Thanks for this. It's been a long time since I've read Fear and Trembling, and this brought much of it back. Much more so than, say, listening to Highway 61 Revisited.
To truly love something you must fear losing it. In order to have faith/love for God you must be willing to give it all for him. The second chapter states to force love is selfish, and that true love is duty and sacrifice. I’ve been think about this all week. So glad I got into him.
To try to understand Kierkegaard, first refer to this quote which covers it all: “People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
"...the goal is to follow god's command which has been given to him unmediated through an act of privacy, private communication if we can call it communication at all...the paradox is that Abraham becomes higher than the universal, which is the domain of the ethical, by being a singular individual" I appreciate that you cast doubt on whether the antecedent to an abrahamic act, if we can generalize a term like that, is any sort of communication, in part because of the intensely ironic and private nature of the antecedent. This puts me in mind of what I understand as Wittgenstein’s insistence that what is most moving in life cannot be verbalized, just because of its privacy. If verbal expression requires some shared cultural bias, then indeed it seems one could expect that the intensely private experiences that transcend cultural anticipations would be rendered verbally absurd when articulated. I read somewhere that Kierkegaard was Wittgenstein’s favorite “philosopher.” In any case, I’m quite interested in this topic in general as related to what clinical psychologists call “irreverence,” i.e. an effort to help clients produce more creative responses, often in defiance of cultural expectations, and thereby chart a path towards recovery from emotional suffering. Thanks for your wonderful videos, I’m looking forward to hearing your podcast as well, cheers!
Thank you for this nice "tutorial" on Kierkegaard. If you read about his life and how he was constantly confronted with death in his family, it seems obvious that faith would become a major focus for him...
Para mi, despues de haber leido temor y temblor, creo haber entendido una puesta en escena irónica frente a lo absurdo de la fe y la iglesia, desempeñando el absurdo como un movimiento infinito. En base a lo anterior, creo que el autor trata de explicar como algo paradójico la fe, habilitandola completamente fuera de lo finito ( la razón ). Como apreciación personal, siento que Kierkegaard hace la siguiente maroma : " lo espiritual no tiene cabida dentro de mi pensamiento lógico, por lo tanto no existe. Si este es el caso, cual es la validez de lo ilógico? " . Me gustaria mucho seguir leyendo al autor, solo he leído un libro de el. Es mi primer libro de filosofía despues de haber leido " el mundo de sofia". Saludos y abrazos ❤
The Presbyterian church called a meeting to decide what to do about their squirrel infestation. After much prayer and consideration, they concluded that the squirrels were predestined to be there, and they should not interfere with God’s divine will. At the Baptist church, the squirrels had taken an interest in the baptistry. The deacons met and decided to put a water-slide on the baptistry and let the squirrels drown themselves. The squirrels liked the slide and, unfortunately, knew instinctively how to swim, so twice as many squirrels showed up the following week. The Lutheran church decided that they were not in a position to harm any of God’s creatures. So, they humanely trapped their squirrels and set them free near the Baptist church. Two weeks later, the squirrels were back when the Baptists took down the water-slide. The Episcopalians tried a much more unique path by setting out pans of whiskey around their church in an effort to kill the squirrels with alcohol poisoning. They sadly learned how much damage a band of drunk squirrels can do. But the Catholic church came up with a more creative strategy! They baptized all the squirrels and made them members of the church. Now they only see them at Christmas and Easter. Not much was heard from the Jewish synagogue. They took the first squirrel and circumcised him. They haven’t seen a squirrel since.
I'm interested in this idea and it's supposed superiority over the alternative. So many of humanities most horrific undertakings, historically and currently, seem to be generated and excused by proponents of this line of thinking. It seems almost anything can be justified to the person of faith. Is it because faith is such a personal phenomenon that it can fall beyond the checks and measures of society? Thanks for another well presented lecture.
Read a similar question once in comment section of a blog post about Kierk (used the example of 9/11) and I think it was the author who responded & said that those types of people would be better termed as something like "Knights of Despair" rather than Knights of Faith; key difference being that the sin & crime that Abraham was instructed to carry out never came to pass because God intervened (in the example off 9/11, all 3 planes would have been thwarted & landed safely by a miracle - there would have been no loss of life). I think some other obvious ones are Keirk's idea of "silence" & "knighthood" itself; if Bin Laden was really a Knight of Faith & thought God was asking him to destroy America, he would not have been able to express that to anyone & would have acted alone. Instead, the attacks were preceded by years of conspiring with many other people, including the hijackers. So by Kierk's criteria, horrific crimes that people commit out of "faith" can be dismissed out of hand by simple fact that they came to pass (that God didn't intervene - ie, lone wolf attacks against the public) - and I would say especially anything large-scale that required persuading & conspiring with others, by the simple fact that the people who supposedly received God's revelation didn't keep it to themselves or act alone.
@@nataliaturner4845 the knight of faith wouldn't know that God truly exists or he would be a religious fanatic, like how you seem to interpret the idea in 'Fear and Trembling'. Maybe you didn't read that book?
Kierkegaard is interesting because he maintains his faith in the face of certainty and knowledge, Thats why I named by daughter Vera which means faith. I leaped into what I was ready to become for a long time. Happy to be a father. My wife has read Kierkegaard more closely than me.
Thank you for the video. I much prefer Epicurus and Camus and Diogenes. Their philosophies are so much simpler to understand. A lot of the great thinkers, during the middle ages talked in riddles. It's like trying to learn Russian
Kirkergaard was a Christian existentialist. So if you're not a Christian or familiar with Christian philosophy. It can be hard to understand. Kirkergaard lived during the late 1700s. During the rise of secularism.
Great video - I’d love to hear about the relationship between Kierkegaard’s philosophy and Hegel. I know their personal relationship was fraught, but it seems like Hegel looms large for Kierkegaard
Much of Kierkegaard is a response to Hegel, criticizing the totality and universality of it as Kierkegaard prefers an approach that allows more subjectivist position and makes less objectivist truth claims. I think Fear and Trembling, especially with the introduction of the Penguin Edition, is a good place to start. Also, if/once you feel comfortable getting into a bit more challenging Kierkegaard work, Concluding Unscientific Postscripts has some critiques of Hegelian systematization.
Hegel and Kierkegaard didn’t know each other. Kierkegaard comes later. That being said, Jon Stewart has written a very good and very large book on Kierkegaard’s reception of Hegel. It corrects a lot of the simple antagonisms of older scholarships. Merold Westphal is another good thinker on this though he sees things more negatively.
