Scan barcode
migueldias_12's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
Gotta reread.
gijs's review against another edition
4.0
Never a good thing to suspend all your critical faculties and surrender to the closed mind of the 'knight of faith'; which is exactly what faith requires of you to start with. You end up having to explain the anguish and internal strife you alone can feel when hiking with your own son up to mount Moriah, all the while staying silent on your true motive, to ultimately bind your son and slit his throat for a burnt offering just to prove your immaculate 'relationship to the universal'. This is what happens when you take neoplatonism too seriously and by self-righteously 'teleologically suspending your every ethical sense' end up wreaking havoc in the real world of particulars (ie the place where all the sane people live). A provocative work to be sure, and therefore worth your time.
moniwicz's review against another edition
4.0
In reading this I came to regard Kirkegaard as both a dear friend and an extremely irritating adversary. High falutin & batty are words that come to mind. According to The Internet, some Danish speakers read this work in English because SK is (amazingly) even more unintelligible before being palliated by a translator(1).
Published in 1843 after estrangement from his fiancée he anonymously published three philosophical volumes with pen names drenched in irony. Fear & Trembling would be his most famous, and its presentation of The Absurd would carry the ideas of Existentialism into the following century.
SK's subject is Abraham. His flavour of Absurdism is distinctly Christian (this is what drew me to SK in the first instance, having already been impressed by Sartre and Camut (who similarly used historical figures for illustration), and knowing that either my own Catholicism was problematic, or that these two figures had chosen to ignore or reject a place for God in their existentialist philosophy)
Abraham, as the father of The Abrahamic Religions is The Father of Faith. He is a father of generations of Faithful, is a father in Faith, and is the epitome of a faithful father figure. Perhaps this last was most important for SK.
SK spends a long time outlining his preliminary expectorations, but really explains the matter in two important pages round about the middle mark;
All members of the Abrahamic religions see Abraham as the faithful; and they glorify him. How can this be? How can generations of good faithful people praise him? For if what Abraham intended to do (kill his son, to which he owed the highest moral obligation) was true, then surely he should be seen as a heinous criminal. And yet, the pulpit preacher continues to sing his praises.
The preacher could excuse himself by putting it this way - that by emulating his Faith alone that one can attain likeness to Abraham, rather than by murder. But we are left wanting and the explanation is poor. We should still condemn Abraham.
Other options; Abraham could have been mad, or deluded, or a product of his backwards age. But these are not adequate either. We must take Abraham seriously if we wish to emulate him. And we must believe that his story is possible today.
Abraham followed God’s instruction perfectly - he mounted the ass, he rode slowly to Mount Moria, he climbed its slopes in the company of his son - but his "human reckoning had ceased to function". Abraham believed that God would not require Isaac of him, whereas he was willing to sacrifice his beloved son if required. We should not understand this to mean that he said to himself “This is a test; I will make give the impression and go through the motions and pull all the faces. I know that if I do this God will excuse me from it all in the end.” No. This was impossible. God knows all men’s thoughts and if Abraham had thought this he would have failed the test. No. Instead, Abraham believed in a duality, an absurdity. (I have asked myself if Abraham was perhaps just stupid.)
Abraham is willing to make a very decisive and important movement which makes him a “Knight of Faith” - that of the infinite resignation - being willing to sacrifice what is most precious to him. And it is this action that counts, rather than an idea of Faith, which christens these knight. SK admits that he has never come across such a man. Indeed, they probably would appear to us to be idiots. They would live in and believe a paradox whilst in actuality retaining all of their good sense.
And yet, we are all called to the infinite resignation. The infinite resignation is the last stage prior to faith, so that one who has not made the movement has no faith. The difference between a faithful man and a knight of faith is that the latter believes, in virtue of the absurd, that all things will turn out right in the end. He experiences the dread at having to make the sacrifice while wholly rejoicing in it. He happily hopes(that second virtue so recommended by Péguy [Le Porche du Mystère de la deuxième vertu] but unlike that described by Péguy is not childlike. It is fully formed and adult. A young girl with a naïve conviction that her wish will be fulfilled is only being trained in the action of the knight).
