A question about Kierkegaard

[Nooj]

I found his 'Fear and Trembling' to be a fascinating if puzzling read, so perhaps some of you who have read Kierkegaard can help me out.

Is Kierkegaard saying that faith is a choice? The way he describes faith, it comes off almost like self-deception:

"for if he imagines himself to have faith without acknowledging the impossibility with all the passion of his soul and with his whole heart, then he decieves himself."

If we take a mundane example, I don't study for my test but I (choose to?) believe the absurd, that I will get full marks. Isn't my faith in the end, just pure fantasy?

It's a test, no harm done. But what about something serious, like Abraham and Isaac? Abraham is a knight of faith to believe that Isaac would somehow still fulfill God's promise, but if it turned out that Abraham was wrong and simply psychotic, what use is Abraham's faith then?

Does Kierkegaard ever distinguish the criteria that marks a fanatic from a knight of faith? Or is there no difference at all?

 

[The Nihilist]

If wondered this myself. I think the answer is that, if christianity is to be taken seriously, then fanaticism is the only rational choice, and I'm pretty sure he's right.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Does Kierkegaard ever distinguish the criteria that marks a fanatic from a knight of faith? Or is there no difference at all?

I'm not a Christian, but I studied Fear and Trembling at uni.

The difference between a fanatic and a knight of faith is that the knight of faith has already been through the stage of being the knight of infinite resignation. It is a paradoxical state - the state of a person who cheerfully believes he is going to come home and find his wife has cooked him a pig's head, even though his rational mind knows that he's probably just going to get potatoes. And he stays cheerful when he only gets the potatoes...

The fanatic is just using his fanaticism to fill some other void in his life, or to avoid facing up to some other problem he can't solve. To be a knight of faith, he first has to admit something about the sheer hopelessness of his own situation, and that of the world, and then retain the sort of faith Abraham showed.

It's a big ask.

You also have to remember than Kierkegaard is writing under a pseodonym. The views expressed are those of Johannes de Silentio, not Kierkegaard.

I see echoes in the writings of Kierkegaard of the paradoxes in mystical texts like the Tao Te Ching. The rational mind can't ever quite grasp it.

 

[Nooj]

Is there anything from the outside, so to speak, that could have shaken Abraham's faith that God's promise would have been fulfilled?

I think I understand the idea of faith that's being talked about. I just see no...point to it precisely because it's blind to 'wordly things'. Can't De Silentio see the potential harm in faith? It's believing in spite of the evidence.

The author has an example of a knight of infinite resignation realising that he can't have a a princess, but internalising that love so that he forgets the real princess but has this ineffable princess that he carries around with him. AKA 'it will never happen'. I guess if he was a real knight of faith, he would believe that he would have the princess in this lifetime: "I believe it will happen, even if I know it's impossible".

I guess one could call that a hopeful attitude, but it's still...delusional. He might very well miss the opportunity to find his true love while still pining for the princess.

You also have to remember than Kierkegaard is writing under a pseodonym. The views expressed are those of Johannes de Silentio, not Kierkegaard.

You're right.

The fanatic is just using his fanaticism to fill some other void in his life, or to avoid facing up to some other problem he can't solve. To be a knight of faith, he first has to admit something about the sheer hopelessness of his own situation, and that of the world, and then retain the sort of faith Abraham showed.

A terrorist who acknowledges the hopelessness of fighting against a superior military but believing absolutely that he will win...is he a knight of faith?

 

[Blackmarch]

I found his 'Fear and Trembling' to be a fascinating if puzzling read, so perhaps some of you who have read Kierkegaard can help me out.

Is Kierkegaard saying that faith is a choice? The way he describes faith, it comes off almost like self-deception:

"for if he imagines himself to have faith without acknowledging the impossibility with all the passion of his soul and with his whole heart, then he decieves himself."

the quote by itself is rather confusing, sorry... at least the impossibility bit is throwing me off.

