Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot
He was not afraid to die, oh, brave Sir Robin
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off
And his penis split and his—
Sir Robin
That's, that's enough music for now, lads
From the same team that introduced one to Kierkegaard of course.
Well it seems like you are saying that church teaching is better than the version offered in explanation in F&T. Even though the church version requires quite a lot of reading into the text.
Well it seems like you are saying that church teaching is better than the version offered in explanation in F&T. Even though the church version requires quite a lot of reading into the text.
You mean the church's teaching that it's all just a test? I wouldn't say that's neccesarily better, just that it's easier for the average person to accept.
And it's not really a case of two different teachings, but rather two different emphases.
Well it seems like you are saying that church teaching is better than the version offered in explanation in F&T. Even though the church version requires quite a lot of reading into the text.
You mean the church's teaching that it's all just a test? I wouldn't say that's neccesarily better, just that it's easier for the average person to accept.
And it's not really a case of two different teachings, but rather two different emphases.
I think it's a bad story; the church emphasises one thing and F&T another. Either way, it is still a bad story.
I'm lost why we think this is Kierkegaardian. Surely it is *Christian*
Is there anything anywhere in the bible saying you shouldn't follow the example of Abraham?
Well, I think the kierkegaardian criticism of most Christendom-rooted interpretations of Abraham and Isaac is that they try to reassure us that in the end, it was all just a test: "Oh, don't worry, God would never actually let Abraham go through with it."
Well, the text does explicitly say it was a test: “After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’” (Gen. 22:1–2)
And it is at least suggested in the text that Abraham trusts that God will not let him go through with it: “Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘Father!’ And he said, ‘Here I am, my son.’ He said, ‘The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’ Abraham said, ‘God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ So the two of them walked on together.” (Gen. 22:7–8) Abraham doesn’t say something like “Don’t worry about that,” or “It’s taken care of.” He says “God will provide the lamb.”
Back to my enduring question: What does Kierkegaard mean to accomplish by presenting us with this book?
The way the reader receives this text entirely changes the meaning.
For (a tiny sample of readings) example:
Is it straight essay? Abraham is the best. Go and do likewise. God will give you a pass even if no one else understands.
How does such a reading affect our reception of other aspects of the book?
Is it a critical parody, and of what or whom?
The pastor/church says one thing on Sunday, but they expect the congregation to act differently on Monday. How does this reading affect other aspects of the book?
Additionally, is the book a unified whole? Or is the perspective inconsistent, and how do we know?
If as @MaryLouise mentioned, it is part of an ongoing conversation between books and "authors" it seems reasonable to consider F&T as complete as an eavesdropped phone call or one letter out of a long string of correspondence.
The claim of the book at face value seems so outrageous to me, I can't imagine it having any value on it's own. I thi k that is also clear from this discussion.
In addition to a wary reading of the book, we need more information. Or Abraham and Kierkegaard are lost. As well as we. And the other ones, too.
The claim of the book at face value seems so outrageous to me, I can't imagine it having any value on it's own. I thi k that is also clear from this discussion.
Looking back on my own history with FaT, I think I always figured the main point was something like "If you want to be a true Christian, you should be as ready to believe in the Incarnation, with all of its absurdity, as Abraham was to believe in the command to kill Isaac, with all of its absurdity."
In fact, I seem to recall a passage in the book where Kierkegaard essentially says to Christians: "Sure, it's easy to believe God walked the earth as Jesus 2 000 years ago, but if someone was making that claim now, you'd think he was a lunatic."
The claim of the book at face value seems so outrageous to me, I can't imagine it having any value on it's own. I thi k that is also clear from this discussion.
Looking back on my own history with FaT, I think I always figured the main point was something like "If you want to be a true Christian, you should be as ready to believe in the Incarnation, with all of its absurdity, as Abraham was to believe in the command to kill Isaac, with all of its absurdity."
In fact, I seem to recall a passage in the book where Kierkegaard essentially says to Christians: "Sure, it's easy to believe God walked the earth as Jesus 2 000 years ago, but if someone was making that claim now, you'd think he was a lunatic."
Hmmmm. Could you show me that page? I don't remember that one in F&T.
I don’t think so—by which I mean I don’t think that’s how the writers of the story intend for us to read or hear it. Rather, I’d say the intent is that we see that Abraham trusted. He trusted that if he did as he was told to do, somehow it would be okay. But I don’t think we’re supposed to see it as play-acting, because I think we’re to understand that Abraham knew that if his trust was misplaced, the consequences of that misplaced trust would be terrible.
The claim of the book at face value seems so outrageous to me, I can't imagine it having any value on it's own. I thi k that is also clear from this discussion.
Looking back on my own history with FaT, I think I always figured the main point was something like "If you want to be a true Christian, you should be as ready to believe in the Incarnation, with all of its absurdity, as Abraham was to believe in the command to kill Isaac, with all of its absurdity."
In fact, I seem to recall a passage in the book where Kierkegaard essentially says to Christians: "Sure, it's easy to believe God walked the earth as Jesus 2 000 years ago, but if someone was making that claim now, you'd think he was a lunatic."
Hmmmm. Could you show me that page? I don't remember that one in F&T.
I'll skim through it tonight and see if I can find it. POSSIBLY, it's not from FaT, but I don't think it woulda been anthologizef in a philosophy textbook, which is mostly where I've seen other Kierkegaard quotes.
It's the third-to-last paragraph of Problem 1. And it doesn't explicitly say we'd think He was a lunatic, just that we would understand it if someone at the time did not believe it.
... I do not judge severely those who were mistaken...
You mean Christ didn't prove it? Assuming that he didn't(*)
What's the asterisk for? No assumption is necessary. Unless the proof has been lost. Which is absurd. Christ proves nothing. Or the absurdity of faith in Him, exemplified by absurd, irrelevant, meaningless Jewish examples, wouldn't be impossibly, meaninglessly 'necessary'.
It's the third-to-last paragraph of Problem 1. And it doesn't explicitly say we'd think Jesus was a lunatic, just that we would understand it if someone at the time did not believe Him.