The Problems:
Problem i - Is there such a thing as a teleological suspension of the ethical?
For Abraham, the universal ethical rules normally applied were suspended. The teleological (purpose) of the ethical and universal resides in itself, and as such applies in every instance and every situation to every person, no matter what their intention or goal. Why is is then that Abraham could be excused from the normal rules?(2)
Abraham’s faith is the paradox and he is able to transcend the universal and overstep it entirely. On the instruction of God there is no higher logical duty than to kill his son, for this is higher than the ethical universal. He justification lies in his particular relationship with God, and here is isolated and impossible to council.
The paradox cannot be more clearly expressed by the fact that Isaac, given to Abraham through miracle is his whole world. He loves Isaac with his whole soul; and at the moment of murder he must love him if possible even more dearly. To fall into the temptation of hating Isaac in the moment (which would certainly make the whole thing easier) would immediately make both acts sin.
Problem ii - Is there such a thing as an absolute duty toward God?
The above may give the impression that SK advocates for the existence of a “Personal God” and perhaps the existence of a discordant set of rules for each person. SK denies this. Love towards God demands that I love my neighbour, and therefore that I abide by The Universal.
There is an absolute duty towards God for every person, and the (perhaps pitiable) knight of Faith asked to commit such a horrible act can only attain his status as a knight if he does not mediate upon it.
The Knight of faith renounces the universal in order to become the individual. The Tragic hero (a counterfeit) renounces himself in order to become the universal.
Problem iii - Was Abraham ethically defensible in keeping silent about his purpose before Sarah, before Eleazar, before Isaac?
In Part Three Kirkegaard used multiple illustrative anecdotes drawn from mythology in order to contrast ideas of aesthetic/the silent protagonist/the tragic hero/and how revealing or not-revealing a mission or intentions related to The Ethical or Temptation. Luckily I skim-read to the end of the chapter and realised that about 20 pages of this (most of it) had nothing to do with Abraham and so I excused myself of a lot of the pain and made zero effort to concentrate. I passed a pleasant hour "assuming the position" (and the position only) of reading.
Concluding remarks place Faith as the highest of any human passion(3), and one which is only ever individual. A generation cannot progress or regress is faith because each man must strive anew to seek it, find it, keep it, perfect it. “For when faith is eliminated by becoming null or nothing, then there only remains the crude fact that Abraham wanted to murder Isaac”
I cannot even pretend to claim that I understand this book, and part of me thinks that if I had finished it feeling comfortable then I would have understood even less of it (indeed, it is written that no human can REALLY understand the Knight of Faith. It is best not to dwell on the fact that SK formed, wrote, and sold a book when he is quite clearly not one of these things). Honestly, if Kirkagaard had not been so admirably convincing in his Christian piety I would be suspicious of duplicitous joke at the expense of everyone.
1. The translator was sure to clarify each mention of "temptation" as Anfechtung, and then at one point Versuchung. I have neither the strength nor desire to distinguish whether this had linguistic importance but would be very content if someone were to comment and give the answer. I suspect my apathetic feeling is pathological given that the book was centred around this "temptation" of uncertain definition and is likely to be quite important.
2. I can think of another immediate and less horrifying example which through God’s will suspended the ethical; that of the marriage of Mary and Joseph. If Mary is to be perpetually Virgin, and their marriage was not consummated, how then were they man and wife? Because it was God’s Will.
3. In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further. It would perhaps be rash to ask where these people are going, but it is sure a sign of breeding and culture for me to assume that everybody has faith, for otherwise it would be queer for them to be…going further
Published in 1843 after estrangement from his fiancée he anonymously published three philosophical volumes with pen names drenched in irony. Fear & Trembling would be his most famous, and its presentation of The Absurd would carry the ideas of Existentialism into the following century.
SK's subject is Abraham. His flavour of Absurdism is distinctly Christian (this is what drew me to SK in the first instance, having already been impressed by Sartre and Camut (who similarly used historical figures for illustration), and knowing that either my own Catholicism was problematic, or that these two figures had chosen to ignore or reject a place for God in their existentialist philosophy)
Abraham, as the father of The Abrahamic Religions is The Father of Faith. He is a father of generations of Faithful, is a father in Faith, and is the epitome of a faithful father figure. Perhaps this last was most important for SK.