Infinite resignation or the double binding of the Spirit which is to accept your life as given and offered back to the infinite without a why. Die to false self in order to find true self.
I finished either/or last week. What a monster of a book. It was great but I couldn’t wait for it to end. The first half was awesome, but Kierkegaard was extremely verbose in the ‘or’. And it didn’t help that I had to read every page 3 times to understand it, either.
In some ancient cultures child sacrifice was quite a common practice. When Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac that represented a break with this previously accepted practice.
You know, if you had a few hours to spare I'd love to discuss this with you because it goes straight to the heart of my attempts to make sense of life and the question of reality. And that's why I wouldn't dream of leaving a comment which would probably exhaust RUclips's memory. (Except to say that I don't entirely agree with him, but I greatly approve you taking time to explain it.)
Socrates is definitely not that insane to be the Knight of Faith. If we are talking about irrational faith. Faith can be rational as well (it's impossible to give a birth and bring up a child without faith). The video is great.
Question: he achieves access to the higher telos via communication from God via a private channel - do you think privacy (in the modern sense of the word - how it is being encroached upon by technology, etc) and it's lack will disconnect us from having that private communication and subsequently lose our ability to be singular humans?
I've been wanting to check out Kierkegaard for a while. I've read Walker Percy's The Moviegoer which I heard was loosely based on his ideas. Any recommendations on where to start with his work?
I think The Essential Kierkegaard (ed. Hong and Hong) is a great place to start. You can actually see it in the bookshelf in the video near the top left :)
C Stephen Evans also has a good introduction out with Cambridge Press on Kierkegaard with a helpful annotated bibliography at the end for further study.
'Works of Love' published under his name; or his academic work, "the Concept of Irony", but he didn't see that text as a direct part of his work as a writer and his view on Socrates also changed a bit throughout his work as a writer.
I've always understood that story a father needs to be willing to sacrifice the innocence of his son. It's the sacrifice of the child, and letting go to enable your son to become a man.
@@st0a oh 100%. People get so caught up in details they miss the opportunity to learn. There is wisdom there. Problem is people will fight you to the death arguing that is real.
I understood that Kierkegaard (Johannes) was not arguing that killing one’s son was unethical. He uses the example of how Agamemnon was ethical for sacrificing his daughter for the good of the state, which is justified. Agamemnon was the knight of resignation, the one who reluctantly yet bravely accepts his social duty as a king, even if it means killing his own family for the good of the state. What made the sacrifice unethical was Abraham’s agreement to sacrificing Issac by way of direct communication. There was no greater social good accomplished. I think this is an important point to keep in mind, since Kierkegaard relies heavily on Greek hero-culture as a foil to his Christian aims.
My one qualm with the argument, by submitting yourself entirely to the calling of God, by being the Knight of Faith, by giving everything up to knowingly receive it back in some form, how is this exemplified in reality. It’s obviously depicted in the story by God sparring the life of Isaac. However, what decision in modernity prompts you to commit an incomprehensible act for the sake of reward later? What calling from God would be so demanding of you? What is the incentive to be the Knight of Faith? Perhaps my query is reason as to why Kierkegaard deemed only some to have the capacity to emulate the Knight of Faith. Yet, as skeptical as I might feel, the concept still draws me in. It remains appealing to me.
Hey Anthony, you are touching the classical problem of these abstract and verbalized forms of knowledge: what advice can we extract for the modern life? Professor Jordan Peterson gives answer to these questions in his older lectures and his book “Maps of Meaning”. My take as an answer to your question is the following: In life you have to sacrifice repeatedly in order to achieve a goal in the future. Hard working people sacrifice friendship and social life in order to acquire one of the top positions in their domain. But sacrifice nevertheless requires faith. The faith in god is metaphorically the faith in the future and the idea that if you’ve faith in the sacrifice to a higher order you will receive what you wanted first (and maybe even more). It’s also a statement to sacrifice yourself to the higher goal therefore. Instead of running after the money, sacrifice it for something meaningful and in consequence get money as a side effect as well as a truly meaningful life. But that’s just my take as an 18 year old German boy who’s keen to learn about that stuff
"Belief"...is my aim. "FAITH"...is what i've earned. When my faith is strong I'm living within my beliefs. When my faith is weak I am living far outside of them. -Aaron A. Wilson
What so impresses Kierkegaard about the faith of Abraham is that, despite Kierkegaard's assumption that anyone would struggle with this command to kill his only son (which he sketches out in several detailed scenarios), Abraham doesn't struggle at all: he obeys immediately and without question, his faith overcoming all doubts that God would lead him astray. As Kierkegaard says, How great is the faith of Abraham! {edited to correct Moses to Abraham -- what a blunder!)
Dr Ortlund from the Truth Unites RUclips channel, I think, stated the movement of faith as: ‘it’s like declaring your love to your beloved and waiting for his/her answer’. That could be your life if you believe in Jesus Christ as your God, savior, friend.
So in considering your video I thought immediately of Hitler when you said Kierkegaard thought few people were capable of making leaps of faith. He is quoted as saying he felt like a sleepwalker heading towards a certainty, he had absolute faith in his ideals and teleological purpose. God asking Abraham was not a request and Abraham did not make a choice, it was Abrahams duty to come to know and emotionally accept that this course had been set before him and he was just sleepwalking towards the immutable will of God. That suspension of the entire sphere of morality is not as cold blooded as you make it sound however, it's not abandonment of morality but self acceptance that your morals have been laid aside for you by a higher teleological purpose.
You looks so impaccable for the theme, which is faith. By the way I can see the Kirkegaard book in the background. So how does one live with faith and attain that life?
Thanks for clarifying Kierkegaard concept of faith . Abraham story in Genesis certainly is a tough one to take right out of the gate ( Genesis. First Testament) Some because of the story never read further. “ Go kill your son , the very thing you always wanted “ Abraham listens and through faith acts accordingly, only to have God ( or angel ) saying just before the act “ no let him be “ Certainly a paradigm of existential anxst. I believe the archetype is Abraham becoming conscious of himself resulting in the spirit of life !Abraham through leap of faith transformed the love of God into his son . I think the story is a prerequisite to Mathews where Christ ! Son of God was the sacrificial lamb ( death and rebirth) Again a spiritual transformation! In Kierkegaard personal existential life he left his bride at the alter turning away from love so to existential go alone . That to me is not leap of face rather a ego choice to stir up the moral waters ! Existentialist always seem to do something that makes them in the moment stand out as opposing the norm !