... I do not judge severely those who were mistaken...
I don’t think so—by which I mean I don’t think that’s how the writers of the story intend for us to read or hear it. Rather, I’d say the intent is that we see that Abraham trusted. He trusted that if he did as he was told to do, somehow it would be okay. But I don’t think we’re supposed to see it as play-acting, because I think we’re to understand that Abraham knew that if his trust was misplaced, the consequences of that misplaced trust would be terrible.
I don’t think so—by which I mean I don’t think that’s how the writers of the story intend for us to read or hear it. Rather, I’d say the intent is that we see that Abraham trusted. He trusted that if he did as he was told to do, somehow it would be okay. But I don’t think we’re supposed to see it as play-acting, because I think we’re to understand that Abraham knew that if his trust was misplaced, the consequences of that misplaced trust would be terrible.
Actually, I think "He trusted that if he did as he was told to do, somehow it would be okay" comes pretty close to the kierkegaardian formulation that Abraham knew he would get Isaac back. Especially with your "somehow" in there, which seems to indicate that Abraham had no clue in hell how it could happen, he just trusted in the idea(absurd to Kierkegaard) that it would.
But I think that assumes "God himself will provide the burnt offering" DOESN'T mean that Abraham fully expected the killing of Isaac to be called off by God. FWIW, I'm actually reading the Panegyric Upon Abraham right now, and in it, Kierkegaard emphasizes that Abraham never knew that the ram was there on the mountain until the angel pointed it out to him.
Belated thanks for the idea of Mary giving up Jesus to death as an example of a Knight Of Faith knowing that they will get someone back, ie. via the Resurrection.
Now, granted, I'm not 100% convinced that Mary a) actually gave Jesus up(*), or b) knew she'd be getting Him back. But the Resurrection by itself seems like a pretty good illustration of the concept of "getting someone back" in a fittingly absurd manner.
(*) She had no control over what either the Sanhedrin or the Romans did, and in any case, had never been told that he'd be crucified in the first place.
Insomnia..
Which seems to me to leave a quandary; if an ethical code predicated on thousands of years of Christianity becomes accepted as a/the Universal Ethical, how can the Religious (as suggested in F&T) be identified? If everyone in Denmark is Christian and is operating within the same mindset, how are they able to recognise and appreciate the TSoE?.
Clearly these modes were of great importance to SK's thinking. I do wonder how well the 3 modes of life (aesthetic/ethical/religious) reflect the reality of life for most people, but that's a different question -- maybe. And again, in what way such a modal classification system is of practical use. Perhaps for self-reflection, which SK clearly valued. Otherwise, I'm not sure what purpose identifying any of the modes serves. You know? Maybe someone can answer. I really doubt that SK was seeking to use them to come up with thought experiments.
You mentioned ethical code. I think good variation is: was the ethical code that SK calls "the universal" as well as "the church" reflective of what he later calls New Testament Christianity? The attack literature makes it very clear that he sees them as entirely different things. A public reply from the new bishop Martensen in the Fatherland newspaper indicates Martensen's view that the church is at its best as a state institution. Kierkegaard also indicates that it was a money-making operation, requiring fees for ever "service" involved in regular Christian practice (baptism to burial). His association with the church and money in the attack literature is relentless as well as his emphasis that the church prevents a Christian from seeking FIRST God's kingdom.
At least 4 times in F&T, a similar phrase is repeated. This one is from the end of Problema II (easy to find):
So either there is an absolute duty toward God, and if there is, it is the paradox that has been described: that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal and as the single individual stands in an absolute relation to the absolute—or else faith has never existed because it has always existed, or else Abraham is lost, or else one must explain the passage in Luke 14 as did that tasteful exegete, and in the same way explain the similar passages x and those like it.
SK. F&T. Kirmmse trans. pp. 98 & 99.
I keep coming back to these quotes, because they're hard to understand, but I think they are indicating exactly what you are asking about: If what is understood by the masses and the clergy to be faith is nothing like real faith, faith doesn't exist. Because it's just ethics.
This formula also repeatedly explains that faith is something between an individual in direct relation with God -- no middlemen, no mediation, absolutely immediate.
Second, if we are saying that (according to de Silencio) the Religious phase can only be obtained by a "leap of faith" which propels the Knight from being in Infinite Resignation to Faith, how is it possible for those who have not made the leap to recognise the positive value of the TSoE given that they're still operating within the Ethical and thus should hate/misunderstand it?
Brilliant! Yes!
I mean, no. They can't. I think the formula, the entire "system" de silentio describes demonstrates that that recognition is impossible without some sort of direct communion with God. And considering the uselessness of the church in SK's mind, I think we might be getting a direct communication from our man himself.
This is from The Lily of the Field and the Bird of the Air: Three Christian Discourses.
I think it is one of the clearest examples of SK's own thinking (in a signed work) about how one is in relationship with God, and becomes aware of it.:
There was something that was very much on his mind, a matter that was so important for him to have God understand properly; he was afraid that he might have forgotten something in his prayer—alas, and if he had forgotten it, he was afraid that God would not have remembered it on his own: therefore, he wanted to gather his thoughts and pray truly fervently. And then, if he in fact prayed truly fervently, what happened to him? Something strange and wonderful happened to him: gradually, as he became more and more fervent in prayer, he had less and less to say, and finally he became entirely silent. He became silent. Indeed, he became what is, if possible, even more the opposite of talking than silence: he became a listener. He had thought that to pray was to talk; he learned that to pray is not only to keep silent, but to listen. And that is how it is: to pray is not to listen to oneself speak, but is to come to keep silent, and to continue keeping silent, to wait, until the person who prays hears God.
If Kierkegaard is hiding behind the curtain and sniggering, what is his point?
That Christianity can't have the cake (divine revelation) but also eat it (Christendom)?
My impression is that this Lyrical Dialect with a warning of hidden meaning, which starts out in the first of three prefaces with a dare to read it can be taken a bit like Christ's parables and the warning: "He who has ears let him hear." Those who seek to examine their own hearts will take the time and trouble to work through it and submit to the real author's (Kierkegaard's) tutelage.
