The Pain of the Knight of faith

During this weeks reading on Kierkegaard I found the section on the characteristics of the night of Faith very interesting. As we learned in class last Tuesday, the night of faith is of the world of the singular. He experiences a noumenon and therefore cannot express himself to those around him (those of the world of the universal). In the story of Abraham, we see an example of the singular (Abraham) experiencing an event, to which the universal would be, and is completely averse. Therefore since it is an experience that only Abraham can understand and experience, it is a singular event.

One of the questions that I had from last class , that I didn’t get a chance to bring up, was that if a person were a knight of faith, how would he know? For instance, even if a person experienced a singular even, does that make them a knight of faith? Even if it technically does, make him a knight of faith, how does the knight of faith, at what point does the knight recognize it? Even if I experienced, a singular event I don’t know that I would know that it applied to me, and If I did recognize it as singular, how do I know that I am no longer part of the universal?

The answer for Kierkegaard is a rather odd one. I thought that it might be the Knight’s estrangement from the group of the universal, or his lack of being able to communicate to those of the universal, but instead Kierkegaard says that what forces him to recognize his own identity as a knight of faith is pain. Kierkegaard says on pg.80 of Fear and trembling, “He [the knight of faith] feels the pain of being unable to make himself understandable to others… The pain is his assurance.”

It is this pain of being unable to communicate his experience to those of the realm of the universal that causes the knight of faith to recognize his position of an absolute singular. And this inner pain of being unable to communicate with the universal, but only with the absolute is what allows the knight of faith to personally understand the separation of his being with those beings that are attributed to the universal. It is through his own personal experience once again that the knight of faith sees himself as separate from the universal, and only able to communicate with the absolute.

Telos of Faith?

For me, the theological suspension of the ethical is mysterious notion; and there is no doubt that what ensues from Kierkegaard’s teleological suspension of the ethical is a near incomprehensible understanding of faith. The teleological suspension of the ethical makes Kierkegaard’s notion of faith so complex because it suggest that, despite the faith as a phenomena, there is a method for explaining how one comes to faith. In other words, there’s an explanation for how one comes to faith, but faith itself is unique between God and man and thus inexplicable to all others. But what makes Kierkegaard’s teleological suspension of the ethical so intriguing is that from it do we gather an element of purpose behind faith.

I think it is safe to say that most of us have come across the word telos multiple times. As we discussed in class last Tuesday, the word telos is defined as a subject’s end to which that particular subject’s entire existence is concerned. But what is most fascinating about the word telos is that is meaning suggests a form of purpose. If animals (aside from Humans), for example, exist only to reproduce their own kind in order to continue the cycle of reproduction, then the ends of their existence is to reproduce. Hence from this example can we conclude that reproducing is the purpose all animal existence. The word telos, therefore, indicates a certain element of purpose behinds its meaning. With that in mind, it can then be gathered that what lies in Kierkegaard’s teleological suspension of the ethical is a purposeful, if you will, suspension of the ethical.

This makes the question of faith all the more complicated because faith or acts of faith are no longer irrational or arbitrary, but rather done intentionally and purposefully. Obviously, this is what Kierkegaard is trying to convey in the teleological suspension of the ethical, yet it is intriguing to see how faith becomes that of a rational decision for the individual. Meaning that if arriving at faith is something teleological, then it must also be something rational, at least to the individual experiencing faith. Thus the beauty of faith for Kierkegaard is how faith is almost completely rational for the one experiencing it, while completely irrational for those who observe other’s acts of faith. This is why Kierkegaard’s example of Abraham is so apt, because it demonstrates how Abraham purposefully (teleological) came to the faith despite the actually act of faith appearing irrational.

Possible Connections

What is it about Fear and Trembling that makes it a particularly philosophical work? Does it not seem more in line with a sort of religious self-help text? The work seems more indicative of a novel, given the attention to style and metaphor, and admittance on the narrator’s part that he is limited when it comes to the intricacies of philosophical debate. However, in bringing back a dear, old friend, G.W.F. Hegel, I find a possible connection between the two. In a sense, the faith seems comparable to gut feelings from Hegel, although Kierkegaard has an explicit tie to God, whereas Hegel would not give a particular identity of his Absolute. While Hegel was more focused on a humanistic, and scientific approach to philosophy, his section on morality is particularly baffling, especially with the miraculously healed hardened heart of the beautiful soul. It seems like Kierkegaard, through Johannes de Silencio, works from a similar model, as the beautiful soul is akin to those merely going off the Abraham narrative and not experiencing faith. The beautiful soul resembles the masses blindly accepting that act of faith and making it his/her own model without fully comprehending the absurdity. Action seems to play a key role in both models of morality, as the beautiful soul is at odds with an acting conscience, which engages in the world instead of merely judging it. Likewise, faith can only be comprehended by some type of engagement with the absurd, and ultimately coming to grips with certain contradictions; like how Abraham had to fully believe he would sacrifice Isaac, but at the same time expecting to see him again. The element of engaging absurdity, rather than disembodied judgment bears heavily on both Hegel and Kierkegaard’s sense of morality, but I am still not completely sold that they have articulated a plausible alternative to Kant’s categorical imperative, from a logical standpoint. Yes, disinterested judgments arising from rationality sense highly unlikely, but seem much more plausible to have a common standard for all to share, rather than all of the factors in engaging with the absurd. Of course, Kierkegaard would languish my decision, as I am preferring standards of the ethical realm, but it seems more desirable to have an appeal to all of humanity, not just isolated cases of absurdity that by definition should not be intelligible to others that are not directly experiencing the situation in question.

