Moving On

Finally, we move on from the sprawling megastructures of Marx and the often, well-always confusing Hegel to something that seems more dear and coherent to everyone: A focus on the individual. Kierkegaard is a breath of fresh air from the impending doom of Marx and the windiness of Hegel, as the analysis of the Abraham narrative strikes me as more relative, more engaging than socialism. In addressing how faith can be authentic, Kierkegaard raises some interesting points: in what other type of society would Abraham not be considered a madman, for killing his own son, or a lunatic, for obeying voices that he heard? How can it ever be ethical to ever justify human sacrifice? That is to say, even though he was following God, how can the intent of murder be justified ethically? Here is where philosophy and theology intersect, as Abraham must have faith in what Kierkegaard calls the absurd, or things that seem logically impossible. Abraham’s story is taken as the benchmark for how one should be faithful, but ultimately, Kierkegaard contends that this is impossible to comprehend, because this one instance of faith transcended interactions of the intelligible, ethical realm, and entering into a union with just God and Abraham. The emphasis on the personal union, rather than a whole scale analysis of everything in terms of economics is refreshing, but raises questions on how relationships should be favored. Should we favor the ethical relationships, which is what we share in common with everybody, or the religious, which we only share between us and God? Abraham had to have faith in the absurd, that while he was losing his son Isaac, he also hoped to see him returned or live on in his lifetime. It is this paradox of thought that Kierkegaard feel justified in calling authentic faith, because that notion seems absurd. This raises the question to me: what can be reasonably be called faith, it each cases is personally identified and a major qualification is a belief in the absurd? What differs that from thoughts of children, who may believe in contradictions, is that now properly faith? The inclusion of religious aspects usually complicates matters, as Marx would dismiss this outright and Hegel would probably say something that not even he could comprehend on the matter, but it is an interesting move away from the secular movements of other nineteenth century philosophers. Does that focus on faith enhance what Kierkegaard tries to claim in his account in his philosophy, or will the championing of the absurd ultimately pale in comparison to the socialist calls in Marx?