I think the emphasis on "task of a lifetime" throughout the book and particularly in contrast with concepts like "going further (than faith)" "at a bargain price" etc (It's late. I'm not thinking of the others) help emphasize that Christianity is available to those willing to work to find it and do it, but not through the church as it existed in his lifetime.
The claim of the book at face value seems so outrageous to me, I can't imagine it having any value on it's own. I thi k that is also clear from this discussion.
Looking back on my own history with FaT, I think I always figured the main point was something like "If you want to be a true Christian, you should be as ready to believe in the Incarnation, with all of its absurdity, as Abraham was to believe in the command to kill Isaac, with all of its absurdity."
In fact, I seem to recall a passage in the book where Kierkegaard essentially says to Christians: "Sure, it's easy to believe God walked the earth as Jesus 2 000 years ago, but if someone was making that claim now, you'd think he was a lunatic."
It's the third-to-last paragraph of Problem 1. And it doesn't explicitly say we'd think Jesus was a lunatic, just that we would understand it if someone at the time did not believe Him.
... I do not judge severely those who were mistaken...
Thanks, @stetson . That helps. I'd forgotten that bit, and it was one that I understood mostly. But then....
So here's the text. It follows a discussion of the greatness of the tragic hero; Mary is brought in in the context of greatness [Notice how de silentio is just vague enough in this mention of Mary NOT to say she's a KoF? Tricky. He does this trick a number of times, none of which I can remember or quote right now.]; the we are back to the poet and the tragic hero and greatness and then to the God man:
...But what is greater than all this is what the knight of faith dares say, even to the noble person who would weep over him: Weep not for me, but weep for yourself.
One is moved; one longs to go back to those beautiful days; sweet, sentimental longings lead one to the desired goal: to see Christ walk about in the Promised Land. One forgets the anxiety, the agony, the paradox.Was it so easy not to be mistaken? Was it not frightful that this person, who went about among the others, that he was God? Was it not frightful to sit at table with him? Was it so easy a matter to become an apostle? But the outcome, the eighteen centuries, that helps, it helps enable this shabby deception with which one deceives oneself and others. I do not feel that I have the courage to wish myself contemporary with such events, but I therefore do not pass harsh judgment upon those who erred, nor do I think ill of those who saw rightly.
He's emphasizing the frightfulness of being Christ, of being around Christ, of being an apostle. Right? I don't see anything in the main part of the paragraph that indicates disbelief, but the frightfulness of the situation, even for an apostle. And then he points out the 1800 years (from Christ to SK) that help enable the shabby deception. The shabby deception is the church, isn't it?
In fact, I seem to recall a passage in the book where Kierkegaard essentially says to Christians: "Sure, it's easy to believe God walked the earth as Jesus 2 000 years ago, but if someone was making that claim now, you'd think he was a lunatic."
I'm not sure what here supports the reading you suggest. Even in the last sentence, where de silentio mentions "those who erred" -- which I take to be those who didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ, was God incarnate -- as well as "those who saw rightly" Jds says he withholds judgement.
I don’t think so—by which I mean I don’t think that’s how the writers of the story intend for us to read or hear it. Rather, I’d say the intent is that we see that Abraham trusted. He trusted that if he did as he was told to do, somehow it would be okay. But I don’t think we’re supposed to see it as play-acting, because I think we’re to understand that Abraham knew that if his trust was misplaced, the consequences of that misplaced trust would be terrible.
But I think that assumes "God himself will provide the burnt offering" DOESN'T mean that Abraham fully expected the killing of Isaac to be called off by God. FWIW, I'm actually reading the Panegyric Upon Abraham right now, and in it, Kierkegaard emphasizes that Abraham never knew that the ram was there on the mountain until the angel pointed it out to him.
Yes, Abraham doesn’t seem to notice the ram until it’s pointed out, but it seems to me (and, of course, I may be wrong) that “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering” is an odd thing to say if Abraham expected Isaac to be the burnt offering. Abraham, not God, is “providing” Isaac. Yes, God provided Isaac to Abraham and Sarah to start with, but if that’s the basis for now saying God is providing the offering, then it seems Abraham’s answer would have been “God himself has provided the lamb.”
Yes. My argument, did, in fact,
basically hinge on that one line, PLUS...
"Was it so easy not to be mistaken?"
Which I took to mean that the imagined skeptic has been told certain claims directly by Jesus in person, and rejected them, which Kierkegaard considers a logical thing to do, in a context where logic is considered the final arbiter.
But are you thinking that the passage is simply about the supernatural experience of being in the presence of the Incarnation(and presumably about how that might effect one's judgement)? Because, yeah, my analysis really shortchanged that aspect of it. I do still think he's focusing, at least partly, on the intellectual decision of the skeptic, however.
And, yes, assuming that the "shabby deception" means Christendom's misappropriation of Christ and his gospel, the 1 800 years help that agenda because it's so much easier to get comfortable, middle-class congregants to believe in a world-historical supernatural guy called Jesus if he is said to have lived a long time ago, and is mostly remembered through sermons and art.
But if those same people walked out of the church and on their way to brunch saw a guy saying he was the Second Coming, nany of them would automatically, for whatever reason(intellectual, emotional) reject his claims. And most of us would think that's an understandable decision.
I don't think the shabby deception has neccessarily been going on for 1 800 years. Rather, I think what Kierkegaard means is that the shabby deception USES the 1 800 years(ie. the time gap between the gospels and C19) as a way to make the Incarnation seem more palatable to their comfortable congregants. No need to worry about the sheer terror of it all, it was a long time ago, here, have a pamphlet with a picture of Jesus helping kids feed squirrels.
Now, I'm not exactly sure when Kierkegaard thinks Christendom and its shabby deception DID get going, but it probably doesn't go all the way back to the Early Church, because there woulda been no comforting time-gap in play.
Oh, and good call on Mary not being refered to as a Knight Of Faith in Problem 1.