Maybe I'm not grasping the metaphor correctly, but to me it seems backwards. Wouldn't the Knight with the "superiority complex" is the one who believes he is entitled to repayment of his sacrifice? The Knight of infinite resignation understands his place in existence, and humbly accepts (or at least attempts to accept) that we are not the center of the universe, and our sacrifices can only be repayed by the fading of grief through the passing of time. It seems to me quite self-centered and individualistic to assume existence owes you something. (Although of course I understand you come to this conclusion through belief in a soul and a person's supposed importance in God's eyes.) In fact, Socrates, who he used as an example of the Knight of infinite resignation, was well known for his ability to accept his inevitable death by saying he has never died before and that he cannot assume it is any worse than living. To fear death is to claim you know something you don't. As for the Knight of Faith, he is described as being willing to sacrifice the thing that is most precious to them, while simultaneously believing that they haven’t truly lost that thing in this world. In that sense - doesn't Socrates have faith? He doesn't believe something has been lost by his life ending. For all we know, we might *gain* something through death. The whole basis for the metaphor is that faith is to claim certainty of your entitlement to repayment, and that faithlessness is to disbelieve in this entitlement, yet still reconciling yourself to the pain of loss. But this is assuming that repayment and loss are a dichotomy - which i do not believe. Loss to us as humans is not loss to the universe. To assume that our pain in these human bodies is also felt by all of the universe, and that that justifies repayment, is a very anthropocentric view and one I don't share. I believe that as long as there is the universe, there is no loss. Therefore, I am a Knight of faithful infinite resignation.
Galina Vroman’s "Sarah’s Story" seems a much more plausible interpretation/debunking of the biblical story. Reading her story made me think Kierkegaard assessment of the story risible. Makes me ask how much of the philosophizing subsequent to Kierkegaard is likewise risible.
how do you distinguish between faith and delusion? IMO pretty unfair for God to setup Abraham with that moral dilemma. in regards to kierkegaard, perhaps he was getting at the point that our human minds can't comprehend the infinity of the universe/infinite God and we need faith to bridge the gap. imagine as an example that the universe is 6D, how can a human living in 3D space & time possibly understand that world...but you trust the math and the concept of higher dimensional spaces. i'm new to this philosophy stuff so i might be completely wrong but i like stretching my mind with all these cool philosophical ideas i'm learning from your channel :D
Doesn‘t it mean more or less, that the ethical (principle) is kind of beyond the devine, quasi even “bigger” than god? Actually to perceive that there is a problem (and hesitate) with killing someone, even if “god” is demanding this, that’s a remarkable thing. And in a specific way in the end even god can’t act completely against the ethical matter of facts, although the whole sacrifice/killing thing (also other animate beings) stays objectively ethical evil, which is obviously perceivable for human beings. So if there is a totality where god is fundamentally involved, such “testing tasks” seem to me more ridiculous than serious and show more a kind of bondage, that comes from different political and social systems with the idea of unconditional loyalty, which is dangerous. Also loyalty is submitted to ethical principles and should have always that condition. What do you think about it?
Before Isaac there was Ishmael. Wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice if it wasn’t his first and only born. If you’re into feminism as I’ve read, then you’d champion Hagar, mother of Ishmael. She was left in the desert to raise her son. Eventually they because the nation of the Arabs. And that’s where you have the two Semitic families from Abraham’s bloodline. Arabs and Jews. It’s very interesting stuff
As I understand it ‘the absurd’ in Kierkegaard is a term he uses to represent the God of Abraham and in turn in other places, Jesus the God-Man, for whom all things are possible and in this power the individual acts in faith. I don’t see the faith movement happening anywhere else according to what I’ve read about Kierkegaard. No other place where faith is mandated.
It's highly non-trivial to not only say such intelligent things about modern philosophers but also provide stylistic exemplars of their fan bas([e|is]{sp?}). I suppose really the plural of basis is pronounced basise or beyseiz depending on how you prefer to spell things without resorting to the international phonetic alphabet which is international in the sense that it is only understood by a small subset of people who have spent too much time in school, which is to say essentially no one and therefor not in the least bit international other than in theory.
Everything we do as capable thinking human beings, or for that matter everything by animals, is based on belief if I do A, them B will surely result. Now theses beliefs aren’t always based on the next life, or are they the best of actions told in histories are that of belief ever bit as tenuous as that of some next life.to have belief in founding a country or the basics of civil rights decade even in perpetuate is based on a great belief. But then we have often fain that belief by not carrying it forward and to our day. Their belief was great, and in there day did many things to move the mountains in there way, but they have been gathering cobwebs. In our faluire to carry them to our day, building upon them. Not carrying out their visions to they’re exact words, that would be madness to live like what was planned decades and millennia before us. But to carry the spirit of there faiths, so that it can hold their intangible promise for a new generation.
I tell you what happened with Abraham. He loved his God so much he thought to himself one day, I wonder if I would kill my son if God asked me to. He giveth and if he asks for taketh, would I deliverth. At the last minute he decided his God was testing him after all, and will reserve a spot by his holy side for his iron faith. On a less serious note, Abraham however you look at it, was dangerously insane.
The Bible is filled with allegorical stories and metaphors. Whoever interprets the Bible in a completely literal manner is simply naive. There's a meaning behind everything in the Bible.
I think what Abraham's dilemma illustrates is not the leap of faith but the fact that the god of the Old Testament is categorically evil, just as the Gnostics thought. It is the choice of whether to obey the dictate of empathy (how does Isaac feel about this?) or the dictate of power (fascism, which in this case is Yahweh).
That is not the point. Kierkegaard was not emphasising the theology or moral philosophy of the story. He was using Abraham's 'leap to faith' as an example of how one can move past the angst of doubt, dilemma and potential future regret
There was never any sacrifice intended from God. The leap of faith was did Abraham trust the earlier promises of God, that Isaac would father many people. God carefully asked him to offer his son as a sacrifice, not do a sacrifice. God had an Angel to stop Abraham, his leap of faith proof that he believes all of God's promises, to the point of Isaac raising from the dead, to father the many people.
@@timmyholland8510 As someone pointed out, why listen to the angel, that's not God? So how much faith did he have? But why is S.K. not simply a religious fanatic justifying believing in a religion just like everyone else in the Christian west does? His family drilled it into him. He seemed to have emotional problems. What did he do but write weird books in his apartment and die young, other then create a few more generations of depressed people? And what promises? Wasn't the world flooded after Abraham? Then we have the millenia of horrors ahead. Socrates actually fought in wars and drank the hemlock. What did this guy do with he courageous leap of faith? Just complain that he is so smart no on understands him?
