This section in Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling starts out with a critique of the Hegelian system. Using the pseudonym of Johannes de silentio, Kierkegaard states that faith cannot be understood as a "concept" because it is unknown. This is seen when Johannes writes that "Even if one were able to convert the whole content of faith into conceptual form, it does not follow that one has comprehended faith, comprehended how one entered into it or how it entered into one" (p. 5).
Johannes continues to question the role of faith in the life of human beings by analyzing Abraham's biblical story; God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac on Mount Moriah, Abraham does not question God's command and sets out to kill his son. When Abraham is about to commit the act an angel appears and tells him that his fear and thus his faith to God has been proven and that he does not need to kill his son anymore (Genesis 22:1-19). Johannes states that this story is hard to comprehend and that he wished he could had been there at the moment it occurred, to see it at first hand. Therefore, the author presents four alternative scenarios to the story of Abraham. Each has a more comprehensible reason for the outcome. By this the author sets out to question why Abraham's acts are so hard to comprehend. Why do alternative stories make more sense than a story of man who undoubtedly followed God's command? By examining in detail the biblical story Johannes concludes that Abraham was the greatest of all man because of his undoubtful faith to God. Johannes highlights that Abraham did not tremble when God asked him to sacrifice his son and he did not beg. Abraham did not doubt God's command, he just followed it with faith in God and the purposes of his command.
This section of the book was quite an interesting one. Knowing the story of Abraham from my religious upbringing, whenever I have thought of it, I have also found myself trying to understand if complete faith is possible, and if so why should it be the representation of goodness? In my perspective Religion is a very complicated topic, sometimes leading us to leave behind what we consider ethical in order to accept the religious beliefs that tell us what it is right. For example, is it ethical for a father to kill his own son? I don't think so, regardless of a the reason a son is a son something that is so valuable for a human being. Also, the idea of a supreme being is something that goes beyond our experience and yet we are qualified as "good" if we accept our relationship to the unknown without questioning. This ideas represent a quarrel between Faith and Reason. To what extent can we accept that which mandates our existence if we do not understand what it is? In order to behave like Abraham we have to shut down our faculty of reason and simply believe that the unknown is right for us.
I was raised Catholic so I grew up with this story, too. Many people, even as children, are really disturbed and perplexed by this story, even if they believe it. They think that God's behavior was very cruel and are not sure what to make of his request of Abraham or why it was necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis is a story about faith over reason, over material devotion and even over human love (even very admirable human love). As obedience to God should supersede everything, God wanted to test how devoted Abraham was to him by demanding the ultimate sacrifice from him. Abraham's only legitimate son was his most loved and treasured possession, if that is the right word, and so God wanted to see if Abraham would give it all up for him. God had no actual intention of sacrificing Issac and only wanted to see how faithful Abraham really was to him. Like in the story of Job, God desired that Abraham unconditionally worship him even if God took everything from him. He wanted Abraham to chose love of God over the love of another person. Another aspect of this is that God had originally given Issac to Abraham and so, in a way, God was only taking back what was his anyway.
There's a Turkish- German film called Edge of Heaven which briefly features the story of Abraham and Issac:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfDZKztkpuE
In this film, however, the reverse happens. The young Turkish bookstore owner's father is a convicted murderer who killed his girlfriend in an argument. The bookstore owner broke off his relationship with his father because he was disgusted at his father's crime. However, the conversation with his acquaintance reminds him how much his father, despite his faults, loves him. It is the ultimate love that he would choose his son over even God.
P.S. So he decides to reconnect with his father because he realizes that his father would never have behaved like Abraham. He would have had the strength and love to oppose God and would have sacrificed everything for his son.
ReplyDeleteI was raised in Hindu and Buddhist religion. We also have similary stories like Abraham where God will put you in a situation and he will test you for your faith. Your action will lead to know whether you are obedient and faithful to your God or not. May be plot and stories are different; however the morality of all those stories are same. In the stories like Abraham and Issac, I doubt myself whether father should sacrifice his own son/ blood to prove that he is loyal and obedient to God. Why God has to put us in such a situation where we have to make a choice? The choices we make may be ethically wrong and make us to feel guilty. I think all these religious values and stories are just to make us obedient to our society and be within the rules and regulation of society that mankind has established.
ReplyDeleteA question for Junita. A lot of Westerners think that Buddhism and Hinduism are somehow more peaceful or "more spiritual" than Western religions. Like that "Eat, Pray, Love" woman who traveled to Indonesia and India to become "enlightened", they think Eastern religions are more nature based and earthly and more candles and meditation.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that this is true? Or do you think that Eastern religions can be just as strict and dogmatic as Christianity, Islam and Judaism?
