethical is the universal
Anything that is not an expression of the universal is temptation
Hegel views individualism as a ‘moral form of evil’ (H) that must be ‘annulled in the teleology of the ethical life’ (J) (83)
problemata 1: teleological suspension of the ethical - lack of mediation of paradox of faith
‘he acts on the strength of the absurd; for it is precisely the absurd that as the single individual he is higher than the universal. This paradox cannot be mediated; for as soon as he tries Abraham will have to admit that he is in a state of temptation…Abraham is therefore at no instant the tragic hero, but…either a murderer or a man of faith’ (85)
problemata 2: is there an absolute duty to god? yes
‘the ethical is the universal and as such, in turn, the divine. It is therefore correct to say that all duty is ultimately duty to God’ (96)
but if all duties are duties to God, what room does this leave for particular duties e.g. Abraham’s sacrifice
problemata 2: is there an absolute duty to god? faith as interior
paradox is that ‘there is an interiority that is incommensurable with the exterior’ (97)
‘the single individual…determines his relation to the universal through his relation to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute through his relation to the universal’ (98)
absolute duty = to God
the ethical is not God. God is the absolute – which reduces the ethical to the relative
problemata 2: is there an absolute duty to god? - ethical is not ignored but paradoxical
‘it doesn’t follow that the ethical Is to be done away with. Only that it gets…paradoxical expression so that e.g. love of God can cause the knight of faith to give his love of his neighbour the opposite expression to that which is his duty ethically speaking’ (98)
the ethical duty of loving your son is reduced to the relative in favour of the absolute of worshipping God
problemata 2: is there an absolute duty to god? biblical basis for absolute duty to god
cites Luke 14:26 – absolute duty to God
should be taken literally – criticises exegete who tries to reinterpret the Greek for ‘hate’ as ‘love less’ etc.
like A, it has the power to induce fear
‘the absolute duty can then lead to what ethics would forbid, but it can by no means make the knight of faith have done with loving’ (101)
A loves I
‘it is indeed this love of Isaac that in its paradoxical opposition to his love of God makes his act a sacrifice’ (101)
problemata 2: is there an absolute duty to god? - tragic hero vs. knight of faith renouncing
‘the tragic hero renounces himself in order to express the universal; the knight of faith renounces the universal in order to be the particular’ (103)
the knight of faith knows that to belong to the universal is favourable but he actively struggles as an individual
‘he knows it is terrible to be born in solitude outside the universal’ (103)
no one understands why he’d choose this path – he forsakes the security of the universal
problemata 2: is there an absolute duty to god? - tragic hero vs. knight of faith relationship with the universal
- ‘the tragic hero is soon finished…he makes the infinite movement and is now safe in the universal. But the knight of faith is kept awake, or he is under constant trial and can turn back in repentance to the universal at any moment’ (105)
- ‘the tragic hero acts and finds his point of rest in the universal, the knight of faith is kept in constant tension’ (106)
ending of problemata II
‘so either there is an absolute duty to God, and if so then it is the paradox described, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal and as the particular stands in an absolute relation to the absolute – or else faith has never existed because it has existed always’ (108)
‘Problema II ends, like Problema I, with an either/or…either there is an absolute duty to God, in which case we have the paradox that the ‘single individual as the particular is higher than the universal and as he particular stands in an absolute relation to the absolute’ or, Abraham is indeed ‘done for’’ (Lippitt, 106)
Problema III – was it ethically defensible of Abraham to conceal his purpose from Sarah, from Elezear, from Isaac?