But comparing the two narratives...
In The Binding Of Isaac, God asks the mature adult Abraham to subject his son to a few seconds of physical torment, followed immediately by death, and after Abraham agrees and begins the task, the whole thing is called off anyway.
In The Annunciation, God skips the parental accomplice and directly requests that a young teenager assent to a task that will deliver her irrevocably into a life checkered with shame, blood-soaked violence, and horrific personal loss, with no subsequent canceling of the misfortunes.
Not saying that either one of the protagonists has a greater or lesser claim than the other to being a Knight Of Faith, but the differences are...interesting.
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
@stetson and @Nick Tamen looking over your discussion ("God will provide a ram.") while thinking about the section on Mary I feel like an idiot. A laughting stock. How did I ot see this connection before?Of course there's an enormous connection between Mary and Abraham by way of their children, isn't there?
"God will provide a ram."
Problema III includes an outstanding discussion of irony, which includes this phrase. The author talks about the use of irony as a way to conceal meaning; a way to say nothing while speaking; a way to remain silent although words are coming from one's mouth.
@stetson your thoughts about eighteen hundred years (sometimes centuries) are interesting. It's a phrase Kierkegaard uses many times just in the selections in my anthology. I'll try to pull some together later and lay them out on the table for examination. They may help -- or not.
I do think you're right about the eighteen hudred years "taking the edges off of Christianity."
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
I always thought that. God had provided a lamb: Isaac (Jesus!). The writer of Hebrews is desperately trying to make the Incarnation believable with the only pathetic examples available. Works fine for the masses.
So I'm about 75% of the way through my re-read of F&T and I reflected back on my uni professor, the venerable Chassidus (which fact I was totally ignorant of at the time) and asked myself "Why F&T in Phil of Religion?"
The professor got to pick the texts and design the syllabus. This business of the binding of Isaac had to be a critically important narrative to him, I wonder if there is a congruence between Kierkegaard and the Chassidic interpretation of the Torah story.
Well, and, so it seems to me there is.
And the Chassidic and Kierkegaardian interpretations seem to converge on this null-point of self-annihilation through self-sacrifice.
ISTM that what makes the KoF the KoF is the surrender of an operating identity in obedience to a call from the beyond. How Abraham was willing to be known in present or posterity as a "child abuser" in return for the opportunity to sacrifice his identification with every one of the promises God had made him leading up to the binding event. How did Abraham spend all his years after this event? As a broken man scorned by his tribe? As a drunk? As a shell of his former self only barely tolerated by his son and wife? The scripture is scarce on the details.
Similarly Mary was willing to sacrifice her socially-cultivated identity and self-perception in submission to the divine invitation.
The terror of self annihilation can only be felt through the extremes of choice that are presented in the TSoE.
@stetson and @Nick Tamen looking over your discussion ("God will provide a ram.") while thinking about the section on Mary I feel like an idiot. A laughting stock. How did I ot see this connection before?Of course there's an enormous connection between Mary and Abraham by way of their children, isn't there?
Indeed, there is. But overlooking it doesn't make you a laughingstock, I don't think. As far as that passage from Problem 1 goes, Kierkegaard doesn't explicitly mention the connection between Isaac and Jesus, and I hadn't really thought of it myself, until this thread.
Thanks for pointing out Problem III as the section with the bit on irony in relation to the line about the lamb. No obligation, but would you happen to remember whereabouts in the section it is(ie. beginning, middle, end)?
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
I always thought that. God had provided a lamb: Isaac (Jesus!). The writer of Hebrews is desperately trying to make the Incarnation believable with the only pathetic examples available. Works fine for the masses.
It occurs to me that the interpretation of Abraham KNOWING that a sheep would replace Isaac fits better with the the theory(mentioned on this thread) that the story is propaganda against human sacrifice, rather than a hymn to obedience or a meditation upon the Knight Of Faith.
Heh. Sacrifice Isaac? What a joker that Yahweh is. Okay, okay, one more for old time's sake. I'll try to look surprised when they hand me the lamb at the end.
Because the theme of a test or a leap into the absurd doesn't really hold together if we're meant to understand that Abraham knew all along that he'd never have to go through with it.
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
I always thought that. God had provided a lamb: Isaac (Jesus!). The writer of Hebrews is desperately trying to make the Incarnation believable with the only pathetic examples available. Works fine for the masses.
It occurs to me that the interpretation of Abraham KNOWING that a sheep would replace Isaac fits better with the the theory(mentioned on this thread) that the story is propaganda against human sacrifice, rather than a hymn to obedience or a meditation upon the Knight Of Faith.
Heh. Sacrifice Isaac? What a joker that Yahweh is. Okay, okay, one more for old time's sake. I'll try to look surprised when they hand me the lamb at the end.
Because the theme of a test or a leap into the absurd doesn't really hold together if we're meant to understand that Abraham knew all along that he'd never have to go through with it.
But it's not such propaganda is it. That would be contrived, anachronistic.
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
I always thought that. God had provided a lamb: Isaac (Jesus!). The writer of Hebrews is desperately trying to make the Incarnation believable with the only pathetic examples available. Works fine for the masses.
It occurs to me that the interpretation of Abraham KNOWING that a sheep would replace Isaac fits better with the the theory(mentioned on this thread) that the story is propaganda against human sacrifice, rather than a hymn to obedience or a meditation upon the Knight Of Faith.
Heh. Sacrifice Isaac? What a joker that Yahweh is. Okay, okay, one more for old time's sake. I'll try to look surprised when they hand me the lamb at the end.
Because the theme of a test or a leap into the absurd doesn't really hold together if we're meant to understand that Abraham knew all along that he'd never have to go through with it.
But it's not such propaganda is it. That would be contrived, anachronistic.
Well, I think a lotta stories in the bible are kinda contrived, no? As for anachronistic, does the story date from a period when human sacrifice had definitely been rendered taboo?
