Scan barcode
A review by moniwicz
Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard
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