Thanks for all the videos - they are great! I wouldn’t take this biblical story literally - if I did I would throw the Bible out because it would show an inconsistent and capricious God. All Bible stories are allegorical - I am not knowledgeable enough to understand the deeper meanings but I don’t take it as simple obedience.
The problem is the teleological suspension of the rational. Religion (I consider them all extremist) and Fascism thrive because this longer leap of faith, once made, can so thoroughly produce a new state.
Here's a question: how is it reasonable to write about faith based on a mythical (fake) story? If it's reasonable, why not write about Christian theology using non-Christian material, such as Journey to the East?
Hhmmm! Was it faith or was it selfishness or greed that made Abraham willing to sacrifice his son for whatever the promise from Gad was? One could argue that, just like faith, selfishness would also entail a “teleological suspension of the ethical” for the promise of celestial glory.
Outside the sphere of the ethical indeed. God must have felt so good knowing Jacob was willing to commit such a despicable act of evil just to be validated. Of course, God likely doesn't exist and Jocob almost certainly didn't either. The story is bronze-age thinking and is an example of why faith is such a lowly value, because the story of Jacob may do a good job of exemplifying what faith can require of individuals but that doesn't make something worth pursuing.
@@Nowhy Making other people happy and reducing their suffering, and by doing that most likely doing the same for you. This guy just jerked off in his room all day and told people reason is shit but somehow he paid his bills. That was worth pursing to him I guess. But OP hasn't thrown reason out the window so a sane person can still see if something is "worth it" or not.
What bugbears this analysis is that the call for faith is based on a prima facie abhorrent request. Until u deal w this issue - which is better addressed as to history and theology, the rest seems excusatory, and the profundity ungrounded, at least for the lot of us who havent religious or philosophical buy-in.
I always interpreted the biblical story as Abraham being a character that values obedience over morality, and he uses God as the justification for his immorality. If an obedient person follows orders given by someone with an infinite amount of power, that's antithetical to "faith", not an embodiment of it. As God rewards him for being willing to commit an immoral act, albeit with a pitiful offering of some food, indicates that God values immoral people, but also has pity for them. The moral of the story being; God doesn't punish those who lack ethics & autonomy, he provides them with crappy rewards, but loves them anyway. The claim that God "saved Isaac's life" is fallacious, as Isaac was only placed in danger due to God's actions. That's like tying someone to a railroad, then stopping an oncoming train while claiming to have "saved their life".
Perhaps why Britain failed in the EU was that not enough people in Britain made the leap of faith when we joined. It was for most at very best a thing of convenience and after that a thing of habit.
These are very accurate commentaries, but I don’t believe that a novice philosopher or someone new to philosophical thought would take much from this. I wish it were not this way...
Yup. An all-knowing, all-seeing god playing tricks and experimenting upon its creations while demanding their undying love and worship for eternity with the threat of eternal punishment if they don't deliver is absolutely terrifying. Lovecraft couldn't have written a story as infinitely blood curdling on a cosmic scale as the Bible.
I don’t think you or anyone who says such things like you for that matter have a great grasp of the depth of why that story in fact proves that it is the word of God. God doesn’t care about how you or I perceive Him, because He is perfect, and knows our lack of capability to see from His eyes and Him, as truth, is on the part of us who live out a life of bad faith with contradictory concepts all the time. For me, and many, this and other texts in Scripture prove the oddity and preternatural quality of the stories given: from a purely human point view, none of them make sense, but Kierkegaard’s entire thesis is this changes once you add the element of the Divine (His majesty, value, use etc.) all the stories make sense and show us to be senseless, unless of course, we cease perceiving these words with human eyes and see through His own. Faith is supernatural and you need it. God rest
This channel taught me philosophy better than classroom. Love from seminarian.
Thanks for this. It's been a long time since I've read Fear and Trembling, and this brought much of it back. Much more so than, say, listening to Highway 61 Revisited.
To truly love something you must fear losing it. In order to have faith/love for God you must be willing to give it all for him.
The second chapter states to force love is selfish, and that true love is duty and sacrifice.
I’ve been think about this all week. So glad I got into him.
To try to understand Kierkegaard, first refer to this quote which covers it all:
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
I understand Kierkegaard but I'm a crazy person so there's that.
@@jeffreyriley8742 you have to be a little "unregulated" as a person to be a real individual
@@mingus445_gaming Being an outcast is a perfect situation for pursuing a type of purity. Diogenes knew that, too.
"...the goal is to follow god's command which has been given to him unmediated through an act of privacy, private communication if we can call it communication at all...the paradox is that Abraham becomes higher than the universal, which is the domain of the ethical, by being a singular individual"
I appreciate that you cast doubt on whether the antecedent to an abrahamic act, if we can generalize a term like that, is any sort of communication, in part because of the intensely ironic and private nature of the antecedent. This puts me in mind of what I understand as Wittgenstein’s insistence that what is most moving in life cannot be verbalized, just because of its privacy. If verbal expression requires some shared cultural bias, then indeed it seems one could expect that the intensely private experiences that transcend cultural anticipations would be rendered verbally absurd when articulated. I read somewhere that Kierkegaard was Wittgenstein’s favorite “philosopher.”
In any case, I’m quite interested in this topic in general as related to what clinical psychologists call “irreverence,” i.e. an effort to help clients produce more creative responses, often in defiance of cultural expectations, and thereby chart a path towards recovery from emotional suffering.
Thanks for your wonderful videos, I’m looking forward to hearing your podcast as well,
cheers!
Soren Kierkegaard is one of my favorite philosophers of all time!
Amen!
Much agree.
But I doubt he would like us referring to him as a philosopher :)
God rest
a very troubled man, you'd have to talk to his fiance'
@@tbillyjoeroth For a time, but the Lord made His way straight.
God rest
Brilliant Analysis. May God Bless You. Your views are absolutely Fantastic. May God Bless You. ❤❤❤👍👍👍💐💐💐.
I could listen to you talk for hours...
Always was in mind , to know these philosophical ideas but couldn't get properly. Thank you for your introductory video, love it so much 🥰
What a wonderful presentation! The excursion to Hegel was also quite informative and appreciated! Thanks for this video!
Awesome! Brilliant! wonderful presentation, precise and meaningful. Thank you,
I remember Von trier's, breaking the waves and his explanation of infinite !
i am loving this one, since i dont use spotify, thank you for uploading!
Thank you for this nice "tutorial" on Kierkegaard. If you read about his life and how he was constantly confronted with death in his family, it seems obvious that faith would become a major focus for him...
