Kierkegaard Korner

I was already thinking of starting this thread, because I had specufic question I wanted to ask @Kendel. And then I saw that Kendel and @AFeminineForce were pondering the same idea. So here it is.

I'll try to write out my question later today.
«13456711

Comments

  • Thank you, @stetson !
    Golly! This is like Christmas!
  • Okay. I think I might've been away sick the day this was discussed in my Existentialism class, but anyway...

    What exactly does Kierkegaard mean by saying that Abraham, in obeying God's command to sacrifice Isaac, does so knowing that he will get Isaac back?

    I assume it doesn't mean that Abraham knows God will call off the sacrifice prior to the knife-plunge, as that would mean that Abraham realizes from the start that he will never have to do something that takes him outside the Ethical Mode, because then the whole point of his obeying God would be lost.

    I've always thought, instead, that it means something like(my own terminology here): "Abraham knows that if he follows through with the command, he and Isaac will forever be united together as full participants in God's creation." But I don't have a copy of Fear And Trembling on hand, or for that matter any commentators on the book, to verify that, and reading that stuff on my phone is annoying.
  • Oh, and by the way, minor point of detail, but...

    I remember that Don Juan seducing widows represents the Aesthetic Mode, and Abraham binding Isaac represents the Religious Mode, but who represents the Ethical Mode in-between? Somehow, that has slipped from my mind over the years.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    As I understand it Abraham has faith that God will keep Isaac alive or bring Isaac back to life somehow. The absurd here is that he has to simultaneously intend to kill Isaac and believe Isaac won't die.
    I think the chapter that pairs ways in which Abraham could have failed the test with ways in which a mother could wean her baby may be relevant in casting light on what Abraham does that is correct. But I don't know where to lay my hands on my copy as we are tidying our house by moving the piles of stuff about.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    It occurs to me that our eldest daughter just spent a week away from home on a school trip. We'd entrusted her to the care of non-family members. And on Monday we're going to let her walk home from school by herself (with a friend) so no adult supervision at all.
    It feels like a leap of faith.

    One thing about the text is that Abraham is the father of faith: structurally that means Isaac represents faith and Kierkegaard's text about Abraham's possible failures looks at the consequences for Isaac's faith.
  • The way I understand the entire Knight of Faith thing goes like this:

    Abraham has already surrendered everything and everyone in his life to God. He has nothing, owns nothing and is nothing except that God allows him to keep what he has and doesn't demand the sacrifice. This is congruent with the idea that "that which is worthy of worship does not require it" and that Abraham's faith is an deliberate decision at every moment of his day.

    Abraham goes to bed every night jubilant and thanking God for another day where he was not required to give up those people and things he cherished the most, and wakes up every morning starting the surrender all over again.

    In all of this, Abraham has absolute faith in the goodness of his life and in every outcome.

    Then comes the day that God says to him "Take your son up the mountain and prepare him for sacrifice".

    The entire book is a series of what-ifs asking "what kind of faith is not the faith of a monster?" and the only answer Kierkegaard comes with is: Abraham has already surrendered his only son to God. All that remains to be done is the actual doing of the deed.

    Abraham DOESN'T KNOW that God will substitute the sacrifice. He has FAITH that, like every other day, God will not require it of him. He doesn't know, but in his mind and heart Isaac doesn't belong to him, he belongs to God and if God asks for him, then Abraham will do what God requires.

    AFF
  • Bloody brilliant. But... : )
  • (Caveat - I'm currently a bit pissed)

    Fuck Abrabam. In a world where my kids are all that will survive me, God can swivel. I'll protect mine from him.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    (Caveat - I'm currently a bit pissed)

    Fuck Abrabam. In a world where my kids are all that will survive me, God can swivel. I'll protect mine from him.

    I think a worthy line of questioning for our friend Soren and others who would emulate the Knight of Faith would be: what if God had not substituted the sacrifice?

    What then?

    Because the bare bones truth of life is that it can come at you hard - and everyone and everything you think belongs to you, you find out doesn't belong to you at all, and you truly have nothing and are nothing.

    Is it better or easier to grasp this before or after God requires the sacrifice?

    AFF
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    (Caveat - I'm currently a bit pissed)

    Fuck Abrabam. In a world where my kids are all that will survive me, God can swivel. I'll protect mine from him.

    HOOO-Rah!
    KarlLB wrote: »
    (Caveat - I'm currently a bit pissed)

    Fuck Abrabam. In a world where my kids are all that will survive me, God can swivel. I'll protect mine from him.

    I think a worthy line of questioning for our friend Soren and others who would emulate the Knight of Faith would be: what if God had not substituted the sacrifice?

    What then?

    Because the bare bones truth of life is that it can come at you hard - and everyone and everything you think belongs to you, you find out doesn't belong to you at all, and you truly have nothing and are nothing.

