Sorry I've not been contributing, things have been a bit busy here. I'll reread F&T so I can do a better job of keeping up with the discussion.
Can I return to this thing about the "clearance sale"? I know it was a while back so understand if nobody does.
Kierkegaard had/developed a very negative impression of the church of his day - and elsewhere says that of everyone was a Christian, nobody was. And that the best thing for Christianity would be to close all the churches.
I believe that maybe this is what he refers to as the "clearance sale", the idea that one can obtain the benefits of Christianity without what he (Kierkegaard) understands to be the cost.
Again, I think this fits with the discussion previously about Hegel, namely that (in simple terms) that one could postulate an ideal society based on certain rules of behaviour that are moderated by peer pressure - and that this was essentially accepted in 19 century Denmark as being Christianity as directed by the church.
I think Kierkegaard is saying that this is a cut-price Christianity which retains fairly fixed corporate morality rules but loses the sense of the individual relation to the divine.
Which, in my opinion, is one stage of Kierkegaards regression into arguing for something that isn't actually Christianity. It's fairly easy to understand what he is against; it is much more difficult to understand what faith actually amounts to in a Kierkegaardian formulation.
Salvation:
Of course, you are right @stetson that salvation is a significant category as well as point in time (if one sees it as a specific born-again moment, which I am probably supposed to do considering my time and location in theological history) in Protestant Christian theology. However, it is possible to talk about the concepts of faith and salvation separately, and theologically one precludes the other. I don't see evidence that SK considers the concept of theological salvation in F&T. He does talk about the possibility of Abraham being "lost" but I have taken that to be a moral rather than spiritual state. Have I missed something?
Hemingway and Kierkegaard:
I so feel it, too. I shared this very fitting meme in another forum a while back.
Agnet (Eng. = Agnes; Latin = ?; Latin to English?) and the Merman:
I'll look over these variations later today and try to pull something together. I think there is some value in looking at the ways Jds alters the stories, and what he says about the alterations, but the real meat (if I remember correctly) is when he talks about the merman as a doubter.
Sarah and Tobit:
I think the most important thing that comes out of this story is the concept of the demonic -- the person who is unable to conform to the universal or ethical, evenwhen they try. I think Kirmmse's intro to the edition of F&T that I have is where there is a very good discussion of the concept of the demonic. If you can get your hands on a library or cheap copy of the book (it's in pprback now!) it's a good one to have for further study of Kierkegaard. Kirmmse's introductory pieces in his translations are outstanding. (I think.)
Back to Sara. She keeps trying to do what is required of a woman in her society: get married. She can't even get to the reproduction part (within the acceptable limits of the universal), because she can never even get to consumate her wedding. Again and again and again.
SK is not sexist about the demonic here. He includes Gloster, one whose very body makes it impossible for him to conform to the expectations of the universal and which, in dialectical relation to the response his body receives from society, also affects his psyche.
Theologically?
I think it's interesting that Jds, or rather SK here, uses the biblical term "demonic" to name a category that is related to conformity to social morality. The demonic is similar to the religious category that is being developed or hypothesized in F&T in that it must reside outside of the ethical category, but this is not by choice, rather by nature or physique.
Is it possible to think of "demoniacs" according to this concept of it today?
In thinking about the concept of demonic and how it is related to the universal, what does the use of religious langauge say about the category that does not related to the religious?
I need to review the section again. I appreciate talking this over with this group, because it makes me identify holes in my understanding. I don't remember if there is any discussion about a relation to "the absolute" for the demoniac, etc. Ther is some discussion that follows the section about Gloster. I'll try to follow up on that soon.
Again, I think Kierkegaard is reacting against the idea that "salvation" is synonymous with being a member of the church, which is essentially the birthright of all Danes. By saying that no, there is something that exists beyond simple membership of the church, he's saying something scandalous - that Christianity is not only something that exists outside of the church, it is something that isn't really found inside it either.
Sorry I've not been contributing, things have been a bit busy here. I'll reread F&T so I can do a better job of keeping up with the discussion.
Can I return to this thing about the "clearance sale"? I know it was a while back so understand if nobody does.
Kierkegaard had/developed a very negative impression of the church of his day - and elsewhere says that of everyone was a Christian, nobody was. And that the best thing for Christianity would be to close all the churches.
I believe that maybe this is what he refers to as the "clearance sale", the idea that one can obtain the benefits of Christianity without what he (Kierkegaard) understands to be the cost.
Again, I think this fits with the discussion previously about Hegel, namely that (in simple terms) that one could postulate an ideal society based on certain rules of behaviour that are moderated by peer pressure - and that this was essentially accepted in 19 century Denmark as being Christianity as directed by the church.
I think Kierkegaard is saying that this is a cut-price Christianity which retains fairly fixed corporate morality rules but loses the sense of the individual relation to the divine.
Which, in my opinion, is one stage of Kierkegaards regression into arguing for something that isn't actually Christianity. It's fairly easy to understand what he is against; it is much more difficult to understand what faith actually amounts to in a Kierkegaardian formulation.
You understand the clearance sale concept.
I think there are two facets to it though. You've got the criticism of Christianity. But this also applies philosophically (in the world of ideas; in our times). Folks want to skip the hard work of questioning accepted concepts and conclusions. "Well Descartes has done it, hasn't he?" (as if it's something anyone can accomplish over the weekend.) They don't want to do the hard work of learning and then thinking through and questioning (doubting) the ideas of the past, making that the work of one's life. Folks just want to start out on the shoulders of giants (without being giants themselves) and "go further." Progress! Progress! The progress of humanity and history!
Doubt is such an important concept throughout the book and particularly in Problema III, it's in the Preface for a reason.
As Stetson has puzzled over, SK includes many extrabiblical examples. Many. I think these are here not only as examples to support arguments but to remind us of the wider application of his criticism, which might be stated as "People are shallow in our time."
As Stetson has puzzled over, SK includes many extrabiblical examples.
And, having lugged my NIV over to the coffee shop in order to give Tobit an analog reading, I now realize that the book is only included in Catholic bibles. So Kierkegaard's conjoining of the luckless bride with stories from secular folklore might not be all that radical, since he prob'ly didn't consider Sarah's story to be biblical anyway.
As Stetson has puzzled over, SK includes many extrabiblical examples. Many. I think these are here not only as examples to support arguments but to remind us of the wider application of his criticism, which might be stated as "People are shallow in our time."
I also discussed this with reference to Kierkegaards use of characters from Greek legend rather than biblical characters.
I was contemplating whether it was much more common in 19 century Europe to see Christianity as the culmination of previous beliefs so that people where familiar with characters from other traditions.
Possibly, I don't know.
It's also possible that Kierkegaard was just showing off, I suppose. Putting in characters from Shakespeare, ideas from Greek Philosophy etc just to make his meaning more opaque and indicating just how "well read" and clever he is.
As Stetson has puzzled over, SK includes many extrabiblical examples.
And, having lugged my NIV over to the coffee shop in order to give Tobit an analog reading, I now realize that the book is only included in Catholic bibles.
And Orthodox Bibles, and any Protestant Bibles that include the Apocrypha.
As Stetson has puzzled over, SK includes many extrabiblical examples.
And, having lugged my NIV over to the coffee shop in order to give Tobit an analog reading, I now realize that the book is only included in Catholic bibles.
And Orthodox Bibles, and any Protestant Bibles that include the Apocrypha.
You mean it's regarded by the Orthodox as fully canonical? I wouldn't doubt that, but it's not the impression one gets from googling, as the main sites that came up really seemed to be saying "Catholic only". But that's probably the fault of the sites themselves.
I would assume that inclusion in the Apocrypha-only is meant to indicate that protestants are not to take the book as properly biblical? Interestingly, in my translation of Fear And Trembling, Kierkegaard opens his discussion of Sarah's plight by refering to "the book of Tobit", without any indication as to its status in relation to the canon.
Personally, on the basis of content alone, I can see why some would want to keep the book at a distance: the whole set-up reads basically like a mystical sex-farce.
As Stetson has puzzled over, SK includes many extrabiblical examples.
And, having lugged my NIV over to the coffee shop in order to give Tobit an analog reading, I now realize that the book is only included in Catholic bibles.
And Orthodox Bibles, and any Protestant Bibles that include the Apocrypha.
You mean it's regarded by the Orthodox as fully canonical? I wouldn't doubt that, but it's not the impression one gets from googling, as the main sites that came up really seemed to be saying "Catholic only". But that's probably the fault of the sites themselves.
That’s my understanding. Wikipedia says: “The book [of Tobit] is included in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons but not in the Jewish; the Protestant tradition places it in the Apocrypha, with Anabaptists, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists recognising it as useful for purposes of edification and liturgy, albeit non-canonical in status.”