Yep, @stetson . If you go to the online PDF , go to page 58, and start reading at "But now as for Abraham–how did he act?". This follows the end of the discussion of Faust as a doubter, that a doubter may possibly "enter the paradox," and a brief mention of NT uses of irony. I need to review Problema III, or at least sections of it.
There are so many rabbit trails and diversions in this section. The head spins. There's a good deal in this section that I'd love to look over with other readers. Some for clarification and some to savor.
And the Chassidic and Kierkegaardian interpretations seem to converge on this null-point of self-annihilation through self-sacrifice.
........
The terror of self annihilation can only be felt through the extremes of choice that are presented in the TSoE.
AFF
AFF, would you be willing to go over the Chassidic a bit? I don't know a thing about it, so I don't understand the connections are that you're making. Thanks.
@Martin54 a while back you mentioned SK's conservatism, loyalty to the king, unwillingness to support social revolution, etc. and, I think, that you see that as a denial of social justice. I don't have time to look up that post. I hope I caste it accurately.
I wonder about Kierkegaard's historic context, what he was living through and watching. He may certainly have been wrong, classist, a prig. But I am interested in having a fuller picture, before I can settle on some sort of judgement here.
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
I always thought that. God had provided a lamb: Isaac (Jesus!). The writer of Hebrews is desperately trying to make the Incarnation believable with the only pathetic examples available. Works fine for the masses.
It occurs to me that the interpretation of Abraham KNOWING that a sheep would replace Isaac fits better with the the theory(mentioned on this thread) that the story is propaganda against human sacrifice, rather than a hymn to obedience or a meditation upon the Knight Of Faith.
Heh. Sacrifice Isaac? What a joker that Yahweh is. Okay, okay, one more for old time's sake. I'll try to look surprised when they hand me the lamb at the end.
Because the theme of a test or a leap into the absurd doesn't really hold together if we're meant to understand that Abraham knew all along that he'd never have to go through with it.
But it's not such propaganda is it. That would be contrived, anachronistic.
Well, I think a lotta stories in the bible are kinda contrived, no? As for anachronistic, does the story date from a period when human sacrifice had definitely been rendered taboo?
Whatever @stetson. I'm not going to look for irony and parody on a par with Aristophanes, which is obvious, a hundred years after this Jewish foundation myth, where there is no trace of it. Seeing it when it isn't there is, at least, anachronistic. It's a simple, brutal, powerful folk tale and has nothing to say to contemporary Christians. Any more than China Miéville's Weaver has.
I wonder about Kierkegaard's historic context, what he was living through and watching.
This is gonna be the laziest citation I've ever done anywhere, but the back-cover of my copy of Fear And Trembling reads in part...
...he remained obscure so long because his violent attack on the efforts of nineteenth-century theologians to "rationalize" religion and link it with progress and science was not in harmony with the times[.]
So, yeah, probably the opposite of a liberal or a Higher Criticism theologian who just wants everyone to see how compatible the Bible is with the recent scientific developments and the efforts to build a better world. Anti-modernity, in any case.
Right. You remind me, I want to know more about SK's particular understanding (via HIS writing) of the Enlightenment and it's version in C19 Denmark/Germany/Europe. And his response to it. European history classes were a long, long time ago.
^ Though I think a difference between Kierkegaard and an old-line theological conservative would be that the conservative thinks the pre-scientific religious worldview makes total sense, whereas Kierkegaard thinks it's absurd, but should be believed precisely BECAUSE it's absurd.
CONSERVATIVE: The Incarnation? Of course that happened. How can anyone not believe it?
LIBERAL: I dunno. Sounds pretty whacked to me. Maybe that's one of those doctrines we should just get rid of.
KIERKEGAARD: No, you're both wrong. It IS a whacked doctrine, but that's exactly why I want to believe it.
[This was written before your last post, with its question about the Enlughtenment, but may be relevant.]
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
Is this the point where it’s worth mentioning the midrashim that say Isaac was an adult (some say 37, some say 27) when the story happens, and that he was fully informed by Abraham as to what was going on and voluntarily submitted to it? (Robert Alter, on the other hand, seems to take the Hebrew as suggesting adolescence.)
Or the parallels with the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the preceding chapter?
^ Though I think a difference between Kierkegaard and an old-line theological conservative would be that the conservative thinks the pre-scientific religious worldview makes total sense, whereas Kierkegaard thinks it's absurd, but should be believed precisely BECAUSE it's absurd.
CONSERVATIVE: The Incarnation? Of course that happened. How can anyone not believe it?
LIBERAL: I dunno. Sounds pretty whacked to me. Maybe that's one of those doctrines we should just get rid of.
KIERKEGAARD: No, you're both wrong. It IS a whacked doctrine, but that's exactly why I want to believe it.
[This was written before your last post, with its question about the Enlughtenment, but may be relevant.]
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
Is this the point where it’s worth mentioning the midrashim that say Isaac was an adult (some say 37, some say 27) when the story happens, and that he was fully informed by Abraham as to what was going on and voluntarily submitted to it?
That may very well be true, but is not what Kierkegaard woulda thought, as exemplified by his belief that Abraham withheld his intentions from Isaac.
The high possibility that Kierkegaard misunderstood the historical context of the story, and hence the story itself, would render his interpretation into basically a work of unintentional fiction, but still with its own internal logic, which the later existentialists took and ran with.
But I'm still curious...
What do you think the point of the Binding narrative would be, if Abraham was absolutely certain from the start that he'd never have to kill Isaac?
^ Though I think a difference between Kierkegaard and an old-line theological conservative would be that the conservative thinks the pre-scientific religious worldview makes total sense, whereas Kierkegaard thinks it's absurd, but should be believed precisely BECAUSE it's absurd.
CONSERVATIVE: The Incarnation? Of course that happened. How can anyone not believe it?
LIBERAL: I dunno. Sounds pretty whacked to me. Maybe that's one of those doctrines we should just get rid of.
KIERKEGAARD: No, you're both wrong. It IS a whacked doctrine, but that's exactly why I want to believe it.
[This was written before your last post, with its question about the Enlughtenment, but may be relevant.]
None of the above. But very succinct.