Para mi, despues de haber leido temor y temblor, creo haber entendido una puesta en escena irónica frente a lo absurdo de la fe y la iglesia, desempeñando el absurdo como un movimiento infinito. En base a lo anterior, creo que el autor trata de explicar como algo paradójico la fe, habilitandola completamente fuera de lo finito ( la razón ). Como apreciación personal, siento que Kierkegaard hace la siguiente maroma : " lo espiritual no tiene cabida dentro de mi pensamiento lógico, por lo tanto no existe. Si este es el caso, cual es la validez de lo ilógico? " .
Me gustaria mucho seguir leyendo al autor, solo he leído un libro de el. Es mi primer libro de filosofía despues de haber leido " el mundo de sofia".
Saludos y abrazos ❤
Just n the postscript at the moment. Great work.
Rate ... i find myself like Abraham and appear mad az well ... knight of Faith ... nailed it.
Great explanation so glad I found this channel.
The Presbyterian church called a meeting to decide what to do about their squirrel infestation. After much prayer and consideration, they concluded that the squirrels were predestined to be there, and they should not interfere with God’s divine will.
At the Baptist church, the squirrels had taken an interest in the baptistry. The deacons met and decided to put a water-slide on the baptistry and let the squirrels drown themselves. The squirrels liked the slide and, unfortunately, knew instinctively how to swim, so twice as many squirrels showed up the following week.
The Lutheran church decided that they were not in a position to harm any of God’s creatures. So, they humanely trapped their squirrels and set them free near the Baptist church. Two weeks later, the squirrels were back when the Baptists took down the water-slide.
The Episcopalians tried a much more unique path by setting out pans of whiskey around their church in an effort to kill the squirrels with alcohol poisoning. They sadly learned how much damage a band of drunk squirrels can do.
But the Catholic church came up with a more creative strategy! They baptized all the squirrels and made them members of the church. Now they only see them at Christmas and Easter.
Not much was heard from the Jewish synagogue. They took the first squirrel and circumcised him. They haven’t seen a squirrel since.
I'm interested in this idea and it's supposed superiority over the alternative. So many of humanities most horrific undertakings, historically and currently, seem to be generated and excused by proponents of this line of thinking. It seems almost anything can be justified to the person of faith. Is it because faith is such a personal phenomenon that it can fall beyond the checks and measures of society? Thanks for another well presented lecture.
Read a similar question once in comment section of a blog post about Kierk (used the example of 9/11) and I think it was the author who responded & said that those types of people would be better termed as something like "Knights of Despair" rather than Knights of Faith; key difference being that the sin & crime that Abraham was instructed to carry out never came to pass because God intervened (in the example off 9/11, all 3 planes would have been thwarted & landed safely by a miracle - there would have been no loss of life).
I think some other obvious ones are Keirk's idea of "silence" & "knighthood" itself; if Bin Laden was really a Knight of Faith & thought God was asking him to destroy America, he would not have been able to express that to anyone & would have acted alone. Instead, the attacks were preceded by years of conspiring with many other people, including the hijackers. So by Kierk's criteria, horrific crimes that people commit out of "faith" can be dismissed out of hand by simple fact that they came to pass (that God didn't intervene - ie, lone wolf attacks against the public) - and I would say especially anything large-scale that required persuading & conspiring with others, by the simple fact that the people who supposedly received God's revelation didn't keep it to themselves or act alone.
@@nataliaturner4845 the knight of faith wouldn't know that God truly exists or he would be a religious fanatic, like how you seem to interpret the idea in 'Fear and Trembling'. Maybe you didn't read that book?
Kierkegaard is interesting because he maintains his faith in the face of certainty and knowledge, Thats why I named by daughter Vera which means faith. I leaped into what I was ready to become for a long time. Happy to be a father. My wife has read Kierkegaard more closely than me.
Fidem is faith.
Vera is truth.
Veronica is true image.
Thank you for the video. I much prefer Epicurus and Camus and Diogenes. Their philosophies are so much simpler to understand. A lot of the great thinkers, during the middle ages talked in riddles. It's like trying to learn Russian
Kirkergaard was a Christian existentialist. So if you're not a Christian or familiar with Christian philosophy. It can be hard to understand.
Kirkergaard lived during the late 1700s. During the rise of secularism.
brilliant and illuminating.
I think his greatest book is "concluding unscientific postscript". Whoever seeking faith should read that.
Hi, can you please share this book if possible.. thanks
Great video - I’d love to hear about the relationship between Kierkegaard’s philosophy and Hegel. I know their personal relationship was fraught, but it seems like Hegel looms large for Kierkegaard
Go figure it out yourself
Much of Kierkegaard is a response to Hegel, criticizing the totality and universality of it as Kierkegaard prefers an approach that allows more subjectivist position and makes less objectivist truth claims. I think Fear and Trembling, especially with the introduction of the Penguin Edition, is a good place to start. Also, if/once you feel comfortable getting into a bit more challenging Kierkegaard work, Concluding Unscientific Postscripts has some critiques of Hegelian systematization.
Hegel and Kierkegaard didn’t know each other. Kierkegaard comes later.
That being said, Jon Stewart has written a very good and very large book on Kierkegaard’s reception of Hegel. It corrects a lot of the simple antagonisms of older scholarships. Merold Westphal is another good thinker on this though he sees things more negatively.
More work needs to be done, though, on Kierkegaard’s relationship to German Idealism in a positive sense. Particularly in relation to Schelling.
Kierkegaard carries over many of Hegel’s assumptions, if you know what you’re reading, but is also quite critical.
Genius breakdown. Elucidation
I love your work so much!
Thank you ! =)
A coherent counterpoint to finding the Real Nietzsche
Exactly the comment I sought.
@@johndiss That was 9 months ago, I kind of lost my train of thought, but I am serendipitously happy, and happy for you too. LOL
Kierkegaard understood something only a handful could, Anxiety shows the way how we can deal with our life
He opens up fear and trembling with the Greek idea of divine madness becomes fulfilled in the Abrahamic leap .
Infinite resignation or the double binding of the Spirit which is to accept your life as given and offered back to the infinite without a why. Die to false self in order to find true self.
That’s so good
This is so deep
thank you
I finished either/or last week. What a monster of a book. It was great but I couldn’t wait for it to end. The first half was awesome, but Kierkegaard was extremely verbose in the ‘or’. And it didn’t help that I had to read every page 3 times to understand it, either.
Clarice Lispector, niceee.
They are great. No doubt.
In some ancient cultures child sacrifice was quite a common practice. When Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac that represented a break with this previously accepted practice.
I think you are adorable and brilliant.