    Is it better or easier to grasp this before or after God requires the sacrifice?

    AFF

    It's better to grasp regardless, but no halfway decent God would ask. The meaningless horrors of existence are perichoretic in it. If there's a God, he'll just make it all go away.
  • And, AFF, you make Abraham sound like a Samurai.
  • stetson wrote: »
    What exactly does Kierkegaard mean by saying that Abraham, in obeying God's command to sacrifice Isaac, does so knowing that he will get Isaac back?

    I got no phil classes to work with. PoMo criticism from 30+ years ago, and a lot of forgetting. I read F&T between November '22 and May '23 by section many times. F&T is still a bit fresh in my mind, and I was just listening to "In Praise of Abraham" and "Preliminary Expectoration" while I was cleaning up the kitchen.

    I don't remember reading, or didn't get a hint of it listening just now, that Abraham "knew" anything about getting Isaac back. Kierkegaard builds about as much tension between love and anxiety as he can. Abraham must love God maximally in order to be faithful to God, but Abraham must also love Isaac maximally in order for his killing of Isaac to be a sacrifice in the eyes of God.

    I think the weaning stories and all the additional variations de silentio covers in the book do nothing but make Abraham's faith all the more impossible and troubling. They also demonstrate that any variation that makes things easier for Abraham nullifies the possibility of faith being faith.

    Problema III has some of my favorite sections, where SK discusses individuals who had doubted, particularly Faust, and one section regarding the Merman. Also the discussion of of de silentio's version of Voltaire. Most of these are hidden in foot notes. I've seen these receive little to no attention. But I think SK's tender handling of doubt is particularly valuable.

    In my opinion, most writers are overly focused on the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical (TSE), as if it explains what faith is and how to do it. I read it as a direct confrontation of the theologians in the Danish state church who had tried to christianize Hegel's philosophy, and a confrontation of Danish church members who had bought into the idea that faith was something that was congruous with social morality. He says as much, when he compares the universal to the church. Even if one accepts the TSE as the formula to follow, one (the particulated single individual) is stuck in immediate (absolute relation) relation to God (the absolute). How comfortable could that be?

    Not something can leaf through during an afternoon nap.

    I see the conversation continues as I write. At this pace I will NEVER catch up. Until maybe 17:30 EST.


  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited September 2023
    Abraham probably regarded Isaac as a gift from God in his old age. He possibly reckoned that if God gave the gift he could take it away.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    And, AFF, you make Abraham sound like a Samurai.

    Well, I suppose there might be a reason why Kierkegaard chose martial imagery ("Knight Of Faith") to describe a person living at the Religious Stage of existence.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    (Caveat - I'm currently a bit pissed)

    Fuck Abrabam. In a world where my kids are all that will survive me, God can swivel. I'll protect mine from him.

    Well, this (protecting one's kids from sacrifice) certainly is one option that is covered a few different ways in the book. Abraham could have refused to comply.
    stetson wrote: »
    but who represents the Ethical Mode in-between? Somehow, that has slipped from my mind over the years.
    I believe this is Judge William in E/O.
    The Judge's young correspondent is the Aesthetic "model."

    There are quite a few aesthetic examples in F&T: the poet, and some of the characters from plays and folk stories that are mentioned in Problema III in F&T.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It's better to grasp regardless, but no halfway decent God would ask. The meaningless horrors of existence are perichoretic in it. If there's a God, he'll just make it all go away.

    Possibly, but that's not what Søren was getting at. He put the horror of the situation under a microscope and forces his reader, who will stick with him, to examine and internalize every frightful detail.
    I think a worthy line of questioning for our friend Soren and others who would emulate the Knight of Faith would be: what if God had not substituted the sacrifice?

    What then?

    Because the bare bones truth of life is that it can come at you hard - and everyone and everything you think belongs to you, you find out doesn't belong to you at all, and you truly have nothing and are nothing.

    Is it better or easier to grasp this before or after God requires the sacrifice?

    AFF

    I think Søren answers this subtly in is ridiculous description of the Knight of Faith in "Preliminary Expectoration." He talks about the Knight of Faith fully expecting a special meal, when he gets home, but there is none. No matter.
    It's incredibly subtle.
    I'm not thinking of any other examples at the moment.

    The discussion of the Demonic (Problema III) may also be of use in answering your question, AFF. Richard III and Sarah from the Book of Tobit are both people who cannot -- by nature or situation -- fit into the universal by complying with social morality. I wonder, if Abraham had killed Isaac and not received him back, if this would place him in the category of the Demonic or simply a deranged murderer. Søren certainly provides the option of the murderer (hanged or institutionalized) for his contemporary parishioner in the book. The TSE forumulation makes it clear that there is certainly no place for someone acting as Abraham within the bounds of the ethical/social morality.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited September 2023
    stetson wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And, AFF, you make Abraham sound like a Samurai.