The last time I did any believing, often here I would echo that Kierkegaardian position. But it became insufficient.
Is that Kierkegaard's position? Dunno yet. Anyone got evidence that it was? I haven't read that far.
Well, setting aside issues about what's Kierkegaard and what's de silentio(*), yes, the authentic religious life neccessitating an absurd leap of faith is generally how Kierkegaard's thoughts on the matter are nutshelled. I'm sure I could find a few passages backing that up, but I haven't been reading specifically for that purpose.
(*) You may be interested to know that footnote 27 to my edition reads...
The reader who has not heard or has not heeded S.K.'s warning not to attribute to him personally a single word the pseudonyms say may need here to be reminded that it is not S.K. who reiterates so insistently that he cannot understand Abraham. It is Johannes de silentio who says this, and the purpose of it is to emphasize the fact that the paradoxical religiousness (religiousness is and remains a paradox to everyone who stands on a lower plane...
So, if I'm getting this, de silentio is meant to be someone who is examining the religious life from the outside, because has not been able to make the leap into it himself, due to his lack of comprehension.
Ingerestingly, though, a few footnotes earlier, Lowrie states that a previous passage is clearly about Regine Olsen. So, NOT Kierkegaard, but still apparently someone harbouring, if cryptically, the same romantic obsessions.
Comments
Sorry, Brave Sir Robin
Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot
He was not afraid to die, oh, brave Sir Robin
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off
And his penis split and his—
Sir Robin
That's, that's enough music for now, lads
From the same team that introduced one to Kierkegaard of course.
Sorry, what does "that's" refer to?
Well it seems like you are saying that church teaching is better than the version offered in explanation in F&T. Even though the church version requires quite a lot of reading into the text.
You mean the church's teaching that it's all just a test? I wouldn't say that's neccesarily better, just that it's easier for the average person to accept.
And it's not really a case of two different teachings, but rather two different emphases.
I think it's a bad story; the church emphasises one thing and F&T another. Either way, it is still a bad story.
And it is at least suggested in the text that Abraham trusts that God will not let him go through with it: “Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘Father!’ And he said, ‘Here I am, my son.’ He said, ‘The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’ Abraham said, ‘God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ So the two of them walked on together.” (Gen. 22:7–8) Abraham doesn’t say something like “Don’t worry about that,” or “It’s taken care of.” He says “God will provide the lamb.”
So Abraham was play-acting all along?
The way the reader receives this text entirely changes the meaning.
For (a tiny sample of readings) example:
Is it straight essay? Abraham is the best. Go and do likewise. God will give you a pass even if no one else understands.
How does such a reading affect our reception of other aspects of the book?
Is it a critical parody, and of what or whom?
The pastor/church says one thing on Sunday, but they expect the congregation to act differently on Monday. How does this reading affect other aspects of the book?
Additionally, is the book a unified whole? Or is the perspective inconsistent, and how do we know?
If as @MaryLouise mentioned, it is part of an ongoing conversation between books and "authors" it seems reasonable to consider F&T as complete as an eavesdropped phone call or one letter out of a long string of correspondence.
The claim of the book at face value seems so outrageous to me, I can't imagine it having any value on it's own. I thi k that is also clear from this discussion.
In addition to a wary reading of the book, we need more information. Or Abraham and Kierkegaard are lost. As well as we. And the other ones, too.
Looking back on my own history with FaT, I think I always figured the main point was something like "If you want to be a true Christian, you should be as ready to believe in the Incarnation, with all of its absurdity, as Abraham was to believe in the command to kill Isaac, with all of its absurdity."
In fact, I seem to recall a passage in the book where Kierkegaard essentially says to Christians: "Sure, it's easy to believe God walked the earth as Jesus 2 000 years ago, but if someone was making that claim now, you'd think he was a lunatic."
Hmmmm. Could you show me that page? I don't remember that one in F&T.
You mean Christ didn't prove it? Assuming that he didn't(*),
I'll skim through it tonight and see if I can find it. POSSIBLY, it's not from FaT, but I don't think it woulda been anthologizef in a philosophy textbook, which is mostly where I've seen other Kierkegaard quotes.
It's the third-to-last paragraph of Problem 1. And it doesn't explicitly say we'd think He was a lunatic, just that we would understand it if someone at the time did not believe it.
What's the asterisk for? No assumption is necessary. Unless the proof has been lost. Which is absurd. Christ proves nothing. Or the absurdity of faith in Him, exemplified by absurd, irrelevant, meaningless Jewish examples, wouldn't be impossibly, meaninglessly 'necessary'.
Sorry, that was an unfinished fragment that got posted accidently.
I'm re-writing my post, to eliminate pronoun confusion...
I await the finish, Sir.
Well, there was a reason it was unfinished in the first place. Maybe back in a bit.
No problem. Take your time. It will be worth it.
Isn't that reading Hebrews back on to Genesis?
Actually, I think "He trusted that if he did as he was told to do, somehow it would be okay" comes pretty close to the kierkegaardian formulation that Abraham knew he would get Isaac back. Especially with your "somehow" in there, which seems to indicate that Abraham had no clue in hell how it could happen, he just trusted in the idea(absurd to Kierkegaard) that it would.
But I think that assumes "God himself will provide the burnt offering" DOESN'T mean that Abraham fully expected the killing of Isaac to be called off by God. FWIW, I'm actually reading the Panegyric Upon Abraham right now, and in it, Kierkegaard emphasizes that Abraham never knew that the ram was there on the mountain until the angel pointed it out to him.
Belated thanks for the idea of Mary giving up Jesus to death as an example of a Knight Of Faith knowing that they will get someone back, ie. via the Resurrection.
Now, granted, I'm not 100% convinced that Mary a) actually gave Jesus up(*), or b) knew she'd be getting Him back. But the Resurrection by itself seems like a pretty good illustration of the concept of "getting someone back" in a fittingly absurd manner.
(*) She had no control over what either the Sanhedrin or the Romans did, and in any case, had never been told that he'd be crucified in the first place.
