Soren Kierkegaard and knights of faith

dclements

Active Member
Jan 25, 2017
49
12
51
Miskatonic County, MA
✟17,443.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
While I may be an atheist, I'm a bit of a fan of Kierkegaard's work/philosophy and his concept of 'knights of faith'. To the best of my knowledge there are some theist that also like his work while others seem to know nothing about it, and a few of course that hate it. To me, Kierkegaard walked a treacherous path between religion, personal faith, and rationality and sort of created a paradigm for others who choose neither to rely on one of them alone; and in doing so become one of 'knights of faith' in his own kind of way.

I'm not sure of anyone else lurking in this part of the forum has read his work but I'm interested in if anyone has if they can sure their own thoughts on what they think about Kierkegaard and his ethical and religious beliefs.
 

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,421
345
✟49,085.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
The night of faith is an outsider then, someone who is willing to go against the grain of convention and do what he believes in, in a spirit of true integrity and authenticity? Faith demands that we rebel against the world, because it rebels against God, and faith even in a Church has become a sterile formula?

He sounds like the punk rocker of theology.



Theologically, when younger I was a rebel atheist. Maybe a secular knight? That's how New Atheism seems to present itself at times: the authentic, new-Kierkegaardian attitude of the "true believers" in an "authentic reality" rather than blind conformity to the religious rule...



I suppose being an authentic outsider has an appeal in that if its benign then it brings power, women, money etc. The rising star of the group. Like with the collapse of an old era, and the wakening of the new, or in evolution if there's a need for new directions. The adventurous pathfinder is an appealing role for some.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
While I may be an atheist, I'm a bit of a fan of Kierkegaard's work/philosophy and his concept of 'knights of faith'. To the best of my knowledge there are some theist that also like his work while others seem to know nothing about it, and a few of course that hate it. To me, Kierkegaard walked a treacherous path between religion, personal faith, and rationality and sort of created a paradigm for others who choose neither to rely on one of them alone; and in doing so become one of 'knights of faith' in his own kind of way.

I'm not sure of anyone else lurking in this part of the forum has read his work but I'm interested in if anyone has if they can sure their own thoughts on what they think about Kierkegaard and his ethical and religious beliefs.

I've read the bulk of his writings -- and about halfway through reading and peripherally grasping what he was talking about, he being the great Mephistopheles of philosophy, most of his points suddenly clicked in a beautiful interlocking wave that was unlike any other philosopher I had read, and incredibly rewarding, partly like I was part of a secret society (still waiting for the same to happen with Heidegger) -- and am a huge admirer of his writings and his life that reflected these writings.

The knight of faith is in contrast to the knight of infinite resignation, who resigns all of finitude without the hope of getting it back again (a process Kierkegaard called repetition), whereas the knight of faith believes he will get that which he resigns even "by virtue of the absurd." Kierkegaard's life bore this leap out, even if it failed: he made the leap by believing Regine Olsen would be his, but she wasn't. Later in his journals he makes the statement that "if I had faith" he would be with Regine, retrospectively reanalyzing his life at that moment, where he pushed her away because of his "melancholy" (i.e., probably because of fear that she might not know how to handle his depression), and she ended up marrying another person, though she chose to be buried next to Soren and not her husband.

Kierkegaard "saved" (in quotes because I have huge respect for the following) me from atheism. He makes Christianity relevant by making Christ, whom he never names as such but implies over and over, our very possible selves, which in fulfilling we become ourselves through freedom, "spirit" being the sticky stuff that holds together soul and body in this moment-by-moment preconscious or conscious pursuit of "ideality", or Christ as the Logos, which again is our very self -- the action we are called to do in every moment.

And you can't read Kierkegaard without reading his pseudo-counterpart, Freddy Nietzsche, who is "pseudo" only because on its face they appear to be very different -- one what we would call a fundamentalist Christian (albeit one of the smartest and wittiest minds who has ever lived), the other an anti-theist, the prophet who proclaimed (with sadness, yes, but thereafter with confidence in our ability to create our own values) the death of God. But they really are attacking the same noxious Christendom -- a very specific term Kierkegaard used to refer to popular Christianity, in contrastinction with the Christianity that requires you to live a life of constant secular self-renunciation in favor of the divinely-given self which in fulfilling we become the happiest versions of ourselves, even if this means going through hell by external appearances.