    Well, I suppose there might be a reason why Kierkegaard chose martial imagery ("Knight Of Faith") to describe a person living at the Religious Stage of existence.

    But would he know in 1840s Denmark that that is Bushido? Unless it's a universal way of the warrior? That those who live by the sword die by the sword?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And, AFF, you make Abraham sound like a Samurai.

    Well, I suppose there might be a reason why Kierkegaard chose martial imagery ("Knight Of Faith") to describe a person living at the Religious Stage of existence.

    But would he know in 1840s Denmark that that is Bushido? Unless it's a universal way of the warrior? That those who live by the sword die by the sword?

    "Put up your sword. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" are words straight out of the Bible.

    AFF
  • @Kendel, I'm 110% sure you're right about Søren, but I don't need him to focus me on the horror. I'm sorry, but what horror did he know? I know he must have known horror, we all do if we live long enough, even privileged lives like his. You certainly have. Me too. Having an upturned bucket list week as we speak.

    No real, if He were, God is involved. No God as He would be is involved here. I'm sorry but I find it all - him all, Søren - so pretentious. Not the discussion. Not the parties here, God forbid, far from it. But I find him all empty. Irrelevant, God or no.

    The obscenely graphic words of our beautiful company accountant in my last software house came to mind way back on this. It's a load of ****. A very English sexual obscenity.
  • Kendel wrote: »

    The discussion of the Demonic (Problema III) may also be of use in answering your question, AFF. Richard III and Sarah from the Book of Tobit are both people who cannot -- by nature or situation -- fit into the universal by complying with social morality. I wonder, if Abraham had killed Isaac and not received him back, if this would place him in the category of the Demonic or simply a deranged murderer. Søren certainly provides the option of the murderer (hanged or institutionalized) for his contemporary parishioner in the book. The TSE forumulation makes it clear that there is certainly no place for someone acting as Abraham within the bounds of the ethical/social morality.

    Well I do recall about him was that in his personal life, he was in love with a young woman and he was I forget - either engaged or close to engaged to her and he became more enamoured of his Knight of Faith than he was of her and he deliberately cut her off, even though he was completely in love with her, in order to prove himself the Knight.

    She got mad at him and transferred her affections to another man and married him, and Soren was salty about it for a long time afterwards.

    So - there's that.

    AFF


  • Telford wrote: »
    Abraham probably regarded Isaac as a gift from God in his old age. He possibly reckoned that if God gave the gift he could take it away.
    I think it’s very much the case that Abraham regarded Isaac as a gift in his old age, but there seems to me to be more to it. The promise to Abraham was that through Isaac he would of Abraham a great nation, with descendants as numerous as the stars. Obviously if Isaac is killed, that means no descendants. So it seems to me that any trust is founded in faith that God will keep his promise, and therefore, faith that Isaac will somehow live.

    I’m afraid I can add nothing with regard to Kierkegaard. Sorry for intruding.

  • Well I do recall about him was that in his personal life, he was in love with a young woman and he was I forget - either engaged or close to engaged to her and he became more enamoured of his Knight of Faith than he was of her and he deliberately cut her off, even though he was completely in love with her, in order to prove himself the Knight.

    She got mad at him and transferred her affections to another man and married him, and Soren was salty about it for a long time afterwards.

    So - there's that.

    AFF

    Yes. Her name was Regine Olsen.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I’m afraid I can add nothing with regard to Kierkegaard. Sorry for intruding.

    Not at all. Kierkegaard's use of the Abraham/Isaac story was arguably a little off-base(*), but it is the story he used, so it's important to have a good handle on the details.

    (*) For example, he seems to assume that Abraham's society woulda had the exact same moral view of human sacrifice as 19th Century Denmark did, but according to my prof, this was likely not true.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kendel, I'm 110% sure you're right about Søren, but I don't need him to focus me on the horror. I'm sorry, but what horror did he know? I know he must have known horror, we all do if we live long enough, even privileged lives like his. You certainly have. Me too. Having an upturned bucket list week as we speak.

    No real, if He were, God is involved. No God as He would be is involved here. I'm sorry but I find it all - him all, Søren - so pretentious. Not the discussion. Not the parties here, God forbid, far from it. But I find him all empty. Irrelevant, God or no.

    The obscenely graphic words of our beautiful company accountant in my last software house came to mind way back on this. It's a load of ****. A very English sexual obscenity.

    I know you don't.
    I'm sorry you find him all so pretentious, empty and irrelevant.

