Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling
What is a human person? How do human beings relate to God? Who am I? Why do I exist?
I. Soeren Kierkegaard, a famous theologian of the 19th Century, wrote Fear and Trembling in 1843 in response to Hegelianism. Kierkegaard takes on the pseudonymous role of Jonannes de Silentio and speaks on modern peoples' attitudes toward doubt and faith. He believes humans are creatures entrenched in reason and doubt but not in the same sense as Descartes, a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher. Descartes doubted everything he had ever learned; his way of thinking is called hyperbolic or Cartesian doubt. According to his philosophy, within the world of ideas there is clearance sale; everybody has a shop (their mind) and everything in one's head is one's ideas and beliefs. Reaching a point where one doubts everything is not easy to attain, yet humanity, on the whole, believes this is the starting point. Descartes denied himself of many things in order to reach such a state of being. He believed he had knowledge, whilst everyone else had beliefs. A belief only became knowledge when one had reasonable proved it via logical thought. Kierkegaard argued that knowledge is "understandable" whereas faith is "absurd." This knowledge is useless unless one can make the "leap of faith." When one is bound by knowledge and rational thinking, he/she is said to embody the universal because one's individuality is made void for the sake of societal good. On the other hand, the individual characterizes a relationship with oneself in the case of the aesthetic and a relationship with God in the religious. The latter is highest relationship; therefore, humans will receive the most pleasure from it. Most men during Kier...
... middle of paper ...
... student to be punctual based upon previous attendance record. In contrast, religion does not prerequisite trust; in fact, it is much more than trust or a belief but a way of life. Many people today, I would place in the category of the aesthetic because so many of us are driven by our desires. But, in terms of living a life for the betterment of others, I very rarely see that in our society, let alone, a life committed to praising the Lord and attaining faith. Most people just assume that because they believe in God, they have faith. Most people do not give themselves to God entirely; the word believe' is used very loosely today. They do not feel as though their absolute duty is to God. People are selfish and they normally only love themselves. In such a society, faith is not only difficult but almost quixotic, which means many people do not or cannot relate to God.
Soren Kierkegaard, a German philosopher, throughout the 1800’s developed concepts defending the sovereignty of the individual against the idea that the significance of oneself is derived solely from one’s participation in the universal or community (Basic Writings of Existentialism: Gordon Marino, p. 4). Gordon continues by explaining that, much of Kierkegaard’s work contains a primary focus on what it means to have faith. Kierkegaard arrived at several conclusions regarding one’s belief in Christ, including, “…the imitation of Christ was about the furthest thing possible from the mind-set of institutionalized Christianity.” Published in 1843, “Fear and Trembling”, written by S. Kierkegaard is often described as an analysis of the over simplification
Kierkegaard suggests that Hegel, at his core, does not understand that the nature of man, or at the very least the nature of faith, which is in a constant state of moral uncertainty. He illustrates the state of man with various analogies on Abraham's sacrifice of Issac in “Fear and Trembling,” suggesting that Abraham should either be considered a murder because he would have killed his son, or a man of faith because of he obeyed God unwaveringly. Kierkegaard wirtes, “I return, however, to Abraham. Before the result, either Abraham was every minute a murderer, or we are confronted by a paradox which is higher than all mediation” (Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, 51). He makes the claim that while the ethical is universal, the individual who has a personal relationship with God takes on a higher importance than one would with Gies...
Fear in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee Fear is an important force in the novel because it is the cause of most people's actions. The main theme in the book is a result of fear. such as the Tom Robinson case and Boo Radley. Ignorance breeds fear which in turn breeds prejudice. Fear is infectious, and each character.
In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, the concept of the Knight of Faith is an exalted one, a unique title awarded to those whose devotion to God goes far beyond what is even comprehensible or expected for the average man, who has an aesthetic or ethical life. We are told by Kierkegaard that this Knight of Faith, when in a situation where resignation appears to be the only solution to a problem, puts his faith in what appears to be the absurd, and believes that the solution that he desires lies in God. This fuels his faith, and makes him better than the aesthetic man, who simply abandons or ignores the problem, or the ethical man, the Knight of Infinite Resignation, who accepts the problem and resigns himself to a life of despair. The Knight of Faith exists as a shining beacon of devotion to the will of God, and, according to Kierkegaard, there exist only two known examples of the Knight of Faith: Abraham, and Mary. These exemplary figures in history put their faith in God, and believed that God would provide a solution to their problems. This unconditional faith in their creator is supposed to be inspirational, and in a sense, make the reader feel incredibly pitiful and resentful of their own wavering faith. In the following paragraphs, I aim to argue that a moment of absolute faithlessness can prove to be just as powerful as a moment of pure faith, and that Mary and Abraham serve as God-given examples of an absolute faith that is inaccessible to all but a few humans who serve very specific purposes in this world. Finally, I will propose a different mode of existence, one in which a man’s free will allows him to find joy in whatever God provides for him.
