A question about Kierkegaard

[Received]

I'm not that crazy about Sartre, but my own view is that the crowd is dangerous as the crowd when each person within it identifies him/herself as part of the crowd, rather than each individual within it being conscious of him/herself as an individual (with the collection of others around of no immediate interest). Kierkegaard said "the crowd is untruth" because it either completely annuls responsibility or severely weakens it; the truth for him is subjective truth -- doing the will of God -- which by definition involves human freedom, and therefore responsibility, but it also can extend to objective truth in the sense that people caught up in the crowd simply take no time to think for themselves.

You can totally be an individual while still being in the crowd. It's just that the crowd offers the temptation of resigning individuality, and that's the danger. Giving up responsibility is a relief for a lot of people, which is ironic because responsibility is tied in with freedom, and freedom is the only route to authentic selfhood. But, well, most people don't want selfhood, even if this means being in a relationship with God, because they want (ah) the eyes of the crowd so badly. A fascinating point Kierkegaard has made is that the crowd doesn't really exist; it's an abstraction, and all there really is is a collection of individuals, which means that people who use the crowd as an excuse for individuality are essentially denying themselves for a fiction.

 

[Received]

I'm not knocking Sartre, though. He has some very clever things to say (especially his claim that freedom isn't something that man has, but is). I'm just a more literary type of philosophical sap, into Kierkegaard, Camus, Dostoevsky, Unamuno, and other pretty writers before Heidegger, Sartre, etc. Actually, I love Heidegger, but try to make it sure that I probably have no idea what he's talking about most of the time. (It helps with the chicks.)

 

[Prufrock]

I would say that faith is the only choice, and once all phenomena are well-tested and explained (which will take centuries, but is at least plausible), the final choice.

 

[SonicBOOM]

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?

I like how C.S. Lewis answers this so I'm gonna use his answer he says that Christians call faith a virtue because it has far more to do with consistency. Like lets use marriage as an example. You choose to devote your life to a spouse, you make your vows, and than a whim or an emotion comes and you want a divorce. So what do you do? You file for a divorce and you get a divorce..... but than another whim or emotion comes and you wanna be married to that person again..... and on and on it goes.

C.S. Lewis kind of describes faith in this way. He says that the struggle with faith has far more to do with emotion than it does with reason. Like lets use Abraham as an example sense you mentioned him ok.... Abraham has committed himself to God. God has showered him with blessings and proven himself to be faithful time and time again. He promises Abraham a son and Abraham takes it by faith. Faith in what? Well faith in nothing more than his God who has proven himself worthy time and time again. Ok, a son is finally born to Abraham. All of a sudden God throws a curveball. "sacrifice your son". Abraham obeys by faith.... faith in what? The goodness of God and the promise God himself gave.

THIS is the difference. Faith needs to be grounded so when emotion comes you can look back and be like "ok..... God is good. I trust him" and leave it at that.


Now lets go to the intellectual world as another example sense this is where the issue seems to fall. Should a man abandon his mind and just trust a God he hardly knows? By all means no! So much damage has been done by using this mindset...... so what does a potential Christian do with his doubts? Well..... he seeks to answer them. This is more biblical than people realize.

Acts 1:1-3

1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

What exactly is Luke doing here? Really look at it...... What he's doing is nothing less than making a claim for Christ! He infact says "in my former book I explained that Jesus gave instruction to his apostles and confirmed his resurrection by showing himself to many people"


However.... here's the flip side...... once you have convinced yourself that Jesus really is God? Well..... emotions will slip in and try to shake you....... it's times like this where you look back on your studies and all you know and use THIS as the foundation of your faith.