    My impression is that, at least at commonly-held face-value, his work offends you. In this case, I think the offense has been deflected by the common and landed at the wrong target. As I read his work, I often think I see someone you might have found a sympathetic pain in the ass, a worthy peer in the war of words, and possibly wit, a soul-brother who is your opposite and twin.

    He was overtly Christian; no question. And he, in many ways like you, confronted the vapid, comfortable, selfish, self-perpetuating version of christianity that he lived with and did it head on. Taking on the state church and the social comfort of his society cost him a lot. But not everything. He died at 42, not long before his money would have run out. He got out of a lot, but his life of suffering was rather front loaded as well.

    There is a lot for me to learn about him and his work. I'm not convinced that he will teach me what I hope to find; I am spelunking.
    So far I find his overtly religious works of more value, and I find myself regularly disagreeing with people who know his works like Fear and Trembling better than I do. I think they miss the point/purpose of the work. The point I see of Fear and Trembling is what he later says with far greater clarity at the end of his life: "You all (state church, clergy and laity) don't have a clue what christianity of the New Testament is, what faith is and what the enormous, crushing cost is that goes with them! The church as we know it today is a sham, and it needs to be abolished."

    If you've read this through, you've heard me out. It's your turn.

    Can I ask what it is that you find so pretentious, empty and irrelevant?

  • Kendel wrote: »

    Well I do recall about him was that in his personal life, he was in love with a young woman and he was I forget - either engaged or close to engaged to her and he became more enamoured of his Knight of Faith than he was of her and he deliberately cut her off, even though he was completely in love with her, in order to prove himself the Knight.

    She got mad at him and transferred her affections to another man and married him, and Soren was salty about it for a long time afterwards.

    So - there's that.

    AFF
    stetson wrote: »
    Yes. Her name was Regine Olsen.

    Our man, Søren deliberately drove her off, after trying to convince her they should break up. She was heart-broken, but he was so cold to her, that she finally decided the engagement was hopeless. Her brother even tried to pressure SK into changing his mind and failed.

    Kierkegaard seems to have spent the rest of his life and journal entries, and publications ruminating over this. Not someone to let things go easily, even when he was the intentional, active agent. He seemed to have loved her but didn't see how he could accomplish what he thought he needed to do as a married man.

    From what I've read in 2ndary literature his asceticism is not often discussed, but this move and many others seem to indicate that it was a key force in his thinking.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited September 2023
    Kendel wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kendel, I'm 110% sure you're right about Søren, but I don't need him to focus me on the horror. I'm sorry, but what horror did he know? I know he must have known horror, we all do if we live long enough, even privileged lives like his. You certainly have. Me too. Having an upturned bucket list week as we speak.

    No real, if He were, God is involved. No God as He would be is involved here. I'm sorry but I find it all - him all, Søren - so pretentious. Not the discussion. Not the parties here, God forbid, far from it. But I find him all empty. Irrelevant, God or no.

    The obscenely graphic words of our beautiful company accountant in my last software house came to mind way back on this. It's a load of ****. A very English sexual obscenity.

    I know you don't.
    I'm sorry you find him all so pretentious, empty and irrelevant.

    My impression is that, at least at commonly-held face-value, his work offends you. In this case, I think the offense has been deflected by the common and landed at the wrong target. As I read his work, I often think I see someone you might have found a sympathetic pain in the ass, a worthy peer in the war of words, and possibly wit, a soul-brother who is your opposite and twin.

    He was overtly Christian; no question. And he, in many ways like you, confronted the vapid, comfortable, selfish, self-perpetuating version of christianity that he lived with and did it head on. Taking on the state church and the social comfort of his society cost him a lot. But not everything. He died at 42, not long before his money would have run out. He got out of a lot, but his life of suffering was rather front loaded as well.

    There is a lot for me to learn about him and his work. I'm not convinced that he will teach me what I hope to find; I am spelunking.
    So far I find his overtly religious works of more value, and I find myself regularly disagreeing with people who know his works like Fear and Trembling better than I do. I think they miss the point/purpose of the work. The point I see of Fear and Trembling is what he later says with far greater clarity at the end of his life: "You all (state church, clergy and laity) don't have a clue what christianity of the New Testament is, what faith is and what the enormous, crushing cost is that goes with them! The church as we know it today is a sham, and it needs to be abolished."

    If you've read this through, you've heard me out. It's your turn.

    Can I ask what it is that you find so pretentious, empty and irrelevant?