Thank you ,
You know, if you had a few hours to spare I'd love to discuss this with you because it goes straight to the heart of my attempts to make sense of life and the question of reality. And that's why I wouldn't dream of leaving a comment which would probably exhaust RUclips's memory. (Except to say that I don't entirely agree with him, but I greatly approve you taking time to explain it.)
Socrates is definitely not that insane to be the Knight of Faith. If we are talking about irrational faith. Faith can be rational as well (it's impossible to give a birth and bring up a child without faith).
The video is great.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of twice 10:09
Question: he achieves access to the higher telos via communication from God via a private channel - do you think privacy (in the modern sense of the word - how it is being encroached upon by technology, etc) and it's lack will disconnect us from having that private communication and subsequently lose our ability to be singular humans?
There is a song about that: Gonjasufi - Your Maker.. there is also a remix with a female singer...
And yes, most young people don't say 'I' or 'me' nowadays (maybe they think a lot " what about me), they say 'we' when they would be an potential 'I'.
Transparency Society byung chul han
I've been wanting to check out Kierkegaard for a while. I've read Walker Percy's The Moviegoer which I heard was loosely based on his ideas. Any recommendations on where to start with his work?
I think The Essential Kierkegaard (ed. Hong and Hong) is a great place to start. You can actually see it in the bookshelf in the video near the top left :)
C Stephen Evans also has a good introduction out with Cambridge Press on Kierkegaard with a helpful annotated bibliography at the end for further study.
'Works of Love' published under his name; or his academic work, "the Concept of Irony", but he didn't see that text as a direct part of his work as a writer and his view on Socrates also changed a bit throughout his work as a writer.
I've always understood that story a father needs to be willing to sacrifice the innocence of his son. It's the sacrifice of the child, and letting go to enable your son to become a man.
Interesting interpretation. Still, it is really just a myth centered around the concept of sacrifice and faith.
@@st0a oh 100%. People get so caught up in details they miss the opportunity to learn. There is wisdom there. Problem is people will fight you to the death arguing that is real.
Perfect
One like for having that book from Clarice Lispector up front.
Job must be an archetype of the knight of faith.
I understood that Kierkegaard (Johannes) was not arguing that killing one’s son was unethical. He uses the example of how Agamemnon was ethical for sacrificing his daughter for the good of the state, which is justified. Agamemnon was the knight of resignation, the one who reluctantly yet bravely accepts his social duty as a king, even if it means killing his own family for the good of the state.
What made the sacrifice unethical was Abraham’s agreement to sacrificing Issac by way of direct communication. There was no greater social good accomplished. I think this is an important point to keep in mind, since Kierkegaard relies heavily on Greek hero-culture as a foil to his Christian aims.
My one qualm with the argument, by submitting yourself entirely to the calling of God, by being the Knight of Faith, by giving everything up to knowingly receive it back in some form, how is this exemplified in reality. It’s obviously depicted in the story by God sparring the life of Isaac. However, what decision in modernity prompts you to commit an incomprehensible act for the sake of reward later? What calling from God would be so demanding of you? What is the incentive to be the Knight of Faith? Perhaps my query is reason as to why Kierkegaard deemed only some to have the capacity to emulate the Knight of Faith. Yet, as skeptical as I might feel, the concept still draws me in. It remains appealing to me.
Hey Anthony, you are touching the classical problem of these abstract and verbalized forms of knowledge: what advice can we extract for the modern life? Professor Jordan Peterson gives answer to these questions in his older lectures and his book “Maps of Meaning”. My take as an answer to your question is the following: In life you have to sacrifice repeatedly in order to achieve a goal in the future. Hard working people sacrifice friendship and social life in order to acquire one of the top positions in their domain. But sacrifice nevertheless requires faith. The faith in god is metaphorically the faith in the future and the idea that if you’ve faith in the sacrifice to a higher order you will receive what you wanted first (and maybe even more). It’s also a statement to sacrifice yourself to the higher goal therefore. Instead of running after the money, sacrifice it for something meaningful and in consequence get money as a side effect as well as a truly meaningful life. But that’s just my take as an 18 year old German boy who’s keen to learn about that stuff
@@tilljonasmeyer-jark9724 Thank you! It helped me to understand.
It could be any decicion, any act. And they wouldn't be done for any other sake, other than for God.
"Belief"...is my aim.
"FAITH"...is what i've earned.
When my faith is strong I'm living within my beliefs.
When my faith is weak I am living far outside of them.
-Aaron A. Wilson
What so impresses Kierkegaard about the faith of Abraham is that, despite Kierkegaard's assumption that anyone would struggle with this command to kill his only son (which he sketches out in several detailed scenarios), Abraham doesn't struggle at all: he obeys immediately and without question, his faith overcoming all doubts that God would lead him astray. As Kierkegaard says, How great is the faith of Abraham! {edited to correct Moses to Abraham -- what a blunder!)
Americans studying in their capital city of Utah.
@@ed.z. Right. I'm going to go back and edit that so it makes sense, but I'm going to leave this here so your correction makes sense, too.
Kierkegaard's work is one of the better arguments to be an atheist.
很棒👍
Dr Ortlund from the Truth Unites RUclips channel, I think, stated the movement of faith as: ‘it’s like declaring your love to your beloved and waiting for his/her answer’.
That could be your life if you believe in Jesus Christ as your God, savior, friend.
Thank you for the insight.
Q: Actors on Acting
Do you have a video or podcast on this topic?
Also, Author of book?
😊
So in considering your video I thought immediately of Hitler when you said Kierkegaard thought few people were capable of making leaps of faith. He is quoted as saying he felt like a sleepwalker heading towards a certainty, he had absolute faith in his ideals and teleological purpose. God asking Abraham was not a request and Abraham did not make a choice, it was Abrahams duty to come to know and emotionally accept that this course had been set before him and he was just sleepwalking towards the immutable will of God. That suspension of the entire sphere of morality is not as cold blooded as you make it sound however, it's not abandonment of morality but self acceptance that your morals have been laid aside for you by a higher teleological purpose.
Morals and ethics aren't the same - categorical mistakes are so easy to miss.
It's weird that his surname basically means "cemetary", what kind of a name is that🤔
You looks so impaccable for the theme, which is faith. By the way I can see the Kirkegaard book in the background. So how does one live with faith and attain that life?
So what's it all about Ellie?
great
1:18 love that sudden falsetto
Thanks for clarifying Kierkegaard concept of faith .
Abraham story in Genesis certainly is a tough one to take right out of the gate ( Genesis. First Testament) Some because of the story never read further. “ Go kill your son , the very thing you always wanted “
Abraham listens and through faith acts accordingly, only to have God ( or angel ) saying just before the act “ no let him be “
Certainly a paradigm of existential anxst.