When I read the last sentence of this blog ("In order to behave like Abraham we have to shut down our faculty of reason and simply believe that the unknown is right for us"), a question follows: who is it that attaches the meaning of goodness/rightfulness to the unknown that we believe in?
ReplyDeleteThe answer appears to me is somewhat similar to Junita's response. It clearly seems to me that we, the human beings, are the ones who attach these meanings (whether it's positive/negative/neutral) to everything we have in this "world", and that each meaning carries a certain political/economic/social significance to ourselves and/or those within our community.
After reading the comments, more questions appear to me in my mind: why does God want to test Abraham's devotion and belief? What good will that do to both parties? In simple words, what's the purpose? Perhaps these are very rational questions, but I simply cannot think of any answer for these questions in the rational approach. Perhaps as Cristina said, faith is something we cannot use our reason to comprehend.
@Agatha:
ReplyDeleteAs far as I have a knowledge about Eastern religion, I know that we are spiritual and as well as religious. Spirttual acts like yoga, meditation come from Eastern society. I think Eastern society has an olden civilization than compare to Western Society. Now, I think Western is getting influence by Eastern society and following their footsteps. I have not get a chance to watch that "eat, prey and love" movie but it looks like that movie is more about spiritual values.
Eastern religion also has strict and dogmatic as other religions. For example, people sacrifice animals in the name of God in big festivals like Dashera, and so on.
The problem of "ethically wrong" or feeling "guilty" presupposes a moral system (not necessarily the Hegelian one). When either of those phrases comes up, we need to understand from which system of beliefs does this feeling of guilt or wrongness comes from. If someone would feel guilty upon killing a ram in sacrifice to God, that guilt would not necessarily come from the same reasoning (system of beliefs) as the sacrifice. This discrepancy, when examined, can reveal that besides Christianity, for example, the person prescribes to the philosophy that one should never harm a living thing. In that dilemma, the person needs to figure out which of the two routes to take (to sacrifice the ram or not), and that will often reveal to which principle one's allegiance lies.
ReplyDeleteWhat I never understood about Abraham's compliance with the order to kill his son is that it is directly against the "Thou shalt not murder" commandment. Thus, God, technically, is contradicting himself, which one are you supposed to listen to?
@Maria
ReplyDeleteIn terms of a biblical timeline, the 10 commandments and Moses didn't happen until much later, so there was no "thou shalt not murder" yet when Abraham was doing his thing on the mountain.
@Cristina:
ReplyDeleteI believe that you hit the crux of the matter when you write that, "Johannes states that this story is hard to comprehend and that he wished he could had been there at the moment it occurred, to see it at first hand." Ever since our discussion on Monday night, I've been thinking a lot about the different layers of storytelling (Kierkegaard taking a pseduonym, then presenting the palimpsests from a even further removed perspective, etc.) and what Kierkegaaaard could have been trying to tell us through these choices. I think that the idea in the earliest sections that doubt and faith are inexorably linked are what is most important, and this is further supported by clues in this part of the book. Allow me to elaborate.
Kierkegaard's pseudonym choice is a first clue; he wants us to look for what is being left unsaid. By aligning JdS with the hard scripture, he (kkgd) is aligning him (JdS) with the account of the Abraham story that lacks any doubt. The man giving the four palimpsests, however, humanizes Abraham and makes him more relatable; makes the story into a more realistic version(s). By inserting the doubt, he (the man) is also lining up with an account of faith that includes doubt, which is what Kierkegaard had previously advocated as superior. Notice that what JdS's version leaves unsaid in the Abraham tale is the doubt, and that the other two people (the man and kkgd proper) include doubt with their faith.
Hi guys after a month I am finally here to answer all of your comments.. Lets start.
ReplyDelete@ Agatha Thank you for the example!
@ Juanita, I agree with you. I also believe that this type of stories are told to us to reinforce our religious believes, and to set an example of what a good religious follower must do.
@ Ying, I agree with you. It is our society that attaches the meaning of what is good or wrong, however most of the laws that govern our society and tell us what is good or bad are built on religious beliefs.
@ Maria yes God seems to be contradicting himself. I was thinking over the answer that Oscar has already provided, did the ten commandments happen after Abraham? Apparently they did, but does this change that GOD has the right to give us a set of commands and at the same time tell us when to follow them?
@Oscar YES! I still think about the significance of storytelling. Why did Kieerkegaard use a pseudonym? And why does it have to be Johannes de Silentio? There has to be a significance to the "de silentio" part. Unlike Abraham JDS seems to be telling us all his understanding. But why are there so many stories used to prove JDS points?