    Of course I've read it out. How could I not? It's from you Kendel. He was a social conservative wasn't he? ChatGPT agrees with me:
    According to some sources, Kierkegaard was a conservative who opposed the liberal and socialist revolutions of his time. He was also critical of the Enlightenment and its emphasis on reason and abstraction over faith and existence. He believed that the single individual was the highest value and that each person should strive to become themselves in relation to God.
    attended the School of Civic Virtue, where he studied Latin and history among other subjects. During his time there he was described as “very conservative”; someone who would "honour the King, love the church and respect the police"
    had a significant impact on some conservative thinkers, such as Carl Schmitt and Eric Voegelin, who admired his attempt to restore the faith and tradition from the disruption of the Enlightenment and the liberal revolutions'
    no friend of the liberal and socialist revolutionaries of his time. He saw them as misguided and dangerous, as they sought to impose their abstract ideals on reality and neglected the individual’s responsibility for their own existence

    also
    he appeared to be a conservative with regard to any movement towards democratisation and equality, opposing liberal democracy as well as socialism, while not refraining from taking up explicitly misogynous positions.
    Cambridge Scholars

    So what can possibly offset that? 'The drama of the individual'?!

    That's at the heart of the pretention.
  • @Martin54

    Sartre took Kierkegaard as his philosophical starting point, but was not a social conservative. So I think in a discussion about philosophy, you need to demonstrate that Kierkegaard's particular philosophy was influenced by his social conservatism, or hold your peace on the matter.

    There is a case to be made that Kierkegaard's notions of the Knight Of Faith are rooted in a hyper-protestant conception of individualistic salvation that is highly compatible with liberal capitalism, but that needs to be demonstrated with reference to the text.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited September 2023
    stetson wrote: »
    @Martin54

    Sartre took Kierkegaard as his philosophical starting point, but was not a social conservative. So I think in a discussion about philosophy, you need to demonstrate that Kierkegaard's particular philosophy was influenced by his social conservatism, or hold your peace on the matter.

    There is a case to be made that Kierkegaard's notions of the Knight Of Faith are rooted in a hyper-protestant conception of individualistic salvation that is highly compatible with liberal capitalism, but that needs to be demonstrated with reference to the text.

    Excellent point. Existentialism per se is neutral obviously. Whence Nietzsche's nihilism. Camus' despair. As is phenomenology neutral, the toolset for dealing with the reality of the subjective? It's not until we get to Frankl and Rogers and Solzhenitsyn that we get to universal human worth in the face of meaninglessness? Maybe Virginia Woolf previously too?

    It's all faith nonsense I was reacting to.
  • KendelKendel Shipmate
    edited September 2023
    I’m listening to the beginning of the Cambridge Scholars book that @Martin54 shared. Outstanding so far.

    From the end of the intro:
    Overall, therefore, the book sets out to challenge the assumption that there are few resources in Kiekegaard for an analysis of the political. It also raises serious doubts about the claim that Kierkegaard focuses on the individual at the expense of the community or the whole. Whilst the collection does not produce a single perspective on Kierkegaard and the political, it provides resources that might indeed challenge the dominant liberal model in political philosophy, of the subject as an abstract and autonomous rational self.
  • greenhousegreenhouse Shipmate Posts: 17
    edited September 2023
    I have heard it suggested that the Isaac sacrifice story was Gods way of teaching that child sacrifice was not his thing. Abraham followed Gods directive because sacrificing a child to the gods was just something that happened. Then up the mountain God provided a different way - this God is not like the old gods.

    Nothing to do with Kierkegaard I don't think, but it's a slant on the story that appeals to me more than the whole God testing Abrahams faith thing.
  • Kendel wrote: »
    I’m listening to the beginning of the Cambridge Scholars book that @Martin54 shared. Outstanding so far.

    From the end of the intro:
    Overall, therefore, the book sets out to challenge the assumption that there are few resources in Kiekegaard for an analysis of the political. It also raises serious doubts about the claim that Kierkegaard focuses on the individual at the expense of the community or the whole. Whilst the collection does not produce a single perspective on Kierkegaard and the political, it provides resources that might indeed challenge the dominant liberal model in political philosophy, of the subject as an abstract and autonomous rational self.

    On one episode of the 80s sitcom Family Ties, Stephen, the dad, was helping Jennifer, the youngest daughter, with a paper on Kierkegaard. Stephen, ever the earnest left-liberal, tried to convince Jennifer that Kierkegaard actually evinces a concern for the welfare of society, whereas Jennifer remained steadfast that he was focussed entirely on the individual against society.

    At the time, I thought Jennifer was correct and Stephen was wrong. Still pretty much do, as far as a narrow focus on Kierkegaard goes. Sartre did take the ideas in a more social direction, arguing that in making any choice, you are choosing the kind of world you want to live in, from which Sartre concluded that the most authentic political choice was marxism.
  • greenhouse wrote: »
    I have heard it suggested that the Isaac sacrifice story was Gods way of teaching that child sacrifice was not his thing. Abraham followed Gods directive because sacrificing a child to the gods was just something that happened. Then up the mountain God provided a different way - this God is not like the old gods.