I'm curious now about what Bible or Bibles Kierkegaard used. I doubt that he cared too much about what the danish church said was authoratitive or what exegetical methods were approved -- which we see in his work.
If I can't find an answer with little research, i"ll reach out to the Hong Library at Princeton.
Sorry not to be able to keep the whole discussion in mind at once. I've been in and out the last few weeks and have a bunch of projects taking up brain space right now. A few of them are really good, though. Just can't fit it all in at once.
My GUESS would be that since he was writing for a largely Lutheran audience, Kierkegaard woulda used a translation considered authoritative by Lutherans, even if he was calling into question the centrality of institutional churches to the Christian life.
However, your point about concealing religious information is interesting. I'll try to review III today with that idea in mind.
If I'm reading the literary analyses in Problem III correctly(*), Kierkegaard thinks that true repentance requires silence, ie. you can't tell anyone, including the person you wronged, that you have repented, because it needs to stay between you and God. And I think(though I can't locate the passage again) that he compares someone who reveals his repentance to the rich man praying loudly in the temple(or one of those gospel stories along the same lines).
So where I assume he's going with all this is that, answering the question in his chapter-title, Abraham was, in fact, unethical in concealing his purposes from Isaac, but the concealment was required from the religious perspective.
(*) And Christ almighty, do I wish I could infuse Kierkegaard's content into Hemingway's writing style.
However, your point about concealing religious information is interesting. I'll try to review III today with that idea in mind.
If I'm reading the literary analyses in Problem III correctly(*), Kierkegaard thinks that true repentance requires silence, ie. you can't tell anyone, including the person you wronged, that you have repented, because it needs to stay between you and God. And I think(though I can't locate the passage again) that he compares someone who reveals his repentance to the rich man praying loudly in the temple(or one of those gospel stories along the same lines).
So where I assume he's going with all this is that, answering the question in his chapter-title, Abraham was, in fact, unethical in concealing his purposes from Isaac, but the concealment was required from the religious perspective.
(*) And Christ almighty, do I wish I could infuse Kierkegaard's content into Hemingway's writing style.
Ask ChatGPT.
I'm a luddite. For now, I'll just go with...
Abraham was the most righteous, Ethical man in Canaan. Do not think I am much impressed by this as a relationship to God, but it meant a lot to Abe.
And I'll also mention that I have seen at least one popularization of existentialism that gave A Clean, Well-Lighted Place as an example of exitential themes in literature. It was a long time ago, and I'm now thinking the writer might have been leaning a little heavily on the image of existentialism as an apology for nihilism.
Kierkegaard introducing his discussion of Faust...
For as Gregory of Rimini was called tortor infantoum because he espoused the view of the damnation of infants, so I might be tempted to call myself tortor heroum; for I am very inventive when it comes to the question of putting heroes to the torture.
Yeah, I'm sure there a zillion analogies you could use to highlight the rigor of your literary analysis, so let's just go with the one about torturing little babies for all eternity.
@stetson Kierkegaard was reading Greek as a kid and he was fluent in Latin, yet requested and got permission to write his dissertation in Danish, which he found to be a superior language in which to convey Danish thought. However, he was required to defend in Latin. Studying in Berlin, he had also to speak German. He could read any Bible he felt like reading.
@Martin54 ChatGPT does a lousy job of evaluating sources. I'll check with a colleague over at Princeton.
Thanks for the biographical info. Yeah, I'm sure he coulda cited any number of bibles in any number of languages, but which ones would be suitable for his purposes is another matter.
I think Fear And Trembling is written at least partly for reading by professional theologians. And this may reflect an anglospheric bias, but I woulda thought there would be some sort of authoritative KJV-equivalent in Danish that would normally be used by writers seeking to maintain credibility with that sorta readership.
And not that this neccessarily backs up the argument I was advancing earlier, but in Kierkegaard's inflammatory analogy quoted a couple of posts above, he is directly comparing himself to a soteriologist.
However, your point about concealing religious information is interesting. I'll try to review III today with that idea in mind.
If I'm reading the literary analyses in Problem III correctly(*), Kierkegaard thinks that true repentance requires silence, ie. you can't tell anyone, including the person you wronged, that you have repented, because it needs to stay between you and God. And I think(though I can't locate the passage again) that he compares someone who reveals his repentance to the rich man praying loudly in the temple(or one of those gospel stories along the same lines).
So where I assume he's going with all this is that, answering the question in his chapter-title, Abraham was, in fact, unethical in concealing his purposes from Isaac, but the concealment was required from the religious perspective.
(*) And Christ almighty, do I wish I could infuse Kierkegaard's content into Hemingway's writing style.
Ask ChatGPT.
I'm a luddite. For now, I'll just go with...
Abraham was the most righteous, Ethical man in Canaan. Do not think I am much impressed by this as a relationship to God, but it meant a lot to Abe.
I like it.
ChatGPT in response to 'kierkegaard in the style of hemingway',
Kierkegaard pondered life's absurdity, always wrestling with faith and doubt. He stared at the abyss, the void within. A solitary man, he walked the cobbled streets of Copenhagen, his footsteps echoing his existential journey. With each thought, he swung his intellectual sword, cutting through the noise of convention. The leap of faith, he said, was the only path. In a world of despair, he sought meaning in the shadows, where the heart and mind collide.
That's v 3.5, which is good enough for me; not worth $240 a year for a 0.5 upgrade.
Would EH have capitalized 'ethical'? And used the first person?
I am reviewing a bit. And to help myself as well as anyone who comes along, I'm using the quote-button in the posts I am referencing, so anyone can get back to them easily and read the whole thing. I am also hacking out sections, marked by [.......] for the sake of the cursëd software.
[.......]
I believe that maybe this is what he refers to as the "clearance sale", the idea that one can obtain the benefits of Christianity without what he (Kierkegaard) understands to be the cost.
[...........]
I think Kierkegaard is saying that this is a cut-price Christianity which retains fairly fixed corporate morality rules but loses the sense of the individual relation to the divine.
Which, in my opinion, is one stage of Kierkegaards regression into arguing for something that isn't actually Christianity. It's fairly easy to understand what he is against; it is much more difficult to understand what faith actually amounts to in a Kierkegaardian formulation.
Yes.
Yes, and put this way, it remindes me of Derek Webb's song "New Law."
Yes; mostly. I think, if we pulled together what we've learned about faith described in F&T, we might be able to put together a description that is conssistent with his other works, whether we understand how that works or not.
[.......]
I also discussed this with reference to Kierkegaards use of characters from Greek legend rather than biblical characters.
I was contemplating whether it was much more common in 19 century Europe to see Christianity as the culmination of previous beliefs so that people where familiar with characters from other traditions.
Possibly, I don't know.
It's also possible that Kierkegaard was just showing off, I suppose. Putting in characters from Shakespeare, ideas from Greek Philosophy etc just to make his meaning more opaque and indicating just how "well read" and clever he is.
Sorry again @KoF to have failed to acknowledge your contributions in the discussion, when I've responded. I'll try to do better.
SK was a child of his time and family, which included a classical education, particularly for students headed to the Uni. He lived happily-miserably as an aesthete as a student and regularly went to the theater, possibly even later in life. He clearly loved a good story and loved to think about what they meant and taught. I would have loved to sit at the cafe in Berlin with him and natter about books as the overpriced coffee got cold.
As far as a belief of Christianity being a culmination of previous beliefs....
I think this is part of his criticism of the acceptance of Hegel's theory of the cycles of history.
@stetson, I had forgotten about "A Clean, Well-lighted place" even missing your reference. Sorry. I remembered the saucers and lighting and waiters immediately. Stunning. Stunning! And the prayers. Absolutely no comprehension in high school what he was getting at. What time does to us.
Perfect abstract of the aesthetic, ethical and religious covered in Either-Or, AND F&T.
Love Hemingway.
@stetson you're going to have to spell out the soteriology here. I"m not seeing it.
@Martin54 that was a marvelous demonstration of the power of ChatGPT!
Assuming :Knight Of Faith" is equivalent to "true Christian", then Kierkegaard in Fear And Trembling is explaining what is neccessary to become a true Christian, IOW what is neccessary to be saved.
Unless we think the Knight Of Faith can be someone who is already a Christian, and is entering into even closer Communion with God than most Christians enjoy. But that would make Christians into a sort of hierarchy, which I don't think Kierkegaard would intend.
Yes, that was pretty impressive, stylistically. Though, content-wise, it does kind of illustrate the criticism that "AI only knows what the internet", since most of the paragraph was Top 10 Themes Associated With Kierkegaard.
To answer your questions, no, Hemingway probably would not capitalize "ethical", I did so in order to emphasize that I was talking specifically about the philosophical concept.
As for whether Hemingway would use the first-person:
Yes, indeed. My post was a direct parody of the opening lines to The Sun Also Rises, which is written in the first-person.