SK spends a long time outlining his preliminary expectorations, but really explains the matter in two important pages round about the middle mark;
All members of the Abrahamic religions see Abraham as the faithful; and they glorify him. How can this be? How can generations of good faithful people praise him? For if what Abraham intended to do (kill his son, to which he owed the highest moral obligation) was true, then surely he should be seen as a heinous criminal. And yet, the pulpit preacher continues to sing his praises.
The preacher could excuse himself by putting it this way - that by emulating his Faith alone that one can attain likeness to Abraham, rather than by murder. But we are left wanting and the explanation is poor. We should still condemn Abraham.
Other options; Abraham could have been mad, or deluded, or a product of his backwards age. But these are not adequate either. We must take Abraham seriously if we wish to emulate him. And we must believe that his story is possible today.
Abraham followed God’s instruction perfectly - he mounted the ass, he rode slowly to Mount Moria, he climbed its slopes in the company of his son - but his "human reckoning had ceased to function". Abraham believed that God would not require Isaac of him, whereas he was willing to sacrifice his beloved son if required. We should not understand this to mean that he said to himself “This is a test; I will make give the impression and go through the motions and pull all the faces. I know that if I do this God will excuse me from it all in the end.” No. This was impossible. God knows all men’s thoughts and if Abraham had thought this he would have failed the test. No. Instead, Abraham believed in a duality, an absurdity. (I have asked myself if Abraham was perhaps just stupid.)
Abraham is willing to make a very decisive and important movement which makes him a “Knight of Faith” - that of the infinite resignation - being willing to sacrifice what is most precious to him. And it is this action that counts, rather than an idea of Faith, which christens these knight. SK admits that he has never come across such a man. Indeed, they probably would appear to us to be idiots. They would live in and believe a paradox whilst in actuality retaining all of their good sense.
And yet, we are all called to the infinite resignation. The infinite resignation is the last stage prior to faith, so that one who has not made the movement has no faith. The difference between a faithful man and a knight of faith is that the latter believes, in virtue of the absurd, that all things will turn out right in the end. He experiences the dread at having to make the sacrifice while wholly rejoicing in it. He happily hopes(that second virtue so recommended by Péguy [Le Porche du Mystère de la deuxième vertu] but unlike that described by Péguy is not childlike. It is fully formed and adult. A young girl with a naïve conviction that her wish will be fulfilled is only being trained in the action of the knight).
The Problems:
Problem i - Is there such a thing as a teleological suspension of the ethical?
For Abraham, the universal ethical rules normally applied were suspended. The teleological (purpose) of the ethical and universal resides in itself, and as such applies in every instance and every situation to every person, no matter what their intention or goal. Why is is then that Abraham could be excused from the normal rules?(2)
Abraham’s faith is the paradox and he is able to transcend the universal and overstep it entirely. On the instruction of God there is no higher logical duty than to kill his son, for this is higher than the ethical universal. He justification lies in his particular relationship with God, and here is isolated and impossible to council.
The paradox cannot be more clearly expressed by the fact that Isaac, given to Abraham through miracle is his whole world. He loves Isaac with his whole soul; and at the moment of murder he must love him if possible even more dearly. To fall into the temptation of hating Isaac in the moment (which would certainly make the whole thing easier) would immediately make both acts sin.
Problem ii - Is there such a thing as an absolute duty toward God?
The above may give the impression that SK advocates for the existence of a “Personal God” and perhaps the existence of a discordant set of rules for each person. SK denies this. Love towards God demands that I love my neighbour, and therefore that I abide by The Universal.
There is an absolute duty towards God for every person, and the (perhaps pitiable) knight of Faith asked to commit such a horrible act can only attain his status as a knight if he does not mediate upon it.
The Knight of faith renounces the universal in order to become the individual. The Tragic hero (a counterfeit) renounces himself in order to become the universal.
Problem iii - Was Abraham ethically defensible in keeping silent about his purpose before Sarah, before Eleazar, before Isaac?