    Nothing to do with Kierkegaard I don't think, but it's a slant on the story that appeals to me more than the whole God testing Abrahams faith thing.

    Actually, this backs up my prof's observation(mentioned above) that Kierkegaard had an inaccurate understanding of the way Abraham's co-religionists woulda regarded human sacrifice.

    If, as you imply, attitudes toward human sacrifice were in a state of flux during the period portrayed in Genesis 22, then Abraham's willingness to obey God's command wasn't quite the singular rejection of conventional morality that Kierkegaard wanted it to be.

    Of course, taking Kierkegaard's portrayal of that world as (unintentional)fiction still allows us to regard the Abraham of Fear And Trembling as a stand-in for the solitary individual making ethical choices, which is the real importance of the book for philosophers.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Abraham probably regarded Isaac as a gift from God in his old age. He possibly reckoned that if God gave the gift he could take it away.
    I think it’s very much the case that Abraham regarded Isaac as a gift in his old age, but there seems to me to be more to it. The promise to Abraham was that through Isaac he would of Abraham a great nation, with descendants as numerous as the stars. Obviously if Isaac is killed, that means no descendants. So it seems to me that any trust is founded in faith that God will keep his promise, and therefore, faith that Isaac will somehow live.

    I’m afraid I can add nothing with regard to Kierkegaard. Sorry for intruding.
    I thought that promise was made after God stopped the sacrifice
  • greenhouse wrote: »
    I have heard it suggested that the Isaac sacrifice story was Gods way of teaching that child sacrifice was not his thing. Abraham followed Gods directive because sacrificing a child to the gods was just something that happened. Then up the mountain God provided a different way - this God is not like the old gods.
    I believe that is a traditional rabbinic interpretation.

    I’m reminded that the Binding of Isaac would have been read in synagogues a week ago, on the second day of Rosh Hashanah. And I’m reminded of the way I’ve heard Rob Bell suggest approaching these stories: Rather than asking “Why did God do this?,” we can ask “Why did people continue to tell this story? Why did someone think it was important enough to write down?”

  • I think there's a lot of mental illness in the Bible and this episode in Abraham's life is just one example.
  • In Armstrongism we obsessed over making every jot and tittle of the TaNaKh only work as literally, as claimed as... 'rationally' possible. So YEC was the only thing that was right out, pure poetry. And of course it's easy to make work over 5 billion years. All in 'the light of Christ'. It felt like 80% of the sermons were on the OT.

    Including Abraham and Isaac of course. And what we read back in to that was that Abraham believed that God would resurrect Isaac, and not necessarily in his lifetime. I see no evidence for that in the text whatsoever of course.

    No more whacky than Søren. Or any attempt to make the OT work in the 'light' of the NT, or even the NT itself.
  • A Feminine ForceA Feminine Force Shipmate
    edited September 2023
    Martin54 wrote: »

    No real, if He were, God is involved. No God as He would be is involved here. I'm sorry but I find it all - him all, Søren - so pretentious. Not the discussion. Not the parties here, God forbid, far from it. But I find him all empty. Irrelevant, God or no.

    Well and here is the very ancient and venerable struggle with Free Will and The Problem of Evil.

    Which I contended with in my undergrad years as a Philosophy major - a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

    The logical conclusion for my twenty year old self was quite unsettling until I realized that the premises were flawed. Something needed to be redefined - Either God, Evil or Free Will. Or all of the above.

    Existentialism was the first step I took to look for definitions beyond the circumscription of conventional ethics and religious thought. I've since completely reformed my perceptions of the mechanics of reality and that has come about through the redefinition of "all of the above".

    That being said, Kierkegaard was for me the first stepping stone to point up the ultimate responsibility of the human being for his agency in his own life in the face of Forces (divine, and social) that presented him with "decision points".

    AFF

  • @stetson you asked at the beginning of this thread:
    What exactly does Kierkegaard mean by saying that Abraham, in obeying God's command to sacrifice Isaac, does so knowing that he will get Isaac back?
    I did a little digging around and found this good overview of F&T in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Trembling.
    I had forgotten about, in the “Preliminary Expectoration”, the descriptions of “greatness” and that one is great in measure with the greatness of one’s expectations, etc, etc. This is discussed in the article section on “Structure.” I don’t remember if there are any other places in F&T where SK says that Abraham “knew” that God would return Isaac to him. Certainly, as one held up a s the exemplar Knight of Faith, it is assumed; expecting the desire fulfilled in this life is part of SK’s definition of faith, at least in F&T.

    Certainly, the idea came from the Bible:
    Hebrews 11:17-20
    17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. 20 By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau.
    stetson wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I’m afraid I can add nothing with regard to Kierkegaard. Sorry for intruding.

    Not at all. Kierkegaard's use of the Abraham/Isaac story was arguably a little off-base(*), but it is the story he used, so it's important to have a good handle on the details.

