Scan barcode
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.
cdeck's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting work on the difficulty of understanding faith. Work focuses on the faith of Abraham when sacrificing Isaac and how it is nearly incomprehensible in the depth and connection of faith, reason, and action.
pr_load's review against another edition
4.0
But he who loves God has no need of tears, needs no admiration, and forgets his suffering in love, indeed forgets so completely that afterwards not the least hint of his pain would remain were God himself not to remember it; for God sees in secret and knows the distress and counts the tears and forgets nothing.
This is a book that will probably not appeal to many. The language is hard. He speaks in very deep philosophical ways, and the second half of the book is significantly more intense than the first. For me, this was a book that came at the right place and time. It's a deep examination on Abraham and why he is known as the father of faith.
The first half of the book I found riveting and thought-provoking, although maybe not if you don't ascribe to a Judeo Christian worldview. The second half seemed tailored to the those who would view the story of Abraham as an abhorrent tale. He breaks down why it is not feasible to judge Abraham in accordance with our morality and ethics.
All in all a difficult but very gratifying read. Do not forget reading the intro or the epilogue either, there are some real gems in there too.
This is a book that will probably not appeal to many. The language is hard. He speaks in very deep philosophical ways, and the second half of the book is significantly more intense than the first. For me, this was a book that came at the right place and time. It's a deep examination on Abraham and why he is known as the father of faith.
The first half of the book I found riveting and thought-provoking, although maybe not if you don't ascribe to a Judeo Christian worldview. The second half seemed tailored to the those who would view the story of Abraham as an abhorrent tale. He breaks down why it is not feasible to judge Abraham in accordance with our morality and ethics.
All in all a difficult but very gratifying read. Do not forget reading the intro or the epilogue either, there are some real gems in there too.
paigewetzel's review against another edition
5.0
I absolutely loved this book. I can't wait to read it again and dig into more Kierkegaard. What a fantastic mind this man has! What a vision of what true faith is, despite it's frightening and absurd nature.
kaaleppii's review against another edition
4.0
This book loses a star for poor formatting on Kindle in spite of claiming to be “new.” I also wouldn’t recommend it to everyone as I found it quite dense, and definitely had to skim several parts to keep from getting bogged down in philosophy that was just out of my depth.
On the whole, however, I found it to probably be the most honest and thorough treatment of the conundrum of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and how we can possibly look on a man willing to kill his own son as a righteous man. Kierkegaard approaches this story with “fear and trembling,” trying to understand what faith is and how it is possible that Abraham withstood this trial. This book is related to ethics, and ethics feature heavily in its contents, but Kierkegaard ultimately asserts that faith is “beyond” ethics, that it supersedes it. But how? How can one supersede ethics without dissolving into the demonic, but rather in order to ascend to the divine? All in all, a challenging read, but I enjoyed it, and the challenge of it. Next up, Aristotle, as I pursue a poor man’s classical education.
On the whole, however, I found it to probably be the most honest and thorough treatment of the conundrum of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and how we can possibly look on a man willing to kill his own son as a righteous man. Kierkegaard approaches this story with “fear and trembling,” trying to understand what faith is and how it is possible that Abraham withstood this trial. This book is related to ethics, and ethics feature heavily in its contents, but Kierkegaard ultimately asserts that faith is “beyond” ethics, that it supersedes it. But how? How can one supersede ethics without dissolving into the demonic, but rather in order to ascend to the divine? All in all, a challenging read, but I enjoyed it, and the challenge of it. Next up, Aristotle, as I pursue a poor man’s classical education.
books_ergo_sum's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
2.0
Ladies, if a man says Kierkegaard is one of his favourite philosophers—run. This guy (arguably the OG incel?) says the weirdest crap about women.
Still, what I actually disliked about this book was how poorly conceived of a critique it was of Hegel? More poorly conceived than I’d expected.
At first glance, the book’s arguments feel like unlikely bedfellows. It was:
▪️ part defense of divine revelation and the immediate relation between the individual and the universal (with bible study of Abraham sacrificing Isaac); and
▪️ part proto-existentialist defense of the “knight of the infinite” (aka an Everyman dude-bro who YOLOs everything, questions nothing, and lives in the absurd—plus mentioning, probably too many times, how dumb and naïve women are, but in a philosophically uninteresting way. Got it.)
Yet, these are actually two sides of the same coin, and a well-trodden mistake when trying to advance a philosophy of immediacy (contra Hegel’s philosophy of mediation). And I just don’t think Kierkegaard succeeded…
▪️ Can we agree that a philosophy that ends up being “inaccessible to thought” (his words, not mine) probably sucks?
▪️ We had a central misunderstanding of the difference between the singular/individual versus the particular in Hegel and others.
▪️ A ‘Because the Bible Told Me So’ moment, which wasn’t the soundest, even for it’s time; and
▪️ It contained a cringingly disingenuous romanticization of common sense (and even stupidity) from one of the most anxious and over-thinking philosophers of all time.
And that’s ignoring all the MANY thinly-veiled references to the woman he broke his engagement to… the philosophical relevance of which was questionable at best.
That said, I appreciate any philosophy that doesn’t try to diminish its universal concepts, so it gets a star for that. And this book pre-figured existentialism more than I’d thought, so there’s also that.
Still, what I actually disliked about this book was how poorly conceived of a critique it was of Hegel? More poorly conceived than I’d expected.
At first glance, the book’s arguments feel like unlikely bedfellows. It was:
▪️ part defense of divine revelation and the immediate relation between the individual and the universal (with bible study of Abraham sacrificing Isaac); and
▪️ part proto-existentialist defense of the “knight of the infinite” (aka an Everyman dude-bro who YOLOs everything, questions nothing, and lives in the absurd—plus mentioning, probably too many times, how dumb and naïve women are, but in a philosophically uninteresting way. Got it.)
Yet, these are actually two sides of the same coin, and a well-trodden mistake when trying to advance a philosophy of immediacy (contra Hegel’s philosophy of mediation). And I just don’t think Kierkegaard succeeded…
▪️ Can we agree that a philosophy that ends up being “inaccessible to thought” (his words, not mine) probably sucks?
▪️ We had a central misunderstanding of the difference between the singular/individual versus the particular in Hegel and others.
▪️ A ‘Because the Bible Told Me So’ moment, which wasn’t the soundest, even for it’s time; and
▪️ It contained a cringingly disingenuous romanticization of common sense (and even stupidity) from one of the most anxious and over-thinking philosophers of all time.
And that’s ignoring all the MANY thinly-veiled references to the woman he broke his engagement to… the philosophical relevance of which was questionable at best.
That said, I appreciate any philosophy that doesn’t try to diminish its universal concepts, so it gets a star for that. And this book pre-figured existentialism more than I’d thought, so there’s also that.