In Part Three Kirkegaard used multiple illustrative anecdotes drawn from mythology in order to contrast ideas of aesthetic/the silent protagonist/the tragic hero/and how revealing or not-revealing a mission or intentions related to The Ethical or Temptation. Luckily I skim-read to the end of the chapter and realised that about 20 pages of this (most of it) had nothing to do with Abraham and so I excused myself of a lot of the pain and made zero effort to concentrate. I passed a pleasant hour "assuming the position" (and the position only) of reading.
Concluding remarks place Faith as the highest of any human passion(3), and one which is only ever individual. A generation cannot progress or regress is faith because each man must strive anew to seek it, find it, keep it, perfect it. “For when faith is eliminated by becoming null or nothing, then there only remains the crude fact that Abraham wanted to murder Isaac”
I cannot even pretend to claim that I understand this book, and part of me thinks that if I had finished it feeling comfortable then I would have understood even less of it (indeed, it is written that no human can REALLY understand the Knight of Faith. It is best not to dwell on the fact that SK formed, wrote, and sold a book when he is quite clearly not one of these things). Honestly, if Kirkagaard had not been so admirably convincing in his Christian piety I would be suspicious of duplicitous joke at the expense of everyone.
1. The translator was sure to clarify each mention of "temptation" as Anfechtung, and then at one point Versuchung. I have neither the strength nor desire to distinguish whether this had linguistic importance but would be very content if someone were to comment and give the answer. I suspect my apathetic feeling is pathological given that the book was centred around this "temptation" of uncertain definition and is likely to be quite important.
2. I can think of another immediate and less horrifying example which through God’s will suspended the ethical; that of the marriage of Mary and Joseph. If Mary is to be perpetually Virgin, and their marriage was not consummated, how then were they man and wife? Because it was God’s Will.
3. In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further. It would perhaps be rash to ask where these people are going, but it is sure a sign of breeding and culture for me to assume that everybody has faith, for otherwise it would be queer for them to be…going further
thejdizzler's review against another edition
5.0
Read with Philosophy book club with Simon and Amanda
I'm not entirely sure how I stumbled upon Kierkegaard, but I'm supremely glad I did. In this text, Kierkegaard makes the case for faith as being the highest of all things, of wrestling with the paradox of existence, using the allegory of the story of Abraham as a guide. I found his exploration of this topic, and as well as how it related to individualism and ethical behavior toward the community to be powerful motivations in my own journey towards understanding the world. Kierkegaard's writing style is also so obtuse as to be deliberate, which made me feel as if I earned every insight I came across in this book. Quite the contrast to Schopenhauer. Full, and more in-depth view to follow on my blog.
I'm not entirely sure how I stumbled upon Kierkegaard, but I'm supremely glad I did. In this text, Kierkegaard makes the case for faith as being the highest of all things, of wrestling with the paradox of existence, using the allegory of the story of Abraham as a guide. I found his exploration of this topic, and as well as how it related to individualism and ethical behavior toward the community to be powerful motivations in my own journey towards understanding the world. Kierkegaard's writing style is also so obtuse as to be deliberate, which made me feel as if I earned every insight I came across in this book. Quite the contrast to Schopenhauer. Full, and more in-depth view to follow on my blog.
booksnpunks's review against another edition
3.0
I find it difficult to review non-fiction and especially philosophy which is very speculative anyway. Kierkegaard speculates that one must trust faith in order to become fully aware of one's relationship with religion. I loved his analysis of Abraham and Isaac but as an atheist didn't find the argument personally engaging.
musicdeepdive's review against another edition
4.5
Not being a person of faith myself, I nevertheless find myself floored by Kierkegaard's depiction of it here - it is a complex thing that is rooted in mankind's most extreme emotions, and the doubt/anxiety that lies in the faith discussion is crucial to its importance.
hades9stages's review against another edition
3.0
Fear and Trembling is a philosophical work by Søren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher, theologian, and writer who lived from 1813 to 1855. He is regarded as one of the founders of existentialism and a significant figure in the development of modern philosophy.
Kierkegaard's philosophy is characterised by his critique of the prevailing Hegelian philosophy of his time and his emphasis on the individual's subjective experience, faith, and the nature of existence. He explored the concept of individuality, the struggle between faith and reason, and the significance of personal choice in the face of societal norms and religious beliefs.