I believe the archetype is Abraham becoming conscious of himself resulting in the spirit of life !Abraham through leap of faith transformed the love of God into his son .
I think the story is a prerequisite to Mathews where Christ ! Son of God was the sacrificial lamb ( death and rebirth) Again a spiritual transformation!
In Kierkegaard personal existential life he left his bride at the alter turning away from love so to existential go alone .
That to me is not leap of face rather a ego choice to stir up the moral waters !
Existentialist always seem to do something that makes them in the moment stand out as opposing the norm !
The Abraham sacrifice myth can help us escape the trappings of religious life. Run away!
The point is, Abraham becomes godly, like exactly the god in religion, wants. But reality beyond this, is much more complicated.
Maybe I'm not grasping the metaphor correctly, but to me it seems backwards.
Wouldn't the Knight with the "superiority complex" is the one who believes he is entitled to repayment of his sacrifice? The Knight of infinite resignation understands his place in existence, and humbly accepts (or at least attempts to accept) that we are not the center of the universe, and our sacrifices can only be repayed by the fading of grief through the passing of time.
It seems to me quite self-centered and individualistic to assume existence owes you something.
(Although of course I understand you come to this conclusion through belief in a soul and a person's supposed importance in God's eyes.)
In fact, Socrates, who he used as an example of the Knight of infinite resignation, was well known for his ability to accept his inevitable death by saying he has never died before and that he cannot assume it is any worse than living. To fear death is to claim you know something you don't.
As for the Knight of Faith, he is described as being willing to sacrifice the thing that is most precious to them, while simultaneously believing that they haven’t truly lost that thing in this world.
In that sense - doesn't Socrates have faith? He doesn't believe something has been lost by his life ending. For all we know, we might *gain* something through death.
The whole basis for the metaphor is that faith is to claim certainty of your entitlement to repayment, and that faithlessness is to disbelieve in this entitlement, yet still reconciling yourself to the pain of loss.
But this is assuming that repayment and loss are a dichotomy - which i do not believe.
Loss to us as humans is not loss to the universe. To assume that our pain in these human bodies is also felt by all of the universe, and that that justifies repayment, is a very anthropocentric view and one I don't share.
I believe that as long as there is the universe, there is no loss.
Therefore, I am a Knight of faithful infinite resignation.
What are your thoughts on love
Check out the Academic Talks playlist :)
Galina Vroman’s "Sarah’s Story" seems a much more plausible interpretation/debunking of the biblical story. Reading her story made me think Kierkegaard assessment of the story risible. Makes me ask how much of the philosophizing subsequent to Kierkegaard is likewise risible.
how do you distinguish between faith and delusion? IMO pretty unfair for God to setup Abraham with that moral dilemma.
in regards to kierkegaard, perhaps he was getting at the point that our human minds can't comprehend the infinity of the universe/infinite God and we need faith to bridge the gap. imagine as an example that the universe is 6D, how can a human living in 3D space & time possibly understand that world...but you trust the math and the concept of higher dimensional spaces. i'm new to this philosophy stuff so i might be completely wrong but i like stretching my mind with all these cool philosophical ideas i'm learning from your channel :D
God doesn't need to equal the universe or nature; perhabs for Spinoza or Einstein - or a pantheist.
How to trust math if math is uncertain?
Doesn‘t it mean more or less, that the ethical (principle) is kind of beyond the devine, quasi even “bigger” than god? Actually to perceive that there is a problem (and hesitate) with killing someone, even if “god” is demanding this, that’s a remarkable thing. And in a specific way in the end even god can’t act completely against the ethical matter of facts, although the whole sacrifice/killing thing (also other animate beings) stays objectively ethical evil, which is obviously perceivable for human beings.
So if there is a totality where god is fundamentally involved, such “testing tasks” seem to me more ridiculous than serious and show more a kind of bondage, that comes from different political and social systems with the idea of unconditional loyalty, which is dangerous. Also loyalty is submitted to ethical principles and should have always that condition.
What do you think about it?
Before Isaac there was Ishmael. Wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice if it wasn’t his first and only born. If you’re into feminism as I’ve read, then you’d champion Hagar, mother of Ishmael. She was left in the desert to raise her son. Eventually they because the nation of the Arabs. And that’s where you have the two Semitic families from Abraham’s bloodline. Arabs and Jews. It’s very interesting stuff
As I understand it ‘the absurd’ in Kierkegaard is a term he uses to represent the God of Abraham and in turn in other places, Jesus the God-Man, for whom all things are possible and in this power the individual acts in faith.
I don’t see the faith movement happening anywhere else according to what I’ve read about Kierkegaard. No other place where faith is mandated.
❤❤
It's highly non-trivial to not only say such intelligent things about modern philosophers but also provide stylistic exemplars of their fan bas([e|is]{sp?}). I suppose really the plural of basis is pronounced basise or beyseiz depending on how you prefer to spell things without resorting to the international phonetic alphabet which is international in the sense that it is only understood by a small subset of people who have spent too much time in school, which is to say essentially no one and therefor not in the least bit international other than in theory.
Thinks
Ellie check out what is Hajj in Saudi Arabia, I am sure many people told you about it already. Hajj is on the same topic as well..
Everything we do as capable thinking human beings, or for that matter everything by animals, is based on belief if I do A, them B will surely result. Now theses beliefs aren’t always based on the next life, or are they the best of actions told in histories are that of belief ever bit as tenuous as that of some next life.to have belief in founding a country or the basics of civil rights decade even in perpetuate is based on a great belief. But then we have often fain that belief by not carrying it forward and to our day. Their belief was great, and in there day did many things to move the mountains in there way, but they have been gathering cobwebs. In our faluire to carry them to our day, building upon them. Not carrying out their visions to they’re exact words, that would be madness to live like what was planned decades and millennia before us. But to carry the spirit of there faiths, so that it can hold their intangible promise for a new generation.
I don't get the importance of "single individual" at the end.
same for me
@@tilljonasmeyer-jark9724 Let's dig!
Well, Kierkegaard also wrote books that were not written by a pseudonyms of his.
Ethics can be rationalised, but faith is inherently unrationalisable, which is the point of it. Faith makes you happy where reason does not
Reason makes me happy, faith (religion) is terrifying and makes me sick and miserable. I guess we are all different.
I tell you what happened with Abraham. He loved his God so much he thought to himself one day, I wonder if I would kill my son if God asked me to. He giveth and if he asks for taketh, would I deliverth.