You mentioned ethical code. I think good variation is: was the ethical code that SK calls "the universal" as well as "the church" reflective of what he later calls New Testament Christianity? The attack literature makes it very clear that he sees them as entirely different things. A public reply from the new bishop Martensen in the Fatherland newspaper indicates Martensen's view that the church is at its best as a state institution. Kierkegaard also indicates that it was a money-making operation, requiring fees for ever "service" involved in regular Christian practice (baptism to burial). His association with the church and money in the attack literature is relentless as well as his emphasis that the church prevents a Christian from seeking FIRST God's kingdom.
At least 4 times in F&T, a similar phrase is repeated. This one is from the end of Problema II (easy to find): SK. F&T. Kirmmse trans. pp. 98 & 99.
I keep coming back to these quotes, because they're hard to understand, but I think they are indicating exactly what you are asking about: If what is understood by the masses and the clergy to be faith is nothing like real faith, faith doesn't exist. Because it's just ethics.
This formula also repeatedly explains that faith is something between an individual in direct relation with God -- no middlemen, no mediation, absolutely immediate.
The head hurts, doesn't it?
Brilliant! Yes!
I mean, no. They can't. I think the formula, the entire "system" de silentio describes demonstrates that that recognition is impossible without some sort of direct communion with God. And considering the uselessness of the church in SK's mind, I think we might be getting a direct communication from our man himself.
This is from The Lily of the Field and the Bird of the Air: Three Christian Discourses.
I think it is one of the clearest examples of SK's own thinking (in a signed work) about how one is in relationship with God, and becomes aware of it.: SK. LoF BoA. Kirmmse trans. 41% in Calibre.
My impression is that this Lyrical Dialect with a warning of hidden meaning, which starts out in the first of three prefaces with a dare to read it can be taken a bit like Christ's parables and the warning: "He who has ears let him hear." Those who seek to examine their own hearts will take the time and trouble to work through it and submit to the real author's (Kierkegaard's) tutelage.
I think the emphasis on "task of a lifetime" throughout the book and particularly in contrast with concepts like "going further (than faith)" "at a bargain price" etc (It's late. I'm not thinking of the others) help emphasize that Christianity is available to those willing to work to find it and do it, but not through the church as it existed in his lifetime.
Fixed code - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
To be continued in the next post.....
Good man, Karl. If I hadn't read farther in SK's work on my own, I'd be with you. As far as I've read, I'm mostly puzzled.
Thanks, @stetson . That helps. I'd forgotten that bit, and it was one that I understood mostly. But then....
So here's the text. It follows a discussion of the greatness of the tragic hero; Mary is brought in in the context of greatness [Notice how de silentio is just vague enough in this mention of Mary NOT to say she's a KoF? Tricky. He does this trick a number of times, none of which I can remember or quote right now.]; the we are back to the poet and the tragic hero and greatness and then to the God man:
He's emphasizing the frightfulness of being Christ, of being around Christ, of being an apostle. Right? I don't see anything in the main part of the paragraph that indicates disbelief, but the frightfulness of the situation, even for an apostle. And then he points out the 1800 years (from Christ to SK) that help enable the shabby deception. The shabby deception is the church, isn't it?
I'm not sure what here supports the reading you suggest. Even in the last sentence, where de silentio mentions "those who erred" -- which I take to be those who didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ, was God incarnate -- as well as "those who saw rightly" Jds says he withholds judgement.
Yes. My argument, did, in fact,
basically hinge on that one line, PLUS...
"Was it so easy not to be mistaken?"
Which I took to mean that the imagined skeptic has been told certain claims directly by Jesus in person, and rejected them, which Kierkegaard considers a logical thing to do, in a context where logic is considered the final arbiter.
But are you thinking that the passage is simply about the supernatural experience of being in the presence of the Incarnation(and presumably about how that might effect one's judgement)? Because, yeah, my analysis really shortchanged that aspect of it. I do still think he's focusing, at least partly, on the intellectual decision of the skeptic, however.
And, yes, assuming that the "shabby deception" means Christendom's misappropriation of Christ and his gospel, the 1 800 years help that agenda because it's so much easier to get comfortable, middle-class congregants to believe in a world-historical supernatural guy called Jesus if he is said to have lived a long time ago, and is mostly remembered through sermons and art.
But if those same people walked out of the church and on their way to brunch saw a guy saying he was the Second Coming, nany of them would automatically, for whatever reason(intellectual, emotional) reject his claims. And most of us would think that's an understandable decision.
I don't think the shabby deception has neccessarily been going on for 1 800 years. Rather, I think what Kierkegaard means is that the shabby deception USES the 1 800 years(ie. the time gap between the gospels and C19) as a way to make the Incarnation seem more palatable to their comfortable congregants. No need to worry about the sheer terror of it all, it was a long time ago, here, have a pamphlet with a picture of Jesus helping kids feed squirrels.
Now, I'm not exactly sure when Kierkegaard thinks Christendom and its shabby deception DID get going, but it probably doesn't go all the way back to the Early Church, because there woulda been no comforting time-gap in play.
But comparing the two narratives...
In The Binding Of Isaac, God asks the mature adult Abraham to subject his son to a few seconds of physical torment, followed immediately by death, and after Abraham agrees and begins the task, the whole thing is called off anyway.
In The Annunciation, God skips the parental accomplice and directly requests that a young teenager assent to a task that will deliver her irrevocably into a life checkered with shame, blood-soaked violence, and horrific personal loss, with no subsequent canceling of the misfortunes.
Not saying that either one of the protagonists has a greater or lesser claim than the other to being a Knight Of Faith, but the differences are...interesting.
I just found someone on-line calling himself(with seeming credentials) a "child liberation and child protection theologian", who appears to be framing the Binding as an act of child abuse. He states, as if it's a non-controversial claim, that Abraham is consciously lying when he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. No idea what to make of that(and I don't think it's Kierkegaard's view), but it is an alternative to the idea that Abraham made that statement because he knew it was going to happen.
"God will provide a ram."
