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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is what I took to be the paradox of faith: this dual quality of being both rational and irrational. As you note, Kierkegaard seems to be really intrigued by this duality. However, I don't quite understand the fascination. Doesn't faith's ability to be both irrational and rational simply boil down to the question of perspective? Aren't there a lot of motives and actions that seem rational from one person's perspective, yet irrational from another's? Even the actions of schizophrenics make sense, and are thus rational, from the perspective of the schizophrenic, while clearly they are irrational from the general perspective of society.
ReplyDeleteI think that bringing rationality into faith might be an overstatement. For Kierkegaard, it seems that faith is the active acceptance or embrace of something logically impossible—which is to say, irrational. He calls it the leap of faith for a reason: there are no rationally arguable grounds for doing so.
ReplyDelete