    (*) For example, he seems to assume that Abraham's society woulda had the exact same moral view of human sacrifice as 19th Century Denmark did, but according to my prof, this was likely not true.

    “Off-base” seems about right. It seems like Kierkegaard had thought about the story as well as how it’s preached, and received by the (sleepy) congregation, how it could be adapted for use as an example that demonstrates a christianized version of the hegelian relationship of a person to society as well as to himself and God….My take is that the story of the Binding is a tool for SK. He molded it as needed to accomplish a goal. This is not “biblicism” as I know it.

    I haven’t read any of his dairies yet, but I am interested to know how (assuming he did) he worked out the ideas that show up in F&T.

    One of my biggest questions related to F&T is: To what degree does the book reflect what SK actually thought and about what? There are a number of places where it seems like the author behind the author is showing through. But how to be sure. I suspect that is part of the point, the uncertainty on the part of the reader, created by the vacillation between author and “author.”

    The book sample that @Martin54 shared is worth listening to. It reviews the ways various aspects of SK’s thought has been considered and used by contemporary thinkers in relation to the political.

    Martin and the book sample bring up an important question. When we read someone from outside our time or culture how much “grace” do we give them in order to read fairly.
    Well I do recall

    AFF, I’m having trouble tagging you, so I’ll try a partial quote just for the tag.
    You mentioned in the Leap thread that Kierkegaard was important to your faith. I haven’t read enough of his work yet, or that of other existentialists, to have a feel for why. If you would feel comfortable talking more about it, I think this would be an important contribution to the discussion.

    If anyone needs a copy of this book, an older (Lowrie) translation of Fear and Trembling is available here:
    https://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikelen/Engels/101. Fear and Trembling book Kierkegaard.pdf.

    There are also many Kierkegaard texts available in Internet Archive: www.archive.org .

    Good grief! This is long!
    Gold star if you read it all.
  • I'm glad @A Feminine Force (AFF).

    Of course the writer of Hebrews projected back on to Abraham

    Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

    With no evidence whatsoever.
  • I've since completely reformed my perceptions of the mechanics of reality and that has come about through the redefinition of "all of the above".

    This helps me understand why SK is so valued. Reforming perceptions of the mechanics of reality and redefining “all of the above” seem like a massive project. What were the results?
  • A Feminine ForceA Feminine Force Shipmate
    edited September 2023
    Kendel wrote: »

    This helps me understand why SK is so valued. Reforming perceptions of the mechanics of reality and redefining “all of the above” seem like a massive project. What were the results?

    It didn't happen overnight as you might well suppose, and was the result not just of polling sifting and sorting other people's ideas, but also of personal insights gained from questions posed to, and answered by, my life experiences.

    The result has been, for me, an entirely coherent and rational framework that permits me to have my being within an infinite monadic consciousness, an Ineffable Oneness of Being whose essence is a field of attention that is Love, but also permits me to accept my full responsibility for my individual being, agency and participation in the doing of "the horrors" that Martin speaks of.

    The eventual result is that nothing that is done shall remain unaccounted for and that everything works its way toward its own resolution through our continued voluntary and creative participation in reality via the availability of an eternal resource of consciousness animating matter. Which process is overseen and facilitated by the Christ consciousness.

    Tried to keep it short here there's a lot to unpack.

    AFF

  • I guess it could be put most succinctly as

    Everything is Love in the service of Sacred Experience.

    AFF
  • It was a big ask. You summed up your process and results beautifully.
    It's helpful to hear other people's stories, although they cannot be appropriated. At least not with any honesty.
    Thank you.
    K
  • Kendel wrote: »
    It was a big ask. You summed up your process and results beautifully.
    It's helpful to hear other people's stories, although they cannot be appropriated. At least not with any honesty.
    Thank you.
    K

    Thank you for asking. (hugs)

    I always feel that whatever works for you is fair game. Thank "God" for Kierkegaard - set me on a course of inquiry and gave me the concept of the Knight of Faith no matter how absurd the concept is in practice, it has actually proven useful to me over time in the most exigent circumstances.

    Plus the idea of the hazards of the Comfortable Pew - because Christianity in its actual practice is by no means a "kindergarten religion" though it's scorned by "modern interdisciplinary thinkers" as such.

    I agree that Kierkegaard struggled mightily with the social mores of his time. I think he really believed in his own perception of the Knight of Faith but I think he was completely unprepared for the actual human cost of proving his experiment.

    So if I were to share all the lines of questioning and answers that I undertook for more than two decades to arrive at my conclusions I wouldn't fear its appropriation any more than Kierkegaard would have because in the end - we only take the pieces we can use anyway. It's the process that is sacred - the EXPERIENCE - of receiving the revelations from our own divine intelligence in cooperation with others' - that is most important. Those AHA moments are our birthright.