The Paradox of Faith?

Throughout the portion of Fear and Trembling that we’ve read so far, Kierkegaard continuously paints faith as a sort of paradox. This characterization can be seen clearly in the section, “Eulogy on Abraham.” He explains that in patiently waiting for Sarah to become pregnant despite the fact of her old age, Abraham exhibits faith. He hopes and expects something to happen that the laws of nature have proven almost impossible. Therefore, according to Kierkegaard, his faith makes him childlike; he hopes in ignorance of reality like an uneducated kid. In this sense, faith seems contrary to rationality and akin to foolishness. However, at the same time, this foolishness is rewarded in a way that rationality would not have been. Abraham perseveres and finally has a son. Therefore, while contrary to rationality, it is also somehow greater than rationality.

According to Kierkegaard this same duality of faith can be seen when Abraham is willing and prepared to sacrifice his beloved son. Had Abraham had less faith, he would have acted more heroically. He would have sacrificed himself instead, “something great and glorious…[that] would have been admired in the world” (20-1). Instead, his faith almost leads him to sacrifice his son, an action that would most surely be labeled horrific by our world. Therefore in this sense, faith is contrary to the heroic and lower than it. At the same time though, it was Abraham’s willingness to obey this command—which was made possible by his faith—that has made his story unforgettable. By acting contrary to the heroic, he has somehow become a timeless hero.

I get the feeling that Kierkegaard thinks this duality of faith is an unsolvable mystery—a secret quality that partly explains faith’s power. However, is it possible that this duality does not really exist? I think that these supposed contradictions are merely the result of an ignorance of perspective on the part of Kierkegaard. Abraham’s faith that Sarah will get pregnant despite the couple’s old age is only foolish from one perspective. Science and experience tell us that the human body loses its ability to reproduce at a certain age. However, from a Christian perspective, this faith isn’t foolish at all. For Christianity claims that God is all-powerful and presumably can bend the laws of nature without much difficulty.

Similarly, in the case of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only son, this willingness is only considered un-heroic from an earthly (this probably isn’t the right word here) perspective that deems self-sacrifice the most heroic human act. From a Christian perspective, however, self-sacrifice in this situation—which would have been an act of blatant disobedience to God—would have been the un-heroic action. From this perspective, Abraham’s willingness was heroic. Surely this is the reason he still remains a sort of Christian hero today.

Faith is Action

When reading the story of Abraham, I was struck by a thought: who would align their will with that of a God whose morality you did not share? While I'm not arguing that this is what Abraham did, it turned me on to a simpler point about faith. Faith is not analogous with belief. To simply believe in God is not faith. Faith implies trust, submission, and an ultimate devotion to God's will. Does the God of Abraham deserve such?

Abraham's faith is in a God who is good. From this springs the paradox. How can God's will be anything but good? Yet how can this same God will Abraham to kill his son? This suggests to me one of two things: either...

God is not good,

or

God asked Abraham to believe him to be something he wasn't.

The first case is indeed an alarming one. Should there be a being far more powerful than man with a morality that clashes with that of humanity, what hope has human morality? I am unsure as to how to begin such a consideration. To this point in my life, any appeal to God or suggested evidence for such a being has presumed God's goodness. In this I cannot help but remember Descartes, who saw God's goodness as unquestionable, something inherent to the very idea of God. While I do not take it a proof of God, I find myself grossly lacking in abilities to consider God without goodness.

Since God is good, it would seem then that God tried (and managed) to deceive Abraham. Yet, continuing my examination of Abraham’s God in light of Descartes, let us quote the philosopher himself. God "cannot be a deceiver, for it is manifest by the light of nature that all fraud and deception depend on some defect." By the faculties available to me, it seems God is either entirely beyond my grasp, non-existent, or a deceiver who shares not in my morality. An incomprehensible God certainly lends itself to a reading of the story. Does anyone really understand why an omniscient God would subject his most faithful servant to such trauma under the guise of a test? Here we find perhaps the greatest theological meat. Faith is not even the alignment of one’s will with God. Rather than a purely internal process, faith is action. While God knew how Abraham would act, it is only in such action that faith resides. This is the incredibly powerful message of Abraham’s story.

Fear and Trembling -are they necessary for true faith?