Kierkegaard is awesome. He and George MacDonald (and to a lesser but still blindingly bright extent Meister Eckhart and Thomas Kelly) are the brightest lights of Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

dclements

Active Member
Jan 25, 2017
49
12
51
Miskatonic County, MA
✟17,443.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I find his work sorely lacking; IMO he places too much faith in (blind) faith, and his writings seem to be built upon that unstable foundation.
Kierkegaard is awesome. He and George MacDonald (and to a lesser but still blindingly bright extent Meister Eckhart and Thomas Kelly) are the brightest lights of Christianity.
(Sorry I dion't reply earlier, I don't have a computer of my own and sometimes unable to borrow one and/or have too many distractions to get back to the forums I post in.)
This is kind of cool, two people with very different opinions of Kierkegaard. IMHO I agree with the person that Kierkegaard is great, however I also agree that the amount of faith he expects someone to have can be very dangerous if that faith isn't balanced with logic and/or reasoning.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: ananda
Upvote 0

dclements

Active Member
Jan 25, 2017
49
12
51
Miskatonic County, MA
✟17,443.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Apparently Kierkegaard thought there were only 2 knights of faith in all history: Abraham and Mary. So I doubt that the designation is applicable to 'normal' people, except perhaps as an aspirational model.
Doesn't Joan of Arc count? I know that Kierkegaard may have not mentioned her specifically, however I know that he said that anyone who is willing to accept "infinite resignation" (ie. give everything to some cause or what they believe in) is a knight of faith and as far as I can tell Joan of Arc did that about as well as anyone could.

Also I may differ from some who read Kierkegaard in that it isn't a given that one has to have faith in God specifically but in some kind of cause or goal or nearly anything that they view to be more important than themselves. Perhaps Alexander the Great could be considered a knight of faith as well as Don Quixote in his efforts to become a knight and adhere the values that he believed a knight should behave. Also it is hard to determine what exactly is required of one who is willing to accept "infinite resignation" and such a process may not create anyone who seems different from everyone else, other than a few notable exceptions. .
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟28,188.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Theologically, when younger I was a rebel atheist. Maybe a secular knight? That's how New Atheism seems to present itself at times: the authentic, new-Kierkegaardian attitude of the "true believers" in an "authentic reality" rather than blind conformity to the religious rule...

You think New Atheism is like Kierkegaard?
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(Sorry I dion't reply earlier, I don't have a computer of my own and sometimes unable to borrow one and/or have too many distractions to get back to the forums I post in.)
This is kind of cool, two people with very different opinions of Kierkegaard. IMHO I agree with the person that Kierkegaard is great, however I also agree that the amount of faith he expects someone to have can be very dangerous if that faith isn't balanced with logic and/or reasoning.

Faith for K can entail a life of logic and reasoning, even though the leap to (not "of", which is an invention projected onto his writings) faith itself is arational. For K, a life of reason and logic can easily be an expression of the aesthetic mode of existence, where people "view life from afar" rather than engage with it, which is what happens when you live ethically (i.e., according to the "universal"), or religiously (where you earn your particularlity by willing the self God has given you).

Faith is what makes life possible, without which we'd live lives of immediacy via the aesthetic mode, or at most ethically where we're in a state of personal becoming that flattens us out because we're living according to so-called universal principles that, in fulfilling, make people more universal (hence "flattens us out").

But I agree with what you're saying to a degree, and your interpretation is probably based on Fear and Trembling, where faith is presented as something extreme, something that by definition involves doing something like sacrificing your son so you can get him back "by virtue of the absurd" through not just infinite resignation (resignation of everything) but also going further and expecting that you'll get him back even though you're planning on killing him. This is faith in extremis, not faith as it's practiced in a daily movement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I like Dostoevsky better. Kierkegaard sometimes comes across as a mentally ill man hiding behind self-styled religious sentiments. Dostovesky's Christian faith doesn't leave one standing alone against their fellow human being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Godlovesmetwo
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
While I may be an atheist, I'm a bit of a fan of Kierkegaard's work/philosophy and his concept of 'knights of faith'. To the best of my knowledge there are some theist that also like his work while others seem to know nothing about it, and a few of course that hate it. To me, Kierkegaard walked a treacherous path between religion, personal faith, and rationality and sort of created a paradigm for others who choose neither to rely on one of them alone; and in doing so become one of 'knights of faith' in his own kind of way.

I'm not sure of anyone else lurking in this part of the forum has read his work but I'm interested in if anyone has if they can sure their own thoughts on what they think about Kierkegaard and his ethical and religious beliefs.

Yes, I've read some of his material, and in some respects, I like his take on how we should existentially approach life, ethics, and faith.

The main drawback I have is that I think he puts too much stock in Lessing's Ditch, and since I think there is more to understanding the Bible than simply coming to terms with whether or not it qualifies as historical evidence, I'm just a bit shy in taking the helm as a "Knight of Faith."