Hello friends so sorry for the absence. My brother-in-law passed last week and we have had to travel to be with the family. The interment is today I should be back in the saddle late next week all things being equal.
I have been reading but haven't had time to reflect or post.
This one?
Help, please?
From you, @Martin54 . Not ChatGPT.
Or was your Chat GPT demon in the style of DJLB?
Sorry. Yes. Oh bugger. (Apparently I am scattered (according to my best man, recently), bonkers (also recently, with affection from muh daughter who also at the same time said "You've got ADHD" (she's properly studying it all)), and much else besides according to my poor wife. I was Christened the absent minded professor at junior school. I'm just a teensy bit OCD I say. All coming together now with my excellent clinical shrink. The major downside is rumination).
So D. Jerome L. Bixby wrote one of the top 10 Twilight Zone dramatized stories "It's a Good Life" and I gave his full name above, on the wrong thread... (That links to the right one).
Yes, that was pretty impressive, stylistically. Though, content-wise, it does kind of illustrate the criticism that "AI only knows what the internet", since most of the paragraph was Top 10 Themes Associated With Kierkegaard.
To answer your questions, no, Hemingway probably would not capitalize "ethical", I did so in order to emphasize that I was talking specifically about the philosophical concept.
As for whether Hemingway would use the first-person:
Yes, indeed. My post was a direct parody of the opening lines to The Sun Also Rises, which is written in the first-person.
Show's what a poseur I am. I was aware of his understated, economy of style but not the fact that most of his oeuvre is in the first person...
Hemingway wrote using the person he felt best suited the work at hand. It'd be hard to write "The Short Happy Life" in the first person, for example.
I agree with Stetson's assessment of ChatGPT's write-up on our friend. But stylistically, it's a treat.
Hemingway is one of my favorite writers, although I've been unable to emulate him myself. Much to your, my readers,' frustration I'm sure. But I do try to pare it back.
A bit.
Thank you for clarifying that ADHD was in addition to bonkers. They exist in different categories, while occassionally meeting within a single individual.
Hello friends so sorry for the absence. My brother-in-law passed last week and we have had to travel to be with the family. The interment is today I should be back in the saddle late next week all things being equal.
I have been reading but haven't had time to reflect or post.
This one?
Help, please?
From you, @Martin54 . Not ChatGPT.
Or was your Chat GPT demon in the style of DJLB?
Sorry. Yes. Oh bugger. (Apparently I am scattered (according to my best man, recently), bonkers (also recently, with affection from muh daughter who also at the same time said "You've got ADHD" (she's properly studying it all)), and much else besides according to my poor wife. I was Christened the absent minded professor at junior school. I'm just a teensy bit OCD I say. All coming together now with my excellent clinical shrink. The major downside is rumination).
So D. Jerome L. Bixby wrote one of the top 10 Twilight Zone dramatized stories "It's a Good Life" and I gave his full name above, on the wrong thread... (That links to the right one).
Yes, that was pretty impressive, stylistically. Though, content-wise, it does kind of illustrate the criticism that "AI only knows what the internet", since most of the paragraph was Top 10 Themes Associated With Kierkegaard.
To answer your questions, no, Hemingway probably would not capitalize "ethical", I did so in order to emphasize that I was talking specifically about the philosophical concept.
As for whether Hemingway would use the first-person:
Yes, indeed. My post was a direct parody of the opening lines to The Sun Also Rises, which is written in the first-person.
Show's what a poseur I am. I was aware of his understated, economy of style but not the fact that most of his oeuvre is in the first person...
I'm actually not aware what person his work is in. I think all the short stories I've read by him were in the third. The Old Man And The Sea was as well, but I haven't read anything else by him.
Hello friends so sorry for the absence. My brother-in-law passed last week and we have had to travel to be with the family. The interment is today I should be back in the saddle late next week all things being equal.
I have been reading but haven't had time to reflect or post.
Hugs to everyone.
AFF
Great to see you, AFF. Sorry to hear about your loss.
I've spent a good chunk of the afternoon wrangling with Agnete and the Merman. Yeah. I forgot. This is a toughie. I'm not ready to write anything about the content yet. But I'm really glad to come back to it and chew some more. There are whole pages with hardly any pencil marks, so I can see, where I had just decided to let it rest. The rest of the book is heavily worked over, and I nearly broke the crappy "perfect" binding on the hardbound edition from heavy use.
Today I reorganized the text to make sense of the variations of the story in an attempt to contrast them better and understand better what we're supposed to notice. However, I'm not convinced that that is the right strategy or focus.
The discussion of sin that starts with the footnote from Paragraph 24, the inability to explain Abraham in terms of the demonic or repentance in Paragraph 25, and the relationship of the demonic with repentance, the movements, etc, etc in Paragraph 26 (which also starts to move into the territory of irony, foreshadowing the topic for later in the chapter) seem more important to me (and maybe Jds) than the detailed analysis of the variations of Agnete and the Merman.
I see why soteriology has come up. I'd forgotten there was this much discussion of sin. I want to make sure we talk about the concept of sin as presented here, which I think would be unrecognizable to anyone unfamiliar with this book.
I'll try to focus on paragraphs 24-26 in the morning and pull together something. Maybe more questions.
[Typing this before reading Kendel's recent post.]
From the end of the Faust passage...
In the Sermon On The Mount it is said, "When thou fastest, anoint thy head and wash thy face, that thou be not seen of men to fast." This passage bears witness directly to the truth that subjectivity is incommensurable with reality, yea, that it has leave to deceive.
Not sure I've ever seen that passage(or others like it) framed as justification for deception, and I'm guessing it's not a standard interpretation. But it seems to fit with Kierkegaard's view of everything worthwhile about Christianity being a violation of the ethical.
[Typing this before reading Kendel's recent post.]
From the end of the Faust passage...
In the Sermon On The Mount it is said, "When thou fastest, anoint thy head and wash thy face, that thou be not seen of men to fast." This passage bears witness directly to the truth that subjectivity is incommensurable with reality, yea, that it has leave to deceive.
Not sure I've ever seen that passage(or others like it) framed as justification for deception, and I'm guessing it's not a standard interpretation. But it seems to fit with Kierkegaard's view of everything worthwhile about Christianity being a violation of the ethical.
I'm looking forward to getting to the whole discussion about irony as well. And doubt. There is a lot in Problema III that I really enjoyed, in spite of the challenge of getting through it. It seems to be nearly entirely overlooked in lectures and secondary literature. Everyone is so enamored with the TSoE, they forget about the rest of the book where it is employed as the theoretical framework.
But first....if it's ok, Agnete and the Merman.
Tomorrow, though. I'm done for the day.
Kendel:
summarize Problema III from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling in the style of Ernest Hemingway
ChatGPT:
In Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling," Problema III delves into the story of Abraham's ultimate test of faith, as he's willing to sacrifice his own son. It's a tale of profound inner conflict, a man torn between divine duty and human love, wrestling with the moral abyss. Abraham's heart trembles, but his unwavering faith propels him toward the unthinkable, revealing the depth of human existence's complexity.
Kendel:
What are the specific topics covered in Problema III in Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling
ChatGPT:
In "Fear and Trembling" by Søren Kierkegaard, Problema III explores the biblical story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac at God's command. This section of the book delves into several specific topics:
The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical: Kierkegaard discusses the ethical norms and how they can be suspended or transcended when an individual is faced with a higher ethical or religious duty.
Abraham's Faith: The text deeply analyzes Abraham's faith, his willingness to obey God's command to sacrifice his son Isaac, and the profound anguish and conflict he experiences in making this decision.
The Knight of Faith: Kierkegaard introduces the concept of the "knight of faith," a person who possesses extraordinary faith that allows them to navigate seemingly impossible ethical dilemmas and paradoxes.
The Paradox: The paradox of faith is a central theme in Problema III, emphasizing that true faith often goes beyond reason and cannot be fully comprehended by human understanding.
The Relation to God: Kierkegaard explores the intimate, personal relationship between the individual and God and how it can lead to actions that appear irrational or paradoxical from an ethical standpoint.
The Nature of Belief and Doubt: Kierkegaard delves into the complexities of belief and doubt, highlighting the tension between them and how doubt can coexist with faith.
Ethical Universal vs. Individual Choice: The text explores the contrast between universal ethical principles and individual choices driven by faith, emphasizing that faith can lead to decisions that seem ethically problematic.
Repetition: Kierkegaard introduces the idea of repetition in the context of faith, suggesting that a true believer may undergo a repetitive process of testing and reaffirming their faith.
Problema III is a philosophical examination of these complex and profound topics, using the story of Abraham as a case study to explore the limits of faith, ethics, and the individual's relationship with the divine.
Kendel:
What unique specific themes are discussed in Problema III of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling? Which themes are not covered in other chapters of the book?