If we take a mundane example, I don't study for my test but I (choose to?) believe the absurd, that I will get full marks. Isn't my faith in the end, just pure fantasy?

in this case it almost is, rather it's mere belief. While belief is good, if you don't do anything about it that's all it is, nothing more.
Faith without works is dead (as is works without faith).

It's a test, no harm done. But what about something serious, like Abraham and Isaac? Abraham is a knight of faith to believe that Isaac would somehow still fulfill God's promise, but if it turned out that Abraham was wrong and simply psychotic, what use is Abraham's faith then?

Neither Abraham or Isaac sat around and twiddled their thumbs and toes.


... And even if Abraham's faith was wrong the way he treated others is a great example regardless.

Does Kierkegaard ever distinguish the criteria that marks a fanatic from a knight of faith? Or is there no difference at all?

no idea. with just the one quote I'd say that he does not do so very well.


To act is a choice, one that does affect ones faith. So I'd ultimitely say yes you can choose your faith. While Abrahams devotion to his faith could quite possibly be classed as fanatical the way he handled and interacted with both family and strangers would certainly not be considered fanatical in today's world.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is there anything from the outside, so to speak, that could have shaken Abraham's faith that God's promise would have been fulfilled?

I think I understand the idea of faith that's being talked about. I just see no...point to it precisely because it's blind to 'wordly things'. Can't De Silentio see the potential harm in faith? It's believing in spite of the evidence.

Silentio doesn't see the potential harm.

The author has an example of a knight of infinite resignation realising that he can't have a a princess, but internalising that love so that he forgets the real princess but has this ineffable princess that he carries around with him. AKA 'it will never happen'. I guess if he was a real knight of faith, he would believe that he would have the princess in this lifetime: "I believe it will happen, even if I know it's impossible".

Yes, exactly.

A terrorist who acknowledges the hopelessness of fighting against a superior military but believing absolutely that he will win...is he a knight of faith?

I'm not sure such people exist. People involved in long-term terrorist campaigns really do believe that their cause, whatever it is, is winnable in the long-run, even against a superior military force.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Faith therefore contains a “double movement” because it involves Infinite Resignation (diminished care for the finite) PLUS an embracing of the finite.



Four possibilities:

1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Faith is paradoxical by nature (but then how is faith any different to any other paradoxical or incomprehensible behaviour?)
2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Johannes has made a mistake
3)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Kiekegaard has made a mistake
4) It’s all allegorical


UE’s answer: Embracing mysticism requires embracing paradox. You must grow strong enough to love the world, yet empty enough to sit down at the same table as its worst horrors.

There is NO POINT in trying to understand this rationally. It cannot be done.

What does one do when faced with the impossibility of fixing this screwed-up world? Well, you can either give up or you can dedicate yourself to a hopeless cause. The Knight of faith will happily dedicate himself to the hopeless cause.

The “double movement” requires renouncing the world, yet embracing it more fully than before.

 

[Nooj]

UE’s answer: Embracing mysticism requires embracing paradox. You must grow strong enough to love the world, yet empty enough to sit down at the same table as its worst horrors.

There is NO POINT in trying to understand this rationally. It cannot be done.

What does one do when faced with the impossibility of fixing this screwed-up world? Well, you can either give up or you can dedicate yourself to a hopeless cause. The Knight of faith will happily dedicate himself to the hopeless cause.

The “double movement” requires renouncing the world, yet embracing it more fully than before.

That seems a lot like the absurdist philosophy expressed by Albert Camus, except maybe less emphasis on the renouncing of life. It may indeed be a hopeless cause, but we can live in the light of that...not ignoring or drowning it out with false ideologies, but living life in a realistic manner. It's easy to write, very hard to actually put into practice.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's easy to write, very hard to actually put into practice.

Very, very hard, especially in times as troubled as these.

 

[Nooj]

the quote by itself is rather confusing, sorry... at least the impossibility bit is throwing me off.