    AFF
  • AFF, very enjoyable stuff. I arrived at something similar, after I left Christianity, via meditation, etc. Long story, but I phrase it in terms of non-duality. Same difference, I think.
  • And ((AFF)), I'm very glad it worked and works for you. Believe me.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Abraham probably regarded Isaac as a gift from God in his old age. He possibly reckoned that if God gave the gift he could take it away.
    I think it’s very much the case that Abraham regarded Isaac as a gift in his old age, but there seems to me to be more to it. The promise to Abraham was that through Isaac he would of Abraham a great nation, with descendants as numerous as the stars. Obviously if Isaac is killed, that means no descendants. So it seems to me that any trust is founded in faith that God will keep his promise, and therefore, faith that Isaac will somehow live.

    I’m afraid I can add nothing with regard to Kierkegaard. Sorry for intruding.
    I thought that promise was made after God stopped the sacrifice

    It was reaffirmed after the stopping of the sacrifice in Genesis 22 but it was originally made in Genesis 15, before Abram had had any children, and then in Genesis 17 it is specified that the line of descent will be through Isaac rather than Ishmael (somewhat against Abraham's wishes, as it comes across in the text).
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    And ((AFF)), I'm very glad it worked and works for you. Believe me.

    Thank you ((Martin)). I am too.

    AFF


  • Has anyone read beyond F&T and Either/Or? While those and other pseudonymous works get the most attention, SK’s purpose for and techniques used in them deliberately obscure his real thinking. (Reader beware) Any interest in talking about things beyond those?

    Personal interest takes me to the late, signed Attack pieces and his spiritual works, but I’m interested in reading (and discussing) widely, if there’s anyone to discuss with.

    Fodder from Kierkegaard and the New Nationalism by Thomas Millay (2022):

    “The lie of Christendom, so far as Kierkegaard understood it, was to tell the itching ears of its audience that precisely the opposite was the case; that in fact you could have it all, that you could be happy in this life and the next. Such a lie thrives only when complicity with evil which rules this world is (consciously or unconsciously) accepted, for it is that evil which makes earthly comforts available. Kierkegaard is here to remind us that the true Christian cannot accept such complicity; she lives in solidarity with the abased Christ.

    The true Christians’ life is marked by suffering: it begins in the renuciation of this world which includes a thumbing of one’s nose at one’s nation, especially insofar as one’s nation has pretentions to greatness…..The Christian life is a renunciation, then, of the comfortable and happy life which the thriving modern nation-state promises and can on occasion deliver. It is marked by the sufferings inherent in such a renuncation. But, as Kierkegaard’s stark voice reminds us, these sufferings are a small price to pay when salvation is at stake.” (p. xii)
  • Kendel wrote: »

    “The lie of Christendom, so far as Kierkegaard understood it, was to tell the itching ears of its audience that precisely the opposite was the case; that in fact you could have it all, that you could be happy in this life and the next. Such a lie thrives only when complicity with evil which rules this world is (consciously or unconsciously) accepted, for it is that evil which makes earthly comforts available. Kierkegaard is here to remind us that the true Christian cannot accept such complicity; she lives in solidarity with the abased Christ.

    The true Christians’ life is marked by suffering: it begins in the renuciation of this world which includes a thumbing of one’s nose at one’s nation, especially insofar as one’s nation has pretentions to greatness…..The Christian life is a renunciation, then, of the comfortable and happy life which the thriving modern nation-state promises and can on occasion deliver. It is marked by the sufferings inherent in such a renuncation. But, as Kierkegaard’s stark voice reminds us, these sufferings are a small price to pay when salvation is at stake.” (p. xii)

    This seems to me to be congruent with the grift of the prosperity gospel that so popular in some parts of the world. I guess some things never change.

    I read Kierkegaard in my youth. I didn't understand Kierkegaard until my life gave me the opportunity to live and test the principles for myself.

    There's nothing comfortable about being in the world but not of it. I often say it's like receiving a life saving operation without anaesthesia. I heartily recommend the outcome but I don't recommend the process.

    But I do believe, because I'm living it, that salvation (Salve: the healing of the affliction) is attainable at least in part in the here and now. It's not ALL suffering and denial - after all we pray for the kingdom here and now, as it is in heaven. It's only partly about the self negation IMO. The other part is about forgiveness and integration and Kierkegaard doesn't seem to have a lot to say about that. But maybe he does and I just didn't read that stuff.

    AFF

  • @Kendel

    Just so you know, my reading of Kierkegaard is confined to FaT, a few anthologized passages(maybe from Concluding Unscientific Postscript?), and classroom lectures. So that's what I've been relying on here, and will probably continue to do so.
Sign In or Register to comment.