ChatGPT:
Problema III of Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" addresses several unique themes that are not extensively covered in the other chapters of the book. These themes are specific to this section of the text:
The Paradox of Faith: While the concept of the paradox is present throughout the book, Problema III delves particularly deeply into the idea of faith as a paradox. It explores how faith can lead individuals to actions that seem irrational or ethically problematic from an outsider's perspective.
The Knight of Faith: The idea of the "knight of faith" is introduced and developed in Problema III. This is a unique concept in the book, and it centers around individuals with extraordinary faith who can navigate paradoxes and ethical dilemmas in a way that is beyond comprehension.
Repetition: Kierkegaard introduces the notion of repetition in the context of faith in Problema III. This theme explores how faith may involve a repetitive process of testing and reaffirming one's beliefs.
The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical: While this theme is present throughout the book, Problema III provides a comprehensive examination of how the ethical can be suspended or transcended in the face of higher religious duties, using the example of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
These themes are distinct to Problema III, and they contribute to a deeper exploration of the complexities of faith and ethics, making this chapter a unique and integral part of "Fear and Trembling."
I played some more asking about terms and specific concepts. It did a little better.
I see why soteriology has come up. I'd forgotten there was this much discussion of sin. I want to make sure we talk about the concept of sin as presented here, which I think would be unrecognizable to anyone unfamiliar with this book.
It's hard for me to recall all his usages of the word and concept "sin", but I'm assuming he means whatever pulls you away from the religious.
Thanks for AI analysis. From what I can tell from my brief skim, it does an okay job for the overall book, but completely fails to represent anything meaningful about Problem III. Uhh, Hal, you do know there's this whole theme in Book III about Abraham concealing his purposes, right? Like, it's right there in the freaking subtitle
Everyone is so enamored with the TSoE, they forget about the rest of the book where it is employed as the theoretical framework.
And this is probably why AI screwed it up so badly. Just a guess, but I'd say that about 85% of the internet writing about Kierkegaard is geared toward philosophy undergraduates, who in most classes would learn about the TSOTE as an overall concept, and know Abraham as the basic example, but not get too much into the detailed implications of the idea.
Not done yet. But got some good work done this evening on ¶ 19 - ¶ 26 (the Agnete and the Merman section). Mainly I see J ds working on exposing logical inconsistencies in the version of Hegel's system that he has constructed in order to explain faith in "Hegelian" terms. The concept of "repentance" for example, causes problems, because, although it is the highest ethical act, it's need results from sin, which is an entirely unethical act occurring within the sphere of the ethical.
Sorry there are so many Real Life things that drag me away from the fun. Sigh.
But most of today's diversions were lovely, and included colorful fall foliage, a few very tough remaining wild-flowers, and a beautiful small body of water.
(Unit A: https://www.michigantrailmaps.com/member-detail/maple-river-state-game-area/) We walked the whole dotted red trail from the car park to the highway and back. I needed that, too.
I just finished Problem III. About "God will provide the lamb"...
First and foremost, he does not say anything, and it is in this form he says what he has to say. His reply to Isaac has the form of irony, for it is always irony when I say something and do not say anything. Isaac interrogates Abraham on the supposition that Abraham knows. So then if Abraham were to have replied, "I know nothing," he would have uttered an untruth. He cannot say anything, for what he knows he cannot say. So he replies, "God will provide Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son."
***
[Abraham] utters no falsehood, because it is of course possible that God could do something entirely different. Hence he is speaking no untruth, but neither is he saying anything, for he speaks a foreign language.
I'll be honest, and say I find this a little confusing. I'll try to collect my thoughts, and write some more in a bit.
I just finished Problem III. About "God will provide the lamb"...
First and foremost, he does not say anything, and it is in this form he says what he has to say. His reply to Isaac has the form of irony, for it is always irony when I say something and do not say anything. Isaac interrogates Abraham on the supposition that Abraham knows. So then if Abraham were to have replied, "I know nothing," he would have uttered an untruth. He cannot say anything, for what he knows he cannot say. So he replies, "God will provide Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son."
***
[Abraham] utters no falsehood, because it is of course possible that God could do something entirely different. Hence he is speaking no untruth, but neither is he saying anything, for he speaks a foreign language.
I'll be honest, and say I find this a little confusing. I'll try to collect my thoughts, and write some more in a bit.
Sorry I still haven't delivered on Agnete and the Merman. It takes me so long to work through and work over some of the texts. And there hasn't been much time to sit down and concentrate recently.
I really loved this section on irony that you quoted, though. I haven't read his dissertation, but the title is "The Concept of Irony With Continual Reference to Socrates." He obviously had some interest in the concept and techniques.
I think it's fascinating how SK identifies irony in this section and also in some of the words of Jesus. And while I think readers of the Bible often interpret some parts as ironic, they might be hesitant to say so, and certainly hesitant to ascribe irony to Jesus.
I know one or two particularly gifted ironists. Ok -- two. They really CAN say nothing (that anyone else understands) while saying everything (that only they can understand or a very select few). In this way, irony can be like prayer -- between a person and God, the smallest possible group, and in absolute relation to the absolute. No other is allowed into this relationship or communicative event. No one else may understand it, much less can.
My comments on prayer here are just my improv on the idea. I don't remember SK or Jds saying anything along that order. But I do think it fits. Even though it's not part of the text at all.
I just finished Problem III. About "God will provide the lamb"...
First and foremost, he does not say anything, and it is in this form he says what he has to say. His reply to Isaac has the form of irony, for it is always irony when I say something and do not say anything. Isaac interrogates Abraham on the supposition that Abraham knows. So then if Abraham were to have replied, "I know nothing," he would have uttered an untruth. He cannot say anything, for what he knows he cannot say. So he replies, "God will provide Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son."
***
[Abraham] utters no falsehood, because it is of course possible that God could do something entirely different. Hence he is speaking no untruth, but neither is he saying anything, for he speaks a foreign language.
I'll be honest, and say I find this a little confusing. I'll try to collect my thoughts, and write some more in a bit.
Okay. Assuming(and I invite other interpretations) that a God-given lamb would be absurd because God would then be the giver and the receiver of the sacrifice...
ISAAC: The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?
ABRAHAM: God Himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.
ABRAHAM THOUGHT BUBBLE: And why not? He's already got me heading up to Mount Moriah to kill my one and only beloved son, so the rules are clearly out the freaking window anyway. Let's just see where this lonesome trail takes us!
At least I think that's the general psychological gist of it.
Yes, the concept of irony is absolutely one that Kierkegaard really likes - and it is usually formulated by him in the context of Socrates.
K really digs into Socrates as a gadfly and the way he talks about irony is almost like Socrates is a comedian or satirist, holding a mirror up to the aburdities of the Greeks. Irony to K seems to be tied "going your own way" and "thinking for yourself" and "standing alone even if the crowd is against you". Also doubt and declaring one's own lack of knowledge.
I was thinking about the way K depicts Hegel and Christendom and Socrates recently.
It is as if Kierkegaard believes that Hegel is saying something like "the correct way of living is A B and C and what we need to do is build a large roadway and ensure that everyone walks on it"
And he sees the church as saying "Hegel is right and we are the road. Now what all Danes need to do is to only think in terms of the parameters of this road and walk in the same direction as everyone else."
For Kierkegaard, it seems like Socrates is the only True Christian (perhaps even a proto-Christ, if that's not too offensive to type).
The guy who stands in the way of the crowd and says "I've had a revelation from Delphi and I don't believe in this road. There is no road! This thing they are selling is just a load of old tat to keep the priests in pudding! I can even show you that the things you say you believe make no sense. You don't believe it, they don't believe it, you are just walking on this imaginary road because everyone else is. Get your own revelation! Think for yourself!"
@KoF I will read your post after I get my most recent work published here, and then come back to you. Can't do these both at the same time.
Some things here are still unclear to me, but this is what I have so far:
Agnate and the Merman provide a context for examining in terms of Jds's version of Hegel's system the concepts of sin, repentance, salvation and the demonic in contrast to the divine. These concepts are only discussed here structurally and in light of concealment and disclosure, the theme of Problema III's question (Was it ethically defensible of Abraham not to have told....about his undertaking?).
A close examination of these concepts in the book demonstrates that what is proposed here, whether it's SK's personal view or not, is very different from theological definitions that are part of standard church doctrine. I am inclined to see them all as a reflection (possible parody) of SK's view of the fashionable (Hegel-oriented) theology of his time.
I will begin with what is closest at hand: sin. We see sin described in Problema I in this way:
"Whenever the individual wants to assert himself in his particularity vis-à-vis the universal, he sins, and only by acknowledging this can he once again reconcile himself with the universal. Whenever the individual, having entered into the universal, feels an impulse to assert himself in his particularity, he is in a state of spiritual trial, and he can work his way out of it only by penitently surrendering himself, as an individual, to the universal."
