Scan barcode
A review by davidcalhoun
Kierkegaard's Writings, VI, Volume 6: Fear and Trembling/Repetition by Søren Kierkegaard
4.0
I first read this in college, many years ago now. I really liked the rebellious spirit in Kierkegaard, but became somewhat skeptical of his philosophy. His emphasis on the subjective/faith/individual experience over the objective/ethical/universal experience seemed to me something that could lead to a sort of moral relativism, if taken to an extreme. But I think my understanding was a bit off the mark. I don't think Kierkegaard was saying we should entirely throw away philosophy and science, and other objective/absolute things, especially ethical things like our judicial system and such, where we have to hold people's actions accountable with some standard. No, I think K was just saying that we expect too much out of philosophy and science, as there are parts of the human experience, such as faith, that just cannot be approached by them in the same way (namely, with reason).
In this book K is talking specifically about faith, and how folks in his day have tried to analyze faith as if it were a hard science. Consequently faith in that framework becomes something foreign and unrelatable: something objective, universalizable, something which can be reasoned about with some Hegelian dialectic of some sort (Hegel was the big philosopher of K's day, and much of K's writing consequently rails against him). It short, faith in their perspective becomes something that can be analyzed away, and all the mystery and challenge inherent in it surgically and scientifically extracted.
K explains that no, faith is not this at all. All of this scientific and philosophical rationalizing misses the mark, and worse, shields modern day folks from the lessons and the challenges of faith. Especially challenging passages in the Bible such as Abraham being called to sacrifice Isaac, which is the topic if the entire book. Or other passages, such as Jesus challenging us to "hate" our own family and friends in order to follow him. These passages are conveniently passed over by the church of K's day, and arguably the churches of our day as well.
These are meant to be challenges to be worked out by every individual, says K. Those working out these challenges are knights of faith, and every single knight of faith must figure out their way individually, not even with the help of other knights of faith. This is impossible, because the subjective challenge of faith cannot be shared, or else then it would become objectified (i.e. into something not subjective). The experience is meant to be totally individual and subjective.
In a broader sense, K ushered in a philosophy of existentialism, which was a reaction to the philosophy and science of his day. I think the reason his philosophy remains attractive to this day is that there is still a dominant trend away from the individual experience, and more towards the objective and rational sciences. Look no futher than the attitudes towards STEM subjects versus the humanities in schools, the latter of which have been on a downhill trend ever since I've been in school, and probably before that. Preparing students for STEM studying and STEM careers has been a singular focus, towards what K would call the absolute, the objective, and what we would call the "hard" sciences. Humanities subjects in comparison are called "soft" and are scoffed at because they don't prepare people for jobs. There is little appreciation for how things like art, music and literature can enrich individuals and let them understand more about life than science, technology, engineering, and math. School has become something less about creating single individuals, and more for creating cogs to be placed in a big machine, for creating parts in a whole objective system that all works together.
So many folks who may study these STEM subjects and later become disaffected individuals may end up turning to art, music, literature, philosophy, etc. In search of some more personal understanding that wasn't taught in school. This would support K's thinking, that there are some things in life that just cannot be rationalized and sanitized like STEM subjects.
A big summary: the mystery of faith cannot be scientifically analyzed and rationalized away, as it is something for each individual to work out on their own. In a bigger sense, there are many facets of the human experience such as faith, and they cannot be explained or approached by big dominant ways of thinking, such as philosophy (in K's day) or the sciences.
In this book K is talking specifically about faith, and how folks in his day have tried to analyze faith as if it were a hard science. Consequently faith in that framework becomes something foreign and unrelatable: something objective, universalizable, something which can be reasoned about with some Hegelian dialectic of some sort (Hegel was the big philosopher of K's day, and much of K's writing consequently rails against him). It short, faith in their perspective becomes something that can be analyzed away, and all the mystery and challenge inherent in it surgically and scientifically extracted.
K explains that no, faith is not this at all. All of this scientific and philosophical rationalizing misses the mark, and worse, shields modern day folks from the lessons and the challenges of faith. Especially challenging passages in the Bible such as Abraham being called to sacrifice Isaac, which is the topic if the entire book. Or other passages, such as Jesus challenging us to "hate" our own family and friends in order to follow him. These passages are conveniently passed over by the church of K's day, and arguably the churches of our day as well.
These are meant to be challenges to be worked out by every individual, says K. Those working out these challenges are knights of faith, and every single knight of faith must figure out their way individually, not even with the help of other knights of faith. This is impossible, because the subjective challenge of faith cannot be shared, or else then it would become objectified (i.e. into something not subjective). The experience is meant to be totally individual and subjective.
In a broader sense, K ushered in a philosophy of existentialism, which was a reaction to the philosophy and science of his day. I think the reason his philosophy remains attractive to this day is that there is still a dominant trend away from the individual experience, and more towards the objective and rational sciences. Look no futher than the attitudes towards STEM subjects versus the humanities in schools, the latter of which have been on a downhill trend ever since I've been in school, and probably before that. Preparing students for STEM studying and STEM careers has been a singular focus, towards what K would call the absolute, the objective, and what we would call the "hard" sciences. Humanities subjects in comparison are called "soft" and are scoffed at because they don't prepare people for jobs. There is little appreciation for how things like art, music and literature can enrich individuals and let them understand more about life than science, technology, engineering, and math. School has become something less about creating single individuals, and more for creating cogs to be placed in a big machine, for creating parts in a whole objective system that all works together.
So many folks who may study these STEM subjects and later become disaffected individuals may end up turning to art, music, literature, philosophy, etc. In search of some more personal understanding that wasn't taught in school. This would support K's thinking, that there are some things in life that just cannot be rationalized and sanitized like STEM subjects.
A big summary: the mystery of faith cannot be scientifically analyzed and rationalized away, as it is something for each individual to work out on their own. In a bigger sense, there are many facets of the human experience such as faith, and they cannot be explained or approached by big dominant ways of thinking, such as philosophy (in K's day) or the sciences.