Problema III includes an outstanding discussion of irony, which includes this phrase. The author talks about the use of irony as a way to conceal meaning; a way to say nothing while speaking; a way to remain silent although words are coming from one's mouth.
@stetson your thoughts about eighteen hundred years (sometimes centuries) are interesting. It's a phrase Kierkegaard uses many times just in the selections in my anthology. I'll try to pull some together later and lay them out on the table for examination. They may help -- or not.
I do think you're right about the eighteen hudred years "taking the edges off of Christianity."
I always thought that. God had provided a lamb: Isaac (Jesus!). The writer of Hebrews is desperately trying to make the Incarnation believable with the only pathetic examples available. Works fine for the masses.
The professor got to pick the texts and design the syllabus. This business of the binding of Isaac had to be a critically important narrative to him, I wonder if there is a congruence between Kierkegaard and the Chassidic interpretation of the Torah story.
Well, and, so it seems to me there is.
And the Chassidic and Kierkegaardian interpretations seem to converge on this null-point of self-annihilation through self-sacrifice.
ISTM that what makes the KoF the KoF is the surrender of an operating identity in obedience to a call from the beyond. How Abraham was willing to be known in present or posterity as a "child abuser" in return for the opportunity to sacrifice his identification with every one of the promises God had made him leading up to the binding event. How did Abraham spend all his years after this event? As a broken man scorned by his tribe? As a drunk? As a shell of his former self only barely tolerated by his son and wife? The scripture is scarce on the details.
Similarly Mary was willing to sacrifice her socially-cultivated identity and self-perception in submission to the divine invitation.
The terror of self annihilation can only be felt through the extremes of choice that are presented in the TSoE.
I think I get it now.
AFF
Indeed, there is. But overlooking it doesn't make you a laughingstock, I don't think. As far as that passage from Problem 1 goes, Kierkegaard doesn't explicitly mention the connection between Isaac and Jesus, and I hadn't really thought of it myself, until this thread.
Thanks for pointing out Problem III as the section with the bit on irony in relation to the line about the lamb. No obligation, but would you happen to remember whereabouts in the section it is(ie. beginning, middle, end)?
It occurs to me that the interpretation of Abraham KNOWING that a sheep would replace Isaac fits better with the the theory(mentioned on this thread) that the story is propaganda against human sacrifice, rather than a hymn to obedience or a meditation upon the Knight Of Faith.
Heh. Sacrifice Isaac? What a joker that Yahweh is. Okay, okay, one more for old time's sake. I'll try to look surprised when they hand me the lamb at the end.
Because the theme of a test or a leap into the absurd doesn't really hold together if we're meant to understand that Abraham knew all along that he'd never have to go through with it.
But it's not such propaganda is it. That would be contrived, anachronistic.
Well, I think a lotta stories in the bible are kinda contrived, no? As for anachronistic, does the story date from a period when human sacrifice had definitely been rendered taboo?
There are so many rabbit trails and diversions in this section. The head spins. There's a good deal in this section that I'd love to look over with other readers. Some for clarification and some to savor.
AFF, would you be willing to go over the Chassidic a bit? I don't know a thing about it, so I don't understand the connections are that you're making. Thanks.
@Martin54 a while back you mentioned SK's conservatism, loyalty to the king, unwillingness to support social revolution, etc. and, I think, that you see that as a denial of social justice. I don't have time to look up that post. I hope I caste it accurately.
I wonder about Kierkegaard's historic context, what he was living through and watching. He may certainly have been wrong, classist, a prig. But I am interested in having a fuller picture, before I can settle on some sort of judgement here.
Inzwischen bleibt alles noch aufgehoben.
Whatever @stetson. I'm not going to look for irony and parody on a par with Aristophanes, which is obvious, a hundred years after this Jewish foundation myth, where there is no trace of it. Seeing it when it isn't there is, at least, anachronistic. It's a simple, brutal, powerful folk tale and has nothing to say to contemporary Christians. Any more than China Miéville's Weaver has.
This is gonna be the laziest citation I've ever done anywhere, but the back-cover of my copy of Fear And Trembling reads in part...
So, yeah, probably the opposite of a liberal or a Higher Criticism theologian who just wants everyone to see how compatible the Bible is with the recent scientific developments and the efforts to build a better world. Anti-modernity, in any case.
Yeah. I want a lot.
CONSERVATIVE: The Incarnation? Of course that happened. How can anyone not believe it?
LIBERAL: I dunno. Sounds pretty whacked to me. Maybe that's one of those doctrines we should just get rid of.
KIERKEGAARD: No, you're both wrong. It IS a whacked doctrine, but that's exactly why I want to believe it.
[This was written before your last post, with its question about the Enlughtenment, but may be relevant.]
Or the parallels with the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the preceding chapter?
None of the above. But very succinct.
That may very well be true, but is not what Kierkegaard woulda thought, as exemplified by his belief that Abraham withheld his intentions from Isaac.
The high possibility that Kierkegaard misunderstood the historical context of the story, and hence the story itself, would render his interpretation into basically a work of unintentional fiction, but still with its own internal logic, which the later existentialists took and ran with.
But I'm still curious...
What do you think the point of the Binding narrative would be, if Abraham was absolutely certain from the start that he'd never have to kill Isaac?
The last time I did any believing, often here I would echo that Kierkegaardian position. But it became insufficient.
Well, setting aside issues about what's Kierkegaard and what's de silentio(*), yes, the authentic religious life neccessitating an absurd leap of faith is generally how Kierkegaard's thoughts on the matter are nutshelled. I'm sure I could find a few passages backing that up, but I haven't been reading specifically for that purpose.
(*) You may be interested to know that footnote 27 to my edition reads...
So, if I'm getting this, de silentio is meant to be someone who is examining the religious life from the outside, because has not been able to make the leap into it himself, due to his lack of comprehension.
Ingerestingly, though, a few footnotes earlier, Lowrie states that a previous passage is clearly about Regine Olsen. So, NOT Kierkegaard, but still apparently someone harbouring, if cryptically, the same romantic obsessions.