Although I do have some bones in my body sympathetic to Kierkegaard's existential deliberations, I'd have to qualify myself more as a "Pawn of Faith," because I recognize existentially that I can leap only just so far in belief, let alone move ahead in the game of life without Jesus' metaphysical Schema and moral Schemata somehow emerging, growing and directing my heart and mind.

I'm just a lowly, existentially (and rationally) driven pawn ... **sigh** :boredsleep:

Maybe that's why I like Pascal just a wee bit better when it comes to various shades of Fideism; but I can get my Kierkegaardian kicks, too!

P.S. Lauren Daigle sings about my existential and ethical/moral state as a pawn in the hands of Jesus... How can it be? It can be, existentially.


Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You think New Atheism is like Kierkegaard?

Sometimes it seems that way.

Sometimes, when I talk to atheists, it almost seems they secretly hold Nietzsche or Sartre as their Patron Saints, even though they 'say' Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris with their lips. :rolleyes:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dclements

Active Member
Jan 25, 2017
49
12
51
Miskatonic County, MA
✟17,443.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, I've read some of his material, and in some respects, I like his take on how we should existentially approach life, ethics, and faith.

The main drawback I have is that I think he puts too much stock in Lessing's Ditch, and since I think there is more to understanding the Bible than simply coming to terms with whether or not it qualifies as historical evidence, I'm just a bit shy in taking the helm as a "Knight of Faith."

Although I do have some bones in my body sympathetic to Kierkegaard's existential deliberations, I'd have to qualify myself more as a "Pawn of Faith," because I recognize existentially that I can leap only just so far in belief, let alone move ahead in the game of life without Jesus' metaphysical Schema and moral Schemata somehow emerging, growing and directing my heart and mind.

I'm just a lowly, existentially (and rationally) driven pawn ... **sigh** :boredsleep:

Maybe that's why I like Pascal just a wee bit better when it comes to various shades of Fideism; but I can get my Kierkegaardian kicks, too!

P.S. Lauren Daigle sings about my existential and ethical/moral state as a pawn in the hands of Jesus... How can it be? It can be, existentially.


Peace,
2PhiloVoid
I think I more or less agree.

"Knight" may be too lofty of a title for one to give themselves so pawn or even peon if they are willing to become one of Kierkegaard's ..umm ..pawns of faith, but if one is successful enough to serve as an example to others than these others could or perhaps even should refer to them as knights of faith just Kierkegaard himself became somewhat of a paradigm to his own knights of faith; even if he knew better than to believe it was possible to be one.

I also think the title knight of faith applies to all of those who are willing to give everything that they got (including their own lives at a moments notice if need be) and even being a paradigm of faith while living their lives are not know for whatever the case my be.

The only problem I have is what constitutes more of an example of faith whether it be someone who gives their life in a heroic act (whether they are remembered or not) or someone who dedicates their life to a cause but doesn't do anything that seems extremely noteworthy to others. To me it seems that for doing one or more acts of bravery may be easier that doing dozens or hundreds of somewhat noble or even noteworthy tasks in one's lifetime.

In any case, if one awakes up every day with the notion that they are going to do their best and give everything they can to something that is just about all that can be expected of them.

Even God himself can not ask for someone to give everything they have and everything they are to him when they devote their life to him; the only problem for a pawn of faith to fret about is how to go about with such a task and how to keep one's ego/id from standing in the way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think I more or less agree.

"Knight" may be too lofty of a title for one to give themselves so pawn or even peon if they are willing to become one of Kierkegaard's ..umm ..pawns of faith, but if one is successful enough to serve as an example to others than these others could or perhaps even should refer to them as knights of faith just Kierkegaard himself became somewhat of a paradigm to his own knights of faith; even if he knew better than to believe it was possible to be one.
From reading the scraps about spiritual "knighthood" which Kierkegaard left us to ponder over, it almost seems to me that in order to actually be a "knight of faith," one would have to have an epistemological vantage point that provides just a bit more than a mere willingness to jump. Kierkegaard, for instance, seems to allude to the idea that the apostles were in a position, in their daily social interactions with Jesus, to have the paradoxical presence posed to them in such a way that, even though someone like Peter could not know for sure that Jesus was God, he nevertheless still had Jesus and the miraculous by which to move ahead in faith as a knight. Abraham, likewise, had visits by the pre-incarnate Jesus (the Word)................................as well as the absolute knowledge that Isaac was a miracle child. Thus, I think Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac at the alter because Isaac himself was a demonstration of what God had ALREADY accomplished. Abraham's faith was not blind, and I'm not quite sure how existential it fully was.