Problema 1; ¶1
This is not a sin against God but a breach of social morality. Anyone who does not neatly fit into the prescribed roles or categories of one's society recognizes that this is a different kind of sin from the biblical idea of sin as a breach of God's moral code, or something that would require an atoning death.
The description of sin in Problema III is possibly different. Jds is vague (maybe) about whether this description of sin is only in context with the Merman, or any other "demonic" (person who is unable to conform to the universally expected way of being), or if it is a general explanation of sin.
In Problema III, ¶ 24 and ¶25 sin is discussed in these ways:
¶ 24 .......For indeed, if through his guilt the single individual has come outside the universal, he can return to it only by virtue of having come, as the single individual, into an absolute relation to the absolute. Now, here I will make an observation by which I say more than was said at any point in the foregoing. Sin is not the first immediacy, sin is a subsequent immediacy. In sin the individual is already higher, in the direction of the demonic paradox, than the universal, because it is a contradiction of the universal to want to require itself of a person who lacks the conditio sine qua non [necessary and indispensable condition]. If, among other things, philosophy also considered that it could occur to a human being to act in accordance with its teachings, a peculiar comedy would result from it. An ethics that ignores sin is an utterly futile discipline, but if it takes sin into account, then it has eo ipso gone beyond itself. Philosophy teaches that the immediate is to be annulled. This is true enough, but what is not true is that sin is, as a matter of course, something immediate, any more than faith, as a matter of course, is something immediate.
¶ 25 As long as I move within these spheres, everything goes easily, but neither does what is said here explain Abraham, for Abraham did not become the single individual through sin—on the contrary, he was the righteous man who was God’s chosen one. The analogy to Abraham will become visible only after the single individual has been bought to the point of being capable of realizing the universal, and then the paradox repeats itself.
The Merman as the demonic stands outside the universal by his very existence. At one point Jds talks about assigning the Merman a human conscience, and also a human preexistence. In Jds's version of "the system", this would mean the Merman had* at one time been in the universal and had moved out of it because "he lacked the conditio sine qua non [necessary and indispensable condition]" (Problema III, ¶24).
It's interesting that the demonic category is considered higher than the universal -- extending the paradox, that something even higher than the universal exists although the universal is the highest telos of humankind. By this thinking, certain types of people will never be able t be a part of the universal, but will always be, or temporarily be above the universal.
The concern regarding ethics ignoring sin or going beyond itself is, I am quite sure, a direct reference to Hegel's concept s of ethics and morality in The Philosophy of Right. Here we see the need for ethics to recognize that sins exist, that is that breaches of ethics simply do occur. There must be some way to deal with that sin as a society. So, that must be taken into account. However, because sin takes place within the universal and places a person outside of it, "philosophy has eo ipso "gone beyond itself". Philosophy must now deal with a matter that is outside the universal, that is, outside of "the system". In it's conceptual concealment, I think this is a clear disclosure of a contradiction within "the system" (that is Hegel's system) that doesn't seem prepared to deal with "spiritual" categories, except its own. In order to deal either with faith or sin or the demonic (the one who cannot conform to the universal), one needs new dialectical categories that do not already exist within the system.
Three footnotes in my edition of Fear and Trembling (trans. Bruce Kirmmse, 2022) are hard but helpful. I need to study them some more, but must wrap up this post, which will have to be part of a series of posts on Problema III. This small bit reflects hours of work today and more hours over the last week.
32 . Kierkegaard uses the verb ophæve (the Danish equivalent of Hegel’s German term aufhebe ), literally, to “lift up,” and in Hegel’s philosophical usage it means to annul something in such a manner that it can also be preserved in a subsequent “higher unity”; it has been translated into English with such terms as “annul,” “abrogate,” “suspend,” “sublate,” and “abolish.” See also n. 18, supra , and n. 33, infra .
33 . In his Philosophy of Right , Hegel develops the three spheres of “objective Spirit,” after which he divides the work into three parts: “abstract right,” “morality,” and “the ethical life” (German, Sittlichkeit ; Danish, Sædelighed ), i.e., social morality. The second part (“morality,” i.e., individual as opposed to social morality) is further divided into three subdivisions, of which the third (§129–41) treats “The Good and Conscience.” In §140 Hegel develops the moral forms of evil, beginning with “hypocrisy” and followed by “probabilism,” i.e., the standpoint that is satisfied with what is likely because it views certainty as unattainable or impossible; next comes “Jesuitism,” understood as the principle that the ends justify the means; thereafter comes “conviction,” in which one appeals to individual conscience; lastly comes “irony,” as the highest form of subjectivity and of evil. Neither the objective law (“abstract right”) nor subjective morality can in itself claim to be actuality, and they therefore must be unified (reconciled) in a higher unity, and this unity is “the ethical life” (also translated as “social morality”). In the ethical life, objective Right has gained actuality and substance, while subjective arbitrariness has been deprived of its latitude. In the third part of the work, Hegel develops the ethical life according to its three levels: the family, civil society, and the state, which is the absolute substance of “the ethical life.”
52. Presumably an allusion to the philosophy of Hegel, where in accordance with Hegel’s speculative and dialectical method, the development of concepts begins in the realm of the immediate and then points out the contradiction to which it is subject. This contradiction must necessarily be overcome, which takes place when it is brought to consciousness in a higher standpoint, and so on until absolute knowledge has abolished and incorporated within itself every contradiction (see n. 33, supra ). Thus, the “first immediacy” must be abolished in a higher form of knowledge, but if that knowledge is not to be placed higher than faith, then according to Kierkegaard, faith must constitute a “subsequent immediacy” that lies outside philosophy’s development of concepts.
Yeah, Socrates is interesting. Nietzsche compared him to Christ, thinking that Socrates was in numerous ways(eg. their respective ways of dying) superior. But Socrates was also(close to exclusively) the literary mouthpiece of Platonism, which Nietzsche attacked as the ancestral ideology of Christianity and then Kantianism. (See "How The Real World At Last Became A Myth").
[Typing this before reading Kendel's recent post.]
Not sure I've ever seen that passage(or others like it) framed as justification for deception, and I'm guessing it's not a standard interpretation. But it seems to fit with Kierkegaard's view of everything worthwhile about Christianity being a violation of the ethical.
This is one facet of the paradox that is repeated so often. That a righteous act in relation to God can be a violation of social morality.
So if the church praises these righteous acts that are incommensurable with the social morality that it preaches, something doesn't fit together. There is a contradiction that Johannes cannot make work. And the church is, apparently, speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
Just having read Russell Moore's book Loosing Our Religion, I have in mind the repeated point that many people are leaving the church less because they don't believe what is preached, but that they see the church doesn't believe what it preaches. Don't know if SK would agree, but maybe.
It's hard for me to recall all his usages of the word and concept "sin",
The great use of digital books is that you can search the whole thing in just a few moments and then go over the results, rather than the whole book. There are not many uses of the word. I quoted the biggies up a few posts.
Yes, the concept of irony is absolutely one that Kierkegaard really likes - and it is usually formulated by him in the context of Socrates.
K really digs into Socrates as a gadfly and the way he talks about irony is almost like Socrates is a comedian or satirist, holding a mirror up to the aburdities of the Greeks. Irony to K seems to be tied "going your own way" and "thinking for yourself" and "standing alone even if the crowd is against you". Also doubt and declaring one's own lack of knowledge.
I was thinking about the way K depicts Hegel and Christendom and Socrates recently.
It is as if Kierkegaard believes that Hegel is saying something like "the correct way of living is A B and C and what we need to do is build a large roadway and ensure that everyone walks on it"
And he sees the church as saying "Hegel is right and we are the road. Now what all Danes need to do is to only think in terms of the parameters of this road and walk in the same direction as everyone else."
For Kierkegaard, it seems like Socrates is the only True Christian (perhaps even a proto-Christ, if that's not too offensive to type).
The guy who stands in the way of the crowd and says "I've had a revelation from Delphi and I don't believe in this road. There is no road! This thing they are selling is just a load of old tat to keep the priests in pudding! I can even show you that the things you say you believe make no sense. You don't believe it, they don't believe it, you are just walking on this imaginary road because everyone else is. Get your own revelation! Think for yourself!"
I don't think he's saying that Socrates was the only True Christian, but that Socrates as a pagan was more admirable than any Christians that J ds (and probably SK) could bring to mind.
You might be on to something with this last part. Certainly, "Get your own revelation!" and "Think for yourself!" Maybe even think at all.
In Kierkegaard and the New Nationalism Thomas Millay contrasts Kierkegaard's view of the state church and what Christianity needs with that of the new bishop Hans Lassen Martensen. According to Millay, "Going beyond asking for people to opt out of church attendance, Kierkegaard thus calls for a complete overhaul of the church's socio-ecclesial existence in Denmark. He does so because he believes the state's financial support has weakened Christian resolve, such that Christian dedication to eternity has been subsumed into the temporal interests of the state. Christianity thus needs to be set free of the seductive power of state support."