I have never pondered on such a question of what it means to be a human being. What it means to be a human being is not just having a face, eyes, heart, or being able to drive a car, or to own a house. Being a human being is much more than that, deeper and more passionate. Being a human being is to have the ability to having rational thought and to think deeply. Being a human is finding a meaning or a purpose.
In order to define personhood, one must first define a human. A Human can be thought about in two different senses, a moral human sense and a genetic human sense. In a moral sense, humans can be thought of as a person who is a member of the moral community. In a genetic sense, humans are merely any physical being categorized as a being in the human species. From this one can conclude that a person is a human in the moral sense. Furthermore, characteristics of a person must be defined in order to differentiate moral beings from genetic humans.
Humans are extremely complex and unique beings. We are animals however we often forget our origins and our place in the natural world and consider ourselves superior to nature. Humans are animals but what does it mean to be human? What are the defining characteristics that separate us from other animals? How are we different? Human origins begin with primates, however through evolution we developed unique characteristics such as larger brain sizes, the capacity for language, emotional complexity and habitual bipedalism which separated us from other animals and allowed us to further advance ourselves and survive in the natural world. Additionally, humans have been able to develop a culture, self-awareness, symbolic behavior, and emotional complexity. Human biological adaptations separated humans from our ancestors and facilitated learned behavior and cultural adaptations which widened that gap and truly made humans unlike any other animal.
Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher in the mid 1800s. He is known to be the father of existentialism and was at least 70 years ahead of his time. Kierkegaard set out to attack Kant’s rational ethics and make attacks on the Christianity of our day. He poses the question, how do we understand faith? He states that faith equals the absurd. In “Fear and Trembling”, he uses the story of Abraham and his son Isaac to show an example of faith as the absurd. The story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac signifies a break in the theory that ethics and religion go hand in hand. He shows how the ethical and the religious can be completely different. “I by no means conclude that faith is something inferior but rather that it is the highest, also that it is dishonest of philosophy to give something else in its place and to disparage faith” (Fear and Trembling, 12).
Religion is an organized collection of beliefs and cultural systems that entail the worship of a supernatural and metaphysical being. “Religion just like other belief systems, when held onto so much, can stop one from making significant progress in life”. Together with religion come traditions that provide the people with ways to tackle life’s complexities. A subscription to the school of thought of great scholars
How does the individual assure himself that he is justified? In Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, Abraham, found in a paradox between two ethical duties, is confronted with this question. He has ethical duties to be faithful to God and also to his son, Isaac. He believes that God demands him to sacrifice Isaac. But, Abraham, firmly adhering to his faith, submitted to what he believed was the will of God. By using his perspective and that of his alternative guise, Johannes de Silentio, Kierkegaard concentrates on the story of Abraham in such a way that his audience must choose between two extremes. Either Abraham is insane or he is justified in saying he will kill Isaac.
The question of what is a human being is extremely complex, but we are given the unique ability to be able to think about it. I believe that “God created mankind in His own image” and because of that, He created them perfect (Genesis 1:1, NIV). God placed man on the Earth to rule over the land and to spread the Word of God to the far corners of the world. Religions are almost all based around theories about what happens after someone dies. I believe that when someone dies, they are faced with the judgment of Christ who then determines if that p...
Religiousness A and B, although both based on blind faith differ in the fact that as Kierkegaard saw it, religiousness B allows for one’s own thoughts. It involves having a faith unique to oneself based on the ability to look within the self for truths and answers. It differs from that of the ‘organized’ religiousness A. Those who live the religious life A also hold a very strong faith but have been criticized of being followers of a herd mentality. This is argued because they go to organized church ceremonies given by a priest*. It is believed that those living in this faith do not think or act for themselves. Instead they allow for someone to dictate to them how they should act, behave and think.*A priest is a figure who for centuries has been seen as ‘called upon’ by God to spread His word and show people how to live to please Him.
What does it mean to be human? Sure, one must have the usual physical features such as fingers, eyes, arms, hands, feet, etc., but what does it really mean? Must the human be able to speak? To take upon the actions of themselves? Whatever it means, it can be interpreted in any way from anyone. The physical attributes of any human can be compared to those of our evolutionary ancestors. However, it is possible to believe that there are many characteristics that make a human, but only six define the true, ideal human.
Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations (1641) contain his important philosophical theories. Intending to extend mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge, Descartes discarded the authoritarian systems of the scholastic philosophers and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. This is the kernel of his famous assertion Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I am existing). From this certainty Descartes expanded knowledge, step by step, to admit the existence of God (as the first cause) and the reality of the physical world, which he held to be mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind; the only connection between the two is the intervention of God.
Descartes begins his First Meditation by calling all of his beliefs into doubt. His method of systematic doubt or skepticism serves as a general demolition of all previously held opinions. The doubting can be broken into two separate parts. First, Descartes must abandon every belief which lacks complete certainty. Second, once a careful examination of his beliefs has been performed, Descartes must retain only those beliefs characterized by the highest degree of precision. Descartes’ intention is distinctively clear, for he sees it necessary to suppose the falsity of everything he formerly believed as influenced by sensual knowledge, so that he can start again from the right foundations and establish absolutely clear truths.