So, on this account, this is why I relegate my status to that of just a "Pawn" of faith since: 1) I know that in my own self and mind, I am a rational person, and I can only leap in faith just so far, and 2) the term "pawn" (as in the game of chess) better illustrates that even though there is still some leaping on my part taking place, it isn't a leaping born out of some hyper sense of self-sufficient autonomy, nor is it a leaping that might be applied to one who is truly "knighted" :rolleyes: ......or even benighted. :confused:

We usually don't have direct access to that kind of experiential evidence, which makes a difference as to the extent one might be willing to existentially 'jump to faith' on behalf of God's mysterious presence in our lives. And this is where I part with Kierkegaard, even though I do appreciate the concept of some mode of taking a "leap of faith."

I also think the title knight of faith applies to all of those who are willing to give everything that they got (including their own lives at a moments notice if need be) and even being a paradigm of faith while living their lives are not know for whatever the case my be.
Yes. And this is not the kind of existentialism that can easily be appropriated, even though I think Kierkegaard gives us something important to think about here.

The only problem I have is what constitutes more of an example of faith whether it be someone who gives their life in a heroic act (whether they are remembered or not) or someone who dedicates their life to a cause but doesn't do anything that seems extremely noteworthy to others. To me it seems that for doing one or more acts of bravery may be easier that doing dozens or hundreds of somewhat noble or even noteworthy tasks in one's lifetime.
Yes.

In any case, if one awakes up every day with the notion that they are going to do their best and give everything they can to something that is just about all that can be expected of them.
Yep. I'm just a "pawn." But even a "pawn" can be used effectively by the Hand of God.

Even God himself can not ask for someone to give everything they have and everything they are to him when they devote their life to him; the only problem for a pawn of faith to fret about is how to go about with such a task and how to keep one's ego/id from standing in the way.
Perhaps. But if God somehow shows you something which you perceive to be an unveiling of at least some mystery about God and His purposes--even if not all mysteries are unveiled--then the little "revelation" you do have may become a psychological motivator for you, and you might find yourself 'willing' to take a further existential leap and become a "Knight of Faith," acting in ways befitting a true "Knight"...like attempting to sacrifice your miracle child at the behest of the same God who gave you that very same miracle child.

(Lest we forget, or remain ignorant as so many do, let's remember the fuller context of the story in our existential deliberations here: Isaac was a miracle child. Nothing less. Nothing Less! And it was in this instance that God told Abraham to perform the unimaginable horror...the same horror that God Himself not only did not finally permit Abraham to act upon, but did "commit" in the giving of the life of His own son, Jesus. Another miracle child.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,421
345
✟49,085.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Paradoxum wrote: You think New Atheism is like Kierkegaard?

Wasn't that the point of the OP?

The new atheists see themselves as outsiders, their sacrifice is that of religious feel good fuzz heroically exchanged for the Godless truth as they bravely combat the norm and storm of silly doctrine and stand proud as individuals true and strong.

Of course liberal politics and media has a lot to do with this - business and society live off of people with "the backbone" (....be strong oh ye worker, love your work with all your heart mind and strength...) to be self sufficient and independent.

Therefore the values of independence and self sufficuiency are establishment values subconsciously moulding the New Atheists ego ideal.

Interdependence, community, solidarity, solicitude etc - they're not branded as winning ways for ye olde average working serf. They're not typically things atheists dislike, but we're products of our times.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Godlovesmetwo

Fringe Catholic
Mar 16, 2016
10,398
7,257
Antwerp
✟17,860.00
Country
Djibouti
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I think a Christian saint like St. John of the Cross would be classed as a Knight of Faith. Using his subjective truth over objective truth. For most of us, I don't think our faith burns bright enough by itself without extra effort. It doesn't come naturally is what I'm saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟28,188.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Sometimes it seems that way.

Sometimes, when I talk to atheists, it almost seems they secretly hold Nietzsche or Sartre as their Patron Saints, even though they 'say' Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris with their lips. :rolleyes:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Why do you think that? What do they say that leads you to think that?

Not that my opinion means anything to atheism in general, but I tended to disagree with Nietzsche when studied some of his work.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why do you think that? What do they say that leads you to think that?

Not that my opinion means anything to atheism in general, but I tended to disagree with Nietzsche when studied some of his work.

I'm not going to try to say that there is some ulterior reality of motive existing within the minds of each and every atheist. It's just that when I was at the university, and being that I spent some extended time with fellow philosophy students, those with whom I interacted would often, and ultimately, tell me that 'Nietzche' was their patron. In your case, it could very well be that you're a Dawkinsite.

But, on an existential level, I get the sneaking suspicion that many atheists really do want to 'reconfigure' the world, and exert their Will to Power, even though they give lip service to democracy or whatever their favorite political/social position may happen to be.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0