Millay quotes the new bishop, Hans Lassen Martensen's view on the church from Martensen's own work "The Present Religious Crisis:"
The Christian and specifically the Protestant State Churches rest on the presupposition that Christianity is a world religion and thus is able to be the center of the life of nations and states, the center of their moral and political, artistic and scholarly strivings and goals.
From Kierkegaard and the New Nationalism by Thomas Millay, 2022.
Martensen's description of the church reminds me of the Godfather with a finger in everyone's pie.
I can't pretend to understand the theological basis of this, but there seems to me to be theologians who are debating what Kierkegaard meant by describing Socrates as a Christian*
Of course, in reading that I'm reminded that it was Socrates' "daimonion" that gave him divine insight rather than the oracle of Delphi.
Thanks for the article from your slightly earlier post.. I'll look it over when I can.
I didn't know about Socrates and his daimonion. Now doesn't that complicate or explain a bit SK's category of the demonic?! No wonder the category is described in F&T in ways so different from the concept of "demonic" in the Bible.
From what you (plural) know about Socrates already, how was the concept understood in Socrates's lifetime?
Is there anything else known about Socrates among the shipmates that would help explain connections between Socrates and F&T and/or SK?
And yeah, thanks Bill and Ted! I say it right, but I hear you in my head every single time.
Comments
Can I return to this thing about the "clearance sale"? I know it was a while back so understand if nobody does.
Kierkegaard had/developed a very negative impression of the church of his day - and elsewhere says that of everyone was a Christian, nobody was. And that the best thing for Christianity would be to close all the churches.
I believe that maybe this is what he refers to as the "clearance sale", the idea that one can obtain the benefits of Christianity without what he (Kierkegaard) understands to be the cost.
Again, I think this fits with the discussion previously about Hegel, namely that (in simple terms) that one could postulate an ideal society based on certain rules of behaviour that are moderated by peer pressure - and that this was essentially accepted in 19 century Denmark as being Christianity as directed by the church.
I think Kierkegaard is saying that this is a cut-price Christianity which retains fairly fixed corporate morality rules but loses the sense of the individual relation to the divine.
Which, in my opinion, is one stage of Kierkegaards regression into arguing for something that isn't actually Christianity. It's fairly easy to understand what he is against; it is much more difficult to understand what faith actually amounts to in a Kierkegaardian formulation.
Of course, you are right @stetson that salvation is a significant category as well as point in time (if one sees it as a specific born-again moment, which I am probably supposed to do considering my time and location in theological history) in Protestant Christian theology. However, it is possible to talk about the concepts of faith and salvation separately, and theologically one precludes the other. I don't see evidence that SK considers the concept of theological salvation in F&T. He does talk about the possibility of Abraham being "lost" but I have taken that to be a moral rather than spiritual state. Have I missed something?
Hemingway and Kierkegaard:
I so feel it, too. I shared this very fitting meme in another forum a while back.
Agnet (Eng. = Agnes; Latin = ?; Latin to English?) and the Merman:
I'll look over these variations later today and try to pull something together. I think there is some value in looking at the ways Jds alters the stories, and what he says about the alterations, but the real meat (if I remember correctly) is when he talks about the merman as a doubter.
Sarah and Tobit:
I think the most important thing that comes out of this story is the concept of the demonic -- the person who is unable to conform to the universal or ethical, evenwhen they try. I think Kirmmse's intro to the edition of F&T that I have is where there is a very good discussion of the concept of the demonic. If you can get your hands on a library or cheap copy of the book (it's in pprback now!) it's a good one to have for further study of Kierkegaard. Kirmmse's introductory pieces in his translations are outstanding. (I think.)
Back to Sara. She keeps trying to do what is required of a woman in her society: get married. She can't even get to the reproduction part (within the acceptable limits of the universal), because she can never even get to consumate her wedding. Again and again and again.
SK is not sexist about the demonic here. He includes Gloster, one whose very body makes it impossible for him to conform to the expectations of the universal and which, in dialectical relation to the response his body receives from society, also affects his psyche.
Theologically?
I think it's interesting that Jds, or rather SK here, uses the biblical term "demonic" to name a category that is related to conformity to social morality. The demonic is similar to the religious category that is being developed or hypothesized in F&T in that it must reside outside of the ethical category, but this is not by choice, rather by nature or physique.
Is it possible to think of "demoniacs" according to this concept of it today?
In thinking about the concept of demonic and how it is related to the universal, what does the use of religious langauge say about the category that does not related to the religious?
I need to review the section again. I appreciate talking this over with this group, because it makes me identify holes in my understanding. I don't remember if there is any discussion about a relation to "the absolute" for the demoniac, etc. Ther is some discussion that follows the section about Gloster. I'll try to follow up on that soon.
And, yes! @A_Feminine_Force we miss you!
You understand the clearance sale concept.
I think there are two facets to it though. You've got the criticism of Christianity. But this also applies philosophically (in the world of ideas; in our times). Folks want to skip the hard work of questioning accepted concepts and conclusions. "Well Descartes has done it, hasn't he?" (as if it's something anyone can accomplish over the weekend.) They don't want to do the hard work of learning and then thinking through and questioning (doubting) the ideas of the past, making that the work of one's life. Folks just want to start out on the shoulders of giants (without being giants themselves) and "go further." Progress! Progress! The progress of humanity and history!
Doubt is such an important concept throughout the book and particularly in Problema III, it's in the Preface for a reason.
As Stetson has puzzled over, SK includes many extrabiblical examples. Many. I think these are here not only as examples to support arguments but to remind us of the wider application of his criticism, which might be stated as "People are shallow in our time."
And, having lugged my NIV over to the coffee shop in order to give Tobit an analog reading, I now realize that the book is only included in Catholic bibles. So Kierkegaard's conjoining of the luckless bride with stories from secular folklore might not be all that radical, since he prob'ly didn't consider Sarah's story to be biblical anyway.
I also discussed this with reference to Kierkegaards use of characters from Greek legend rather than biblical characters.
I was contemplating whether it was much more common in 19 century Europe to see Christianity as the culmination of previous beliefs so that people where familiar with characters from other traditions.
Possibly, I don't know.
It's also possible that Kierkegaard was just showing off, I suppose. Putting in characters from Shakespeare, ideas from Greek Philosophy etc just to make his meaning more opaque and indicating just how "well read" and clever he is.
You mean it's regarded by the Orthodox as fully canonical? I wouldn't doubt that, but it's not the impression one gets from googling, as the main sites that came up really seemed to be saying "Catholic only". But that's probably the fault of the sites themselves.
I would assume that inclusion in the Apocrypha-only is meant to indicate that protestants are not to take the book as properly biblical? Interestingly, in my translation of Fear And Trembling, Kierkegaard opens his discussion of Sarah's plight by refering to "the book of Tobit", without any indication as to its status in relation to the canon.
Personally, on the basis of content alone, I can see why some would want to keep the book at a distance: the whole set-up reads basically like a mystical sex-farce.
If I can't find an answer with little research, i"ll reach out to the Hong Library at Princeton.
Sorry not to be able to keep the whole discussion in mind at once. I've been in and out the last few weeks and have a bunch of projects taking up brain space right now. A few of them are really good, though. Just can't fit it all in at once.
My GUESS would be that since he was writing for a largely Lutheran audience, Kierkegaard woulda used a translation considered authoritative by Lutherans, even if he was calling into question the centrality of institutional churches to the Christian life.
Ask ChatGPT.
I'm a luddite. For now, I'll just go with...
Abraham was the most righteous, Ethical man in Canaan. Do not think I am much impressed by this as a relationship to God, but it meant a lot to Abe.
Yeah, I'm sure there a zillion analogies you could use to highlight the rigor of your literary analysis, so let's just go with the one about torturing little babies for all eternity.
@Martin54 ChatGPT does a lousy job of evaluating sources. I'll check with a colleague over at Princeton.
Thanks for the biographical info. Yeah, I'm sure he coulda cited any number of bibles in any number of languages, but which ones would be suitable for his purposes is another matter.
I think Fear And Trembling is written at least partly for reading by professional theologians. And this may reflect an anglospheric bias, but I woulda thought there would be some sort of authoritative KJV-equivalent in Danish that would normally be used by writers seeking to maintain credibility with that sorta readership.
But, honestly, I really have no idea.
I like it.
ChatGPT in response to 'kierkegaard in the style of hemingway',
That's v 3.5, which is good enough for me; not worth $240 a year for a 0.5 upgrade.
Would EH have capitalized 'ethical'? And used the first person?
If find ChatGPT eerily good.