Fear and Trembling, published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, is one of Kierkegaard's most influential and famous works. The book focuses on the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, examining the ethical implications of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of faith.
Kierkegaard explores the paradox of faith, using the story of Abraham as a central metaphor. He questions whether there can be a higher ethical duty that transcends conventional moral norms and whether it is possible to understand or justify Abraham's actions through reason alone. Kierkegaard introduces the concept of the teleological suspension of the ethical, suggesting that true faith may require individuals to act in ways that defy conventional morality but align with a higher religious or divine imperative.
The book delves into the tension between ethical principles and religious commitment, challenging the reader to consider the complexities of faith and the limitations of human understanding when faced with moral dilemmas.
I admire Kierkegaard's exploration of the individual's subjective experience and the significance of personal choice, as well as his emphasis on the importance of subjective truth and existential angst.
You have to be critical of his portrayal of women and his conservative views on gender roles. The patriarchal notions present in Kierkegaard's philosophy is quite noticeable.
This book has very intense and complex prose. Kierkegaard's intricate and often convoluted writing style, filled with philosophical musings and dense theological concepts, was daunting and challenging for me to read. The intricate nature of the text, filled with layers of philosophical abstraction, overwhelmed me, detracting from the book's intended meaning.
The book's intensely introspective nature, as it delves into the ethical and religious implications of Abraham's faith, has also been perceived as overly preoccupied with theological abstraction. I didn’t really think about this while reading it, but while I do understand the ideas the book is trying to make, I’m not at all familiar with what it feels like to be religious or to question faith in God. So for me specifically, that made it difficult to connect the philosophical ideas to my own lived experiences and therefore fully appreciate this work.
Kierkegaard's highly individualistic and subjective approach to faith and morality has been criticised for its potential to alienate readers who do not share the same religious or philosophical perspective. This is probably exactly what happened to me when I read this book.
Kierkegaard's philosophy is characterised by his critique of the prevailing Hegelian philosophy of his time and his emphasis on the individual's subjective experience, faith, and the nature of existence. He explored the concept of individuality, the struggle between faith and reason, and the significance of personal choice in the face of societal norms and religious beliefs.
Fear and Trembling, published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, is one of Kierkegaard's most influential and famous works. The book focuses on the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, examining the ethical implications of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of faith.
Kierkegaard explores the paradox of faith, using the story of Abraham as a central metaphor. He questions whether there can be a higher ethical duty that transcends conventional moral norms and whether it is possible to understand or justify Abraham's actions through reason alone. Kierkegaard introduces the concept of the teleological suspension of the ethical, suggesting that true faith may require individuals to act in ways that defy conventional morality but align with a higher religious or divine imperative.
The book delves into the tension between ethical principles and religious commitment, challenging the reader to consider the complexities of faith and the limitations of human understanding when faced with moral dilemmas.
I admire Kierkegaard's exploration of the individual's subjective experience and the significance of personal choice, as well as his emphasis on the importance of subjective truth and existential angst.
You have to be critical of his portrayal of women and his conservative views on gender roles. The patriarchal notions present in Kierkegaard's philosophy is quite noticeable.
This book has very intense and complex prose. Kierkegaard's intricate and often convoluted writing style, filled with philosophical musings and dense theological concepts, was daunting and challenging for me to read. The intricate nature of the text, filled with layers of philosophical abstraction, overwhelmed me, detracting from the book's intended meaning.
The book's intensely introspective nature, as it delves into the ethical and religious implications of Abraham's faith, has also been perceived as overly preoccupied with theological abstraction. I didn’t really think about this while reading it, but while I do understand the ideas the book is trying to make, I’m not at all familiar with what it feels like to be religious or to question faith in God. So for me specifically, that made it difficult to connect the philosophical ideas to my own lived experiences and therefore fully appreciate this work.
Kierkegaard's highly individualistic and subjective approach to faith and morality has been criticised for its potential to alienate readers who do not share the same religious or philosophical perspective. This is probably exactly what happened to me when I read this book.