‘unless there is a concealment which has its basis in the single individual’s being higher than the universal, then Abraham’s conduct cannot be defended’ (109)
problema III - concealment in drama
concealment is used as dramatic tool in Greek tragedy linked to fate
not as interesting to our modern reflective age which no longer has the idea of Fate
‘concealment and disclosure then become the hero’s free act, for which he is responsible’ (111)
in modern drama, concealment and recognition = similarly used
if someone is hiding something nonsensical = comedy
if concealer is related to the idea = tragic hero
problemata III - concealment passes between aesthetics and ethics
‘my procedure here must be to let concealment pass dialectically between aesthetics and ethics, for the point is to show how absolute different the paradox and aesthetic concealment are from one another’ (112)
ethics does not appeal to experience, purely categorical
ethics ‘warns against putting faith in the calculating shrewdness of reason, more treacherous than the oracles of the ancients. It warns against all misplaced magnanimity’ (113)
‘aesthetics called for concealment and rewarded it. Ethics called for disclosure and punished concealment’ (113)
sometimes even aesthetics calls for disclosure – e.g. ‘when the hero’s action involves interfering in another person’s life’ (113)
J is using the term aesthetic ‘closer to its standard usage that it is to the ‘aesthetic life’ as embodied in ‘A’, the ‘aesthete’ of Either/Or’ (lippitt, 112)
faith > ethical > aesthetic
problemata III - reference to aristotle politics
augurs predicted misfortune in marriage. As bridegroom is about to fetch his wife, he changes his mind
‘one should note first of all that it is at the crucial moment that the hero learns what is in store, so he is pure and blameless, hasn’t bound himself irresponsibly to the loved one’ (116-7)
clearly a reference to his breaking off of engagement with Regine
divine utterances makes him as unhappy as his bride
justifying actions on religious basis – has been warned by augurs
should he speak up??
- Set in Greece where everyone knows that augur’s decision comes from heaven
- if the will of heaven had been transmitted to him in a more direct way, ‘the reason for his silence would not be a wish to place himself as he single individual in an absolute relation to the universal, but to be placed as the single individual in an absolute relationship to the absolute’ (119)
- only religion is capable of ‘rescuing the aesthetic from its conflict with the ethical’ (119-20)
problemata III - agnes and merman, general
- about to take her to the deep before sea calms down
cannot deal with her innocent faith in him, withdraws wicked intentions - concealment or disclosure?
if repentance alone possesses merman = concealment
if repentance and Agnete possesses him = disclosure - deception = repenting but concealing what he is repenting from
- If he speaks he will be a tragic hero and will have the courage to ‘free himself of all self-deception…(and) crush Agnete’ (123)
- saved through agnete by being disclosed
problemata III - agnes and merman, analysis
‘so he marries Agnete. But he must still resort to the paradox. For when through his own guilt the individual has come out of the universal, he can only return to it on the relation to the absolute’ (124)
- Green suggest that ‘Abraham and the merman are counterparts, positive and negative expressions of the same problem. Both have suspended the ethical, one by obedience and by sin, and both are saved only by a direct, supraethical relationship to God’ (Green, 1993, 202 – enough is enough! Fear and trembling is not about ethics)
- Mulhall aligns the merman’s saving through Agnete with the concept of faith – ‘by renouncing his previous relation to Agnete, also gets her back, again understood (insofar as he needs to enter into an absolute relation to the absolute to get to this point) as a gift from God’ (lippitt, 123-4)
- J says he is different to A as A does not exist in a state of sin
problemata iii - Abraham silence
Abraham is silent – but he cannot speak, therein lies the distress and anguish’ (137)
- he cannot speak of it in a way that people would understand
- speech translates into the universal
tragic hero does not know this – he ‘knows nothing of the terrible responsibility of solitude’ (138)
problemata iii - A two movements
- ‘the infinite movement of resignation and gives up his claim to Isaac, something no one can understand because it is a private undertaking’ (139)
- then makes the movement of faith = comforting
- on the strength of the absurd, he has faith that if even if it does happen, God will give him a ‘new Isaac’
epilogue
returns to economic imagery of Preface
faith = highest human passion
It is a goal - ‘so long as the generation only worries about its task, which is the highest it can attain to, it cannot grow weary’ (146)
Cites example of Dutch spice merchants who dump cargo at sea to ‘force up the price’ (145)
- Is J trying to force up the price of faith?
- ‘this reference, though, is slightly confusing. What the spice merchants’ action does, surely, is artificially inflate the price of the remaining spices. Is that what Johannes has been doing in relation to faith…?’ (lippitt, 133)
- or does J give the true value of faith?