I would like to preface this post by recognizing that I have never before read any of Kierkegaard's works, and only have a very limited knowledge of his philosophy. Thus, I pose this more as a question relying on my inference from the title of the book, and the limited knowledge that I have gleaned of its meaning. (I feel a bit like Johannes de Silentio in my former explanation, attempting to redirect any criticism, but rather than deflecting the critiques I invite them as I truly just wish to be more informed. So please do not see this as a cop out, ha ha, as it is not meant to be- thanks)

So from what we have discussed, I feel it is safe to say that this work, Fear and Trembling, is all about the qualification of faith, and how we should seek to gain access to this notion. I feel as though Soren, through his mouthpiece Johannes, criticizes the world for being far too lenient with the qualification of 'faith.' It seems to be a given association that we give and allow to be taken for granted, that any who attend a religious organization with regularity [or not as the case may be extended to] has 'faith.'

Yet Soren is disgruntled by the ease in which we are allowed our status of 'faithful' servants of the lord, when others such as Abraham had to go through immense trials and tribulations in order prove his faith to the lord. He had to engage in an act that seemed insane and ludicrous when looked at through an Ethical and public lens. He had to actually attempt to sacrifice his only son! Now the faith in this, is not blind faith in following God's word to a 'T' and expecting some good to come about it, but rather a faith in God's perfection [as I see it], for god, in being perfect must not be able to lie to us. Thus, Abraham's promise that his son Isaac would be the father of many nations could not be jeopardized by God's new assertion. Abraham had enough faith in this notion of God's perfection and the reality of that perfection, that he indeed was willing to kill his only son, maintaining the belief that his son would be saved from [actual] death through God's divine power.

This is how I have understood the work thus far, and by looking at the title, I have to infer that Abraham, being a rational and sane man, had many doubts and fears that he had to overcome in order to allow this faith to manifest. As I see it; placing your most valued possession, your only son's life [when you are hopelessly elderly], in the hands of an immaterial divine being, of which no absolute certainty can be displayed for its existence, save perhaps the voice that resonates through your own mind. How can you be sure this voice is God? Is it not just as likely that your insane and thus are being prompted by your own lunacy to act in a way that neither furthers your own insanity? Or perhaps in a theological sense, it is as possible that the voice you hear is that of the devil's temptation, after all it is prompting you toward a deadly sin. Is it not true that its not only as likely to be one of these options, but rather MORE likely? These thoughts would have to cross the mind of a rational being in such a circumstance, promoting and prompting the responses that indeed give title to this book; fear, and trembling. But, as I see it, the point of the argument is that faith is not rational. It is the absurdity that you can actually overcome such potent objections and BELIEVE that your actions are truly being demanded by the almighty. This is what true faith is. The ability to stand up to all claims that oppose your beliefs, and embrace the absurdity of the divine, allowing God's will to be done, and in the end reaching the stage of the Knight of Faith, gaining both the infinite and finite.

So then my question is, do you agree? Must we all endure such an ordeal as facing the paradox of religion, and holding fast to beliefs in opposition to all rational universalities and ethical claims that are offered by the public sphere in order to truly gain faith? Is that what this Abraham, this Father of Faith, teaches us within the context? If so, those of you who were raised christian in house and home, and upon coming to college found that faith in question, do you find any parallels between such an ordeal, and the collegiate attitudes toward faith and religion?

I offer no side in this argument except that I can see where it could be an interesting application and twist for each of us, if we began to see this period of our life as the two day struggle that Abraham had, knowing that the essence of our faith [and depending on your beliefs, your eternal soul...?] is being held in the balance. And I apologize again if this is far off of Kierkegaard's own argument, I just began putting myself in the situation and decided it might be an interesting blog post. Let me know what you think!

Revisiting Faith

The first time I read Kierkegaard, I was honestly taken aback by the way he took such a profound Biblical story and questioned the Faith behind it all. Being raised in a church atmosphere and having attended Christian schools, I had questioned certain aspects of the Bible and my own religion, yet I felt guilty for doing this. Kierkegaard gave me some inspiration to look search beyond the surface value of the Biblical tales and truly search for what the story means to me in the modern day sense. These stories that had been taught to me since pre-school were so engrained in my mind that I did not see them for their true value.

In Kierkegaard’s story of Abraham, he identifies the absurdity within the tale that our God could ask something of such magnitude as well as a painfully sinful task of one of his true believers. The tale is suppose to resemble that through faith and trust in God, he will relieve you of your deepest fears. I feel that Kierkegaard points to the obvious in the situation that this story does not seem to resemble the type of faith in the God we believe in now. Throughout history, we have seen how different perceptions and types of relationships change. This can be seen even within the past century with women and civil rights, which have affected the way we connect or communicate with other people. These types of relationships would not have been known in the 19^th century. To better understand the depth of the story and the type of faith conveyed, I feel we need to recognize that the way we perceive a relationship with God is different than it was during the these Biblical times. Without identifying that the relationships with God have changed, we cannot fully appreciate and grasp the depth of the type of faith that Abraham must have had with God.

I am not suggesting that the story resembles the ideal form of Faith with God. I am merely stating we cannot fully understand this direct connection with God, because in our modern day state the relationship has changed. Although the story seems completely absurd in our world, we must not omit the depth of the story through analyzing it in our modern lenses. To fully grasp this true sense of connection, this suspension of the ethical in its rarest form, we have to revert to a different time perception and appreciate the overarching theme of the story.