Yes.
Yes, and put this way, it remindes me of Derek Webb's song "New Law."
Yes; mostly. I think, if we pulled together what we've learned about faith described in F&T, we might be able to put together a description that is conssistent with his other works, whether we understand how that works or not.
Sorry again @KoF to have failed to acknowledge your contributions in the discussion, when I've responded. I'll try to do better.
SK was a child of his time and family, which included a classical education, particularly for students headed to the Uni. He lived happily-miserably as an aesthete as a student and regularly went to the theater, possibly even later in life. He clearly loved a good story and loved to think about what they meant and taught. I would have loved to sit at the cafe in Berlin with him and natter about books as the overpriced coffee got cold.
As far as a belief of Christianity being a culmination of previous beliefs....
I think this is part of his criticism of the acceptance of Hegel's theory of the cycles of history.
@stetson, I had forgotten about "A Clean, Well-lighted place" even missing your reference. Sorry. I remembered the saucers and lighting and waiters immediately. Stunning. Stunning! And the prayers. Absolutely no comprehension in high school what he was getting at. What time does to us.
Perfect abstract of the aesthetic, ethical and religious covered in Either-Or, AND F&T.
Love Hemingway.
@stetson you're going to have to spell out the soteriology here. I"m not seeing it.
@Martin54 that was a marvelous demonstration of the power of ChatGPT!
Help, please?
From you, @Martin54 . Not ChatGPT.
Or was your Chat GPT demon in the style of DJLB?
re: the soteriology...
Assuming :Knight Of Faith" is equivalent to "true Christian", then Kierkegaard in Fear And Trembling is explaining what is neccessary to become a true Christian, IOW what is neccessary to be saved.
Unless we think the Knight Of Faith can be someone who is already a Christian, and is entering into even closer Communion with God than most Christians enjoy. But that would make Christians into a sort of hierarchy, which I don't think Kierkegaard would intend.
@Martin54
Yes, that was pretty impressive, stylistically. Though, content-wise, it does kind of illustrate the criticism that "AI only knows what the internet", since most of the paragraph was Top 10 Themes Associated With Kierkegaard.
To answer your questions, no, Hemingway probably would not capitalize "ethical", I did so in order to emphasize that I was talking specifically about the philosophical concept.
As for whether Hemingway would use the first-person:
Yes, indeed. My post was a direct parody of the opening lines to The Sun Also Rises, which is written in the first-person.
I have been reading but haven't had time to reflect or post.
Hugs to everyone.
AFF
Sorry. Yes. Oh bugger. (Apparently I am scattered (according to my best man, recently), bonkers (also recently, with affection from muh daughter who also at the same time said "You've got ADHD" (she's properly studying it all)), and much else besides according to my poor wife. I was Christened the absent minded professor at junior school. I'm just a teensy bit OCD I say. All coming together now with my excellent clinical shrink. The major downside is rumination).
So D. Jerome L. Bixby wrote one of the top 10 Twilight Zone dramatized stories "It's a Good Life" and I gave his full name above, on the wrong thread... (That links to the right one).
Show's what a poseur I am. I was aware of his understated, economy of style but not the fact that most of his oeuvre is in the first person...
I agree with Stetson's assessment of ChatGPT's write-up on our friend. But stylistically, it's a treat.
Hemingway is one of my favorite writers, although I've been unable to emulate him myself. Much to your, my readers,' frustration I'm sure. But I do try to pare it back.
A bit.
Thank you for clarifying that ADHD was in addition to bonkers. They exist in different categories, while occassionally meeting within a single individual.
Finally, @Martin54 , message for you, sir.
Take care, AFF.
I'm actually not aware what person his work is in. I think all the short stories I've read by him were in the third. The Old Man And The Sea was as well, but I haven't read anything else by him.
Great to see you, AFF. Sorry to hear about your loss.
Today I reorganized the text to make sense of the variations of the story in an attempt to contrast them better and understand better what we're supposed to notice. However, I'm not convinced that that is the right strategy or focus.
The discussion of sin that starts with the footnote from Paragraph 24, the inability to explain Abraham in terms of the demonic or repentance in Paragraph 25, and the relationship of the demonic with repentance, the movements, etc, etc in Paragraph 26 (which also starts to move into the territory of irony, foreshadowing the topic for later in the chapter) seem more important to me (and maybe Jds) than the detailed analysis of the variations of Agnete and the Merman.
I see why soteriology has come up. I'd forgotten there was this much discussion of sin. I want to make sure we talk about the concept of sin as presented here, which I think would be unrecognizable to anyone unfamiliar with this book.
I'll try to focus on paragraphs 24-26 in the morning and pull together something. Maybe more questions.
From the end of the Faust passage...
Not sure I've ever seen that passage(or others like it) framed as justification for deception, and I'm guessing it's not a standard interpretation. But it seems to fit with Kierkegaard's view of everything worthwhile about Christianity being a violation of the ethical.
I'm looking forward to getting to the whole discussion about irony as well. And doubt. There is a lot in Problema III that I really enjoyed, in spite of the challenge of getting through it. It seems to be nearly entirely overlooked in lectures and secondary literature. Everyone is so enamored with the TSoE, they forget about the rest of the book where it is employed as the theoretical framework.
But first....if it's ok, Agnete and the Merman.
Tomorrow, though. I'm done for the day.
Kendel:
summarize Problema III from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling in the style of Ernest Hemingway
ChatGPT:
In Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling," Problema III delves into the story of Abraham's ultimate test of faith, as he's willing to sacrifice his own son. It's a tale of profound inner conflict, a man torn between divine duty and human love, wrestling with the moral abyss. Abraham's heart trembles, but his unwavering faith propels him toward the unthinkable, revealing the depth of human existence's complexity.
Kendel:
What are the specific topics covered in Problema III in Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling
ChatGPT:
In "Fear and Trembling" by Søren Kierkegaard, Problema III explores the biblical story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac at God's command. This section of the book delves into several specific topics:
The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical: Kierkegaard discusses the ethical norms and how they can be suspended or transcended when an individual is faced with a higher ethical or religious duty.
Abraham's Faith: The text deeply analyzes Abraham's faith, his willingness to obey God's command to sacrifice his son Isaac, and the profound anguish and conflict he experiences in making this decision.
The Knight of Faith: Kierkegaard introduces the concept of the "knight of faith," a person who possesses extraordinary faith that allows them to navigate seemingly impossible ethical dilemmas and paradoxes.
The Paradox: The paradox of faith is a central theme in Problema III, emphasizing that true faith often goes beyond reason and cannot be fully comprehended by human understanding.
The Relation to God: Kierkegaard explores the intimate, personal relationship between the individual and God and how it can lead to actions that appear irrational or paradoxical from an ethical standpoint.
The Nature of Belief and Doubt: Kierkegaard delves into the complexities of belief and doubt, highlighting the tension between them and how doubt can coexist with faith.
Ethical Universal vs. Individual Choice: The text explores the contrast between universal ethical principles and individual choices driven by faith, emphasizing that faith can lead to decisions that seem ethically problematic.
Repetition: Kierkegaard introduces the idea of repetition in the context of faith, suggesting that a true believer may undergo a repetitive process of testing and reaffirming their faith.
Problema III is a philosophical examination of these complex and profound topics, using the story of Abraham as a case study to explore the limits of faith, ethics, and the individual's relationship with the divine.
Kendel:
What unique specific themes are discussed in Problema III of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling? Which themes are not covered in other chapters of the book?
ChatGPT:
Problema III of Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" addresses several unique themes that are not extensively covered in the other chapters of the book. These themes are specific to this section of the text:
The Paradox of Faith: While the concept of the paradox is present throughout the book, Problema III delves particularly deeply into the idea of faith as a paradox. It explores how faith can lead individuals to actions that seem irrational or ethically problematic from an outsider's perspective.
The Knight of Faith: The idea of the "knight of faith" is introduced and developed in Problema III. This is a unique concept in the book, and it centers around individuals with extraordinary faith who can navigate paradoxes and ethical dilemmas in a way that is beyond comprehension.
Repetition: Kierkegaard introduces the notion of repetition in the context of faith in Problema III. This theme explores how faith may involve a repetitive process of testing and reaffirming one's beliefs.
The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical: While this theme is present throughout the book, Problema III provides a comprehensive examination of how the ethical can be suspended or transcended in the face of higher religious duties, using the example of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
These themes are distinct to Problema III, and they contribute to a deeper exploration of the complexities of faith and ethics, making this chapter a unique and integral part of "Fear and Trembling."
I played some more asking about terms and specific concepts. It did a little better.
It's hard for me to recall all his usages of the word and concept "sin", but I'm assuming he means whatever pulls you away from the religious.