At the last minute he decided his God was testing him after all, and will reserve a spot by his holy side for his iron faith.
On a less serious note, Abraham however you look at it, was dangerously insane.
The Bible is filled with allegorical stories and metaphors. Whoever interprets the Bible in a completely literal manner is simply naive. There's a meaning behind everything in the Bible.
🌷😇🌷
I think what Abraham's dilemma illustrates is not the leap of faith but the fact that the god of the Old Testament is categorically evil, just as the Gnostics thought. It is the choice of whether to obey the dictate of empathy (how does Isaac feel about this?) or the dictate of power (fascism, which in this case is Yahweh).
That is not the point. Kierkegaard was not emphasising the theology or moral philosophy of the story. He was using Abraham's 'leap to faith' as an example of how one can move past the angst of doubt, dilemma and potential future regret
There was never any sacrifice intended from God. The leap of faith was did Abraham trust the earlier promises of God, that Isaac would father many people. God carefully asked him to offer his son as a sacrifice, not do a sacrifice. God had an Angel to stop Abraham, his leap of faith proof that he believes all of God's promises, to the point of Isaac raising from the dead, to father the many people.
@@timmyholland8510 As someone pointed out, why listen to the angel, that's not God? So how much faith did he have?
But why is S.K. not simply a religious fanatic justifying believing in a religion just like everyone else in the Christian west does? His family drilled it into him. He seemed to have emotional problems.
What did he do but write weird books in his apartment and die young, other then create a few more generations of depressed people?
And what promises? Wasn't the world flooded after Abraham? Then we have the millenia of horrors ahead.
Socrates actually fought in wars and drank the hemlock. What did this guy do with he courageous leap of faith? Just complain that he is so smart no on understands him?
Thanks for all the videos - they are great! I wouldn’t take this biblical story literally - if I did I would throw the Bible out because it would show an inconsistent and capricious God. All Bible stories are allegorical - I am not knowledgeable enough to understand the deeper meanings but I don’t take it as simple obedience.
Really good video, thank you. Also you're very beautiful.
The problem is the teleological suspension of the rational. Religion (I consider them all extremist) and Fascism thrive because this longer leap of faith, once made, can so thoroughly produce a new state.
Churches and sects are not the same as the religions, that they suppose to stand for.
Here's a question: how is it reasonable to write about faith based on a mythical (fake) story? If it's reasonable, why not write about Christian theology using non-Christian material, such as Journey to the East?
Hhmmm! Was it faith or was it selfishness or greed that made Abraham willing to sacrifice his son for whatever the promise from Gad was? One could argue that, just like faith, selfishness would also entail a “teleological suspension of the ethical” for the promise of celestial glory.
Who said faith was not self-oriented? Faith makes you happy where reason does not. That is why it is uncommunicable and unrationalisable by definition
Where do people go to meet others with interests like this?
To any stranger could be a good beginning..
Няша
Outside the sphere of the ethical indeed. God must have felt so good knowing Jacob was willing to commit such a despicable act of evil just to be validated. Of course, God likely doesn't exist and Jocob almost certainly didn't either. The story is bronze-age thinking and is an example of why faith is such a lowly value, because the story of Jacob may do a good job of exemplifying what faith can require of individuals but that doesn't make something worth pursuing.
What makes something worth pursuing?
@@Nowhy Making other people happy and reducing their suffering, and by doing that most likely doing the same for you.
This guy just jerked off in his room all day and told people reason is shit but somehow he paid his bills. That was worth pursing to him I guess. But OP hasn't thrown reason out the window so a sane person can still see if something is "worth it" or not.
@@joecheffo5942What an incoherent answer
@@Nowhy He's probably a convinced hedonist.
@@st0a so in other words, a boring person...
I didn't understand.. How to understand Kierkegaard as a kindergarten kid
According to islam it was Ishmael
What bugbears this analysis is that the call for faith is based on a prima facie abhorrent request. Until u deal w this issue - which is better addressed as to history and theology, the rest seems excusatory, and the profundity ungrounded, at least for the lot of us who havent religious or philosophical buy-in.
Kierkegaard would probably say that an infinite skeptic lacks imagination, at least as far as the buy-in is concerned.
I always interpreted the biblical story as Abraham being a character that values obedience over morality, and he uses God as the justification for his immorality. If an obedient person follows orders given by someone with an infinite amount of power, that's antithetical to "faith", not an embodiment of it. As God rewards him for being willing to commit an immoral act, albeit with a pitiful offering of some food, indicates that God values immoral people, but also has pity for them. The moral of the story being; God doesn't punish those who lack ethics & autonomy, he provides them with crappy rewards, but loves them anyway. The claim that God "saved Isaac's life" is fallacious, as Isaac was only placed in danger due to God's actions. That's like tying someone to a railroad, then stopping an oncoming train while claiming to have "saved their life".
Relax bro you can simply say you dont agree with the Abrahamic tradition than all this...
Perhaps why Britain failed in the EU was that not enough people in Britain made the leap of faith when we joined. It was for most at very best a thing of convenience and after that a thing of habit.
Times change
would Siddhartha be an example of the knight of infinite resignation?
No
Yes and no.
These are very accurate commentaries, but I don’t believe that a novice philosopher or someone new to philosophical thought would take much from this. I wish it were not this way...
As an old guy, it gives me great hope to know that such young women can actually exist.
The story of Abraham and Isaak is one of many that makes it easy to reject the bible as ' the word of God'.
How so?
Yup. An all-knowing, all-seeing god playing tricks and experimenting upon its creations while demanding their undying love and worship for eternity with the threat of eternal punishment if they don't deliver is absolutely terrifying. Lovecraft couldn't have written a story as infinitely blood curdling on a cosmic scale as the Bible.
I don’t think you or anyone who says such things like you for that matter have a great grasp of the depth of why that story in fact proves that it is the word of God. God doesn’t care about how you or I perceive Him, because He is perfect, and knows our lack of capability to see from His eyes and Him, as truth, is on the part of us who live out a life of bad faith with contradictory concepts all the time. For me, and many, this and other texts in Scripture prove the oddity and preternatural quality of the stories given: from a purely human point view, none of them make sense, but Kierkegaard’s entire thesis is this changes once you add the element of the Divine (His majesty, value, use etc.) all the stories make sense and show us to be senseless, unless of course, we cease perceiving these words with human eyes and see through His own.
Faith is supernatural and you need it.
God rest
No it isn't. It's perfect for Kierkegaard's philosophy to be demonstrated perfectly.
No, god only "tested" not be means toward Abraham.