The snippet is saying that to be a true knight of faith, you have to acknowledge the reality of your situation. Blind faith or ignorant faith is the antithesis of Abraham's kind of faith. Ignorant faith would be if Abraham went up the mountain not realising that the odds of fulfilling that promise (your descendants will be innumberable etc) were truly against him, or even ignoring those steep odds. That's a defeating faith.

A true knight of faith is fully aware of the impossibility of what is hoped for, but still believes it will happen.

 

[InkBlott]

The snippet is saying that to be a true knight of faith, you have to acknowledge the reality of your situation. Blind faith or ignorant faith is the antithesis of Abraham's kind of faith. Ignorant faith would be if Abraham went up the mountain not realising that the odds of fulfilling that promise (your descendants will be innumberable etc) were truly against him, or even ignoring those steep odds. That's a defeating faith.

A true knight of faith is fully aware of the impossibility of what is hoped for, but still believes it will happen.

Is that a good thing? Why? What if we used another word (besides faith) to tag it. Would it still be a good thing?

 

[Nooj]

Is that a good thing?

That's what I'm wondering too.

 

[Blackmarch]

The snippet is saying that to be a true knight of faith, you have to acknowledge the reality of your situation. Blind faith or ignorant faith is the antithesis of Abraham's kind of faith. Ignorant faith would be if Abraham went up the mountain not realising that the odds of fulfilling that promise (your descendants will be innumberable etc) were truly against him, or even ignoring those steep odds. That's a defeating faith.

ok that makes more sense thank you.

A true knight of faith is fully aware of the impossibility of what is hoped for, but still believes it will happen.

OK... I don't think that being aware of the odds is important beyond humbling a person, and that knowledge is always a plus. (However at some point or another the odds generally make themselves known, and I think that's where this "knight of faith" thing could be applicable).

And something would not necessarily have to be seen as impossible.. merely difficult or very difficult would also suffice.

 

[Blackmarch]

Is that a good thing? Why? What if we used another word (besides faith) to tag it. Would it still be a good thing?

Yes it's a good thing (usually), I generally call it persistence... altho it probably falls somewhere between being persistant, optimistic, and insane.

 

[Received]

Does Kierkegaard ever distinguish the criteria that marks a fanatic from a knight of faith? Or is there no difference at all?

Well, with regard to the phenomenological experience of "the Eternal" (i.e., that which makes faith possible), there is no way to know whether it is authentic or not. This is presumably the entire basis behind the title: the "fear and trembling" comes from not being able to tell (in Abraham's case) if what he heard was God's voice or the voice of a demon. There's a brilliant one-liner near the beginning-middle of the book that speaks of faith as tempting God; that is, when we have faith, we're tempting (or daring) God to go through with what he promised at the moment before we actualized faith. If I really do intuitively grasp that the Eternal is telling me that I will get full marks if I study for a test, then if I attempt to actualize it, I'm tempting God to finish the deal He promised. Of course, maybe God doesn't finish the deal (the bourgeois person Kierkegaard attributed faith to who imagines he has a full-fleshed meal waiting for him at home but, when he finds he doesn't, still doesn't change his disposition or way of thinking), but does that mean that faith never was present? In other words, is faith the attempted actualization of the perceived promise, or is faith this plus the fulfillment of the promise by God? I think the book points to the latter.

Of course, according to Kierkegaard faith is the highest type of passion. That definitely can toe the line of fanaticism. What Kierkegaard doesn't hit on is that, biblically speaking, there is a foundational criterion for whether faith exists or not, and that's the existence of spiritual fruits (gentleness, patience, self-control, etc.), which definitely aren't commensurate with fanaticism.

I agree with how the leap is presented: that faith is a constant choice, that faith is tied with being at its deepest level (and, contrariwise, that despair is unfaith -- whatever is not of faith is sin, according to Romans), that sin is existential stagnation (spiritlessness, weakness, defiance); but I don't agree that the response from God has to be fulfilled according to our perception. In many situations I don't think a response can even be seen that we can directly correlate to our specific acts of willing.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is that a good thing? Why? What if we used another word (besides faith) to tag it. Would it still be a good thing?