Thanks for AI analysis. From what I can tell from my brief skim, it does an okay job for the overall book, but completely fails to represent anything meaningful about Problem III. Uhh, Hal, you do know there's this whole theme in Book III about Abraham concealing his purposes, right? Like, it's right there in the freaking subtitle
And this is probably why AI screwed it up so badly. Just a guess, but I'd say that about 85% of the internet writing about Kierkegaard is geared toward philosophy undergraduates, who in most classes would learn about the TSOTE as an overall concept, and know Abraham as the basic example, but not get too much into the detailed implications of the idea.
Sorry there are so many Real Life things that drag me away from the fun. Sigh.
But most of today's diversions were lovely, and included colorful fall foliage, a few very tough remaining wild-flowers, and a beautiful small body of water.
(Unit A: https://www.michigantrailmaps.com/member-detail/maple-river-state-game-area/) We walked the whole dotted red trail from the car park to the highway and back. I needed that, too.
I'll be honest, and say I find this a little confusing. I'll try to collect my thoughts, and write some more in a bit.
Sorry I still haven't delivered on Agnete and the Merman. It takes me so long to work through and work over some of the texts. And there hasn't been much time to sit down and concentrate recently.
I really loved this section on irony that you quoted, though. I haven't read his dissertation, but the title is "The Concept of Irony With Continual Reference to Socrates." He obviously had some interest in the concept and techniques.
I think it's fascinating how SK identifies irony in this section and also in some of the words of Jesus. And while I think readers of the Bible often interpret some parts as ironic, they might be hesitant to say so, and certainly hesitant to ascribe irony to Jesus.
I know one or two particularly gifted ironists. Ok -- two. They really CAN say nothing (that anyone else understands) while saying everything (that only they can understand or a very select few). In this way, irony can be like prayer -- between a person and God, the smallest possible group, and in absolute relation to the absolute. No other is allowed into this relationship or communicative event. No one else may understand it, much less can.
My comments on prayer here are just my improv on the idea. I don't remember SK or Jds saying anything along that order. But I do think it fits. Even though it's not part of the text at all.
Okay. Assuming(and I invite other interpretations) that a God-given lamb would be absurd because God would then be the giver and the receiver of the sacrifice...
At least I think that's the general psychological gist of it.
K really digs into Socrates as a gadfly and the way he talks about irony is almost like Socrates is a comedian or satirist, holding a mirror up to the aburdities of the Greeks. Irony to K seems to be tied "going your own way" and "thinking for yourself" and "standing alone even if the crowd is against you". Also doubt and declaring one's own lack of knowledge.
I was thinking about the way K depicts Hegel and Christendom and Socrates recently.
It is as if Kierkegaard believes that Hegel is saying something like "the correct way of living is A B and C and what we need to do is build a large roadway and ensure that everyone walks on it"
And he sees the church as saying "Hegel is right and we are the road. Now what all Danes need to do is to only think in terms of the parameters of this road and walk in the same direction as everyone else."
For Kierkegaard, it seems like Socrates is the only True Christian (perhaps even a proto-Christ, if that's not too offensive to type).
The guy who stands in the way of the crowd and says "I've had a revelation from Delphi and I don't believe in this road. There is no road! This thing they are selling is just a load of old tat to keep the priests in pudding! I can even show you that the things you say you believe make no sense. You don't believe it, they don't believe it, you are just walking on this imaginary road because everyone else is. Get your own revelation! Think for yourself!"
Some things here are still unclear to me, but this is what I have so far:
Agnate and the Merman provide a context for examining in terms of Jds's version of Hegel's system the concepts of sin, repentance, salvation and the demonic in contrast to the divine. These concepts are only discussed here structurally and in light of concealment and disclosure, the theme of Problema III's question (Was it ethically defensible of Abraham not to have told....about his undertaking?).
A close examination of these concepts in the book demonstrates that what is proposed here, whether it's SK's personal view or not, is very different from theological definitions that are part of standard church doctrine. I am inclined to see them all as a reflection (possible parody) of SK's view of the fashionable (Hegel-oriented) theology of his time.
I will begin with what is closest at hand: sin. We see sin described in Problema I in this way: This is not a sin against God but a breach of social morality. Anyone who does not neatly fit into the prescribed roles or categories of one's society recognizes that this is a different kind of sin from the biblical idea of sin as a breach of God's moral code, or something that would require an atoning death.
The description of sin in Problema III is possibly different. Jds is vague (maybe) about whether this description of sin is only in context with the Merman, or any other "demonic" (person who is unable to conform to the universally expected way of being), or if it is a general explanation of sin.
In Problema III, ¶ 24 and ¶25 sin is discussed in these ways:
The Merman as the demonic stands outside the universal by his very existence. At one point Jds talks about assigning the Merman a human conscience, and also a human preexistence. In Jds's version of "the system", this would mean the Merman had* at one time been in the universal and had moved out of it because "he lacked the conditio sine qua non [necessary and indispensable condition]" (Problema III, ¶24).
It's interesting that the demonic category is considered higher than the universal -- extending the paradox, that something even higher than the universal exists although the universal is the highest telos of humankind. By this thinking, certain types of people will never be able t be a part of the universal, but will always be, or temporarily be above the universal.
The concern regarding ethics ignoring sin or going beyond itself is, I am quite sure, a direct reference to Hegel's concept s of ethics and morality in The Philosophy of Right. Here we see the need for ethics to recognize that sins exist, that is that breaches of ethics simply do occur. There must be some way to deal with that sin as a society. So, that must be taken into account. However, because sin takes place within the universal and places a person outside of it, "philosophy has eo ipso "gone beyond itself". Philosophy must now deal with a matter that is outside the universal, that is, outside of "the system". In it's conceptual concealment, I think this is a clear disclosure of a contradiction within "the system" (that is Hegel's system) that doesn't seem prepared to deal with "spiritual" categories, except its own. In order to deal either with faith or sin or the demonic (the one who cannot conform to the universal), one needs new dialectical categories that do not already exist within the system.
Three footnotes in my edition of Fear and Trembling (trans. Bruce Kirmmse, 2022) are hard but helpful. I need to study them some more, but must wrap up this post, which will have to be part of a series of posts on Problema III. This small bit reflects hours of work today and more hours over the last week.
Footnotes in next post....
Yeah, Socrates is interesting. Nietzsche compared him to Christ, thinking that Socrates was in numerous ways(eg. their respective ways of dying) superior. But Socrates was also(close to exclusively) the literary mouthpiece of Platonism, which Nietzsche attacked as the ancestral ideology of Christianity and then Kantianism. (See "How The Real World At Last Became A Myth").
So if the church praises these righteous acts that are incommensurable with the social morality that it preaches, something doesn't fit together. There is a contradiction that Johannes cannot make work. And the church is, apparently, speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
Just having read Russell Moore's book Loosing Our Religion, I have in mind the repeated point that many people are leaving the church less because they don't believe what is preached, but that they see the church doesn't believe what it preaches. Don't know if SK would agree, but maybe.
The great use of digital books is that you can search the whole thing in just a few moments and then go over the results, rather than the whole book. There are not many uses of the word. I quoted the biggies up a few posts.
I don't think he's saying that Socrates was the only True Christian, but that Socrates as a pagan was more admirable than any Christians that J ds (and probably SK) could bring to mind.
You might be on to something with this last part. Certainly, "Get your own revelation!" and "Think for yourself!" Maybe even think at all.
In Kierkegaard and the New Nationalism Thomas Millay contrasts Kierkegaard's view of the state church and what Christianity needs with that of the new bishop Hans Lassen Martensen. According to Millay, "Going beyond asking for people to opt out of church attendance, Kierkegaard thus calls for a complete overhaul of the church's socio-ecclesial existence in Denmark. He does so because he believes the state's financial support has weakened Christian resolve, such that Christian dedication to eternity has been subsumed into the temporal interests of the state. Christianity thus needs to be set free of the seductive power of state support."
Millay quotes the new bishop, Hans Lassen Martensen's view on the church from Martensen's own work "The Present Religious Crisis:" From Kierkegaard and the New Nationalism by Thomas Millay, 2022.
Martensen's description of the church reminds me of the Godfather with a finger in everyone's pie.
See for example this paper https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol31/iss2/1/
It gives me a headache but might be worthwhile for others to read..
* maybe I was going a bit too far previously
Thanks for the article from your slightly earlier post.. I'll look it over when I can.
I didn't know about Socrates and his daimonion. Now doesn't that complicate or explain a bit SK's category of the demonic?! No wonder the category is described in F&T in ways so different from the concept of "demonic" in the Bible.
From what you (plural) know about Socrates already, how was the concept understood in Socrates's lifetime?
Is there anything else known about Socrates among the shipmates that would help explain connections between Socrates and F&T and/or SK?
And yeah, thanks Bill and Ted! I say it right, but I hear you in my head every single time.