I believe that the whole point in Kierkegaard writing this book was to provoke people to think about what the word "faith" really means, and whether or not various conceptions of faith are or are not a good thing. The book does not provide any answers. It is there to provoke people to ask questions of themselves - all sorts of questions, but yours is a typical example.

Søren Kierkegaard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kierkegaard strongly criticised both the Hegelianism of his time and what he saw as the empty formalities of the Church of Denmark. Much of his work deals with religious themes such as faith in God, the institution of the Christian Church, Christian ethics and theology, and the emotions and feelings of individuals when faced with life choices. His early work was written under various pseudonyms who present their own distinctive viewpoints in a complex dialogue. Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted".

 

[Received]

Kierkegaard's conception of faith runs counter to the popular notions of his time, notably with the church of Denmark, of which he was strongly opposed. The popular notion holds faith as equivalent to the ethical. Kierkegaard's point is that faith transcends the ethical; that certain acts can even be seen as immoral or downright wrong (from the vantage point of ethics), although one is justified by God through faith if he does them (and, conversely, in sin if he doesn't). He made faith an inexorably individual enterprise. Thus his three stages of existence: the aesthetic (man lives for himself), the ethical (man lives for others), the religious (man lives for God, and therefore for his "self", for this transcendent self is precisely what God is).

 

[Nooj]

I wonder what Kierkegaard would think of Christianity in Europe now.

Perhaps he'd say that it's simply paying the price for taking Christianity for granted. It was everywhere, everyone was 'Christian' because they were all living in Christendom. But because their faith was so shallow rooted, the loss of one precipitated the loss of the other. Somewhere or another, Kierkegaard wrote that Christianity was incendiarism, 'setting men on fire'. I like his idea of faith, it's rather interesting. Perhaps necessary more than ever from a Christian perspective.

Recieved, does Kierkegaard ever write about the evidence for God? What did he think about Thomistic, rational arguments for God?

 

[Received]

Yeah, I share the same thoughts as you have regarding Europe, but I think he'd be ten times more critical of the superficial sentimentality that passes for Christianity here, especially when it's applied to the typically capitalist-adoring crowd (though, interestingly with K, he loathed democracy precisely because it resided with the crowd, and the crowd is "untruth").

Recieved, does Kierkegaard ever write about the evidence for God? What did he think about Thomistic, rational arguments for God?

I've never come across his thoughts on Thomism, and I have little doubt that he had thoughts (he even had fun thoughts on Schopenhauer). His point for reason as a mediator is that it invites doubt, and a faith that rests on reason can be swayed by doubt (if ever an argument comes along later), therefore a leap is needed that goes beyond using reason. And, you know, we see this inauthentic faith a lot, especially in more intellectualized circles. It's a big reason why so many people who are caught in rational explanations for God are so stubborn in admitting that they're wrong when one of their prized arguments gets knocked down, and especially seen when people like this deconvert -- it's always a violent deconversion, as if the person is angry at God for not having His existence palpably tied in with a specific argument.

But at the same time, his whole authorship is unavoidably linked to a brilliant, unparalleled elucidation of what it means to be a Christian, which involved (obviously) reason; it wasn't reason he was against, but it could only go so far. And in some places I think he went too far in trying to emphasize the intrinsic absurdity of believing in Christianity; this was mostly tied to his belief that we can't make sense of an eternal God becoming incarnate and walking within time. I honestly never got why that is such an absurd idea.

 

[Nooj]

Thanks Recieved, I always learn something from your posts.

Yeah, I share the same thoughts as you have regarding Europe, but I think he'd be ten times more critical of the superficial sentimentality that passes for Christianity here, especially when it's applied to the typically capitalist-adoring crowd (though, interestingly with K, he loathed democracy precisely because it resided with the crowd, and the crowd is "untruth").

I'm really out of my depth here, but it seemed to me that when I read Sartre or other existentialists, they primarily focus on the individual almost to the exclusion of the wider society. Is there a place for a person in the crowd, or will it inevitably squish our freedom?