In the Preliminary Outpourings section of Fear and Trembling, John de silentio furthers the concept of faith having an (essential) element of “absurdity” in its composition. Faith therefore cannot be rationally understood because of this element of absurdity. This is by and far the most brain-wracking part of this section for me. If faith cannot be rationalized, how can it co-exist with rationality or in a rational world? Does this not call for a world filled with either people of faith or a world of rational people? Jds does think that rationality (in the form of philosophy) has a certain utility (which he hasn’t really defined yet) but it cannot attempt to bestow faith (since faith cannot be rationalized) (page 27). Yet to have faith is the “highest” state of being, a state that he insists would take most people a lifetime to comprehend. Furthermore it would seem entirely plausible that most people would have gone an entire lifetime without reaching this point. It would seem however, that faith should be the ultimate goal to strive for and society (either members of the religious society or society as a whole) would then constantly be striving to reach this point. Yet considering (Jds’) ruminations on how he would hypothetically attempt deter someone from replicating Abraham’s act of faith, the strain between the rational and faith becomes really jarring. According to Jds, people who wrongly attempt to perform acts of faith can be subjected to the laws of the rational world (he mentions physical punishment and admitting someone to a mental-asylum). Yet it seems as if we would only realize that someone is not truly a Knight of Faith after we see that he has not received something back through “the virtue of the absurd” (as Abraham received Isaac and the K.O.F receives his princess). We only realize that they are not K.O.F when we see that no miracle has occurred; how could this logic be accepted in a rational society? Also, of faith is where we are trying to reach, why have/teach rationality at all? Does it not simply complicate matters? If a miracle occurs, does that not prove the futility of rationality in the light of faith? Let’s say that you saw someone about to ‘sacrifice’ or ‘murder’ someone in the street under the premise of ‘faith’ or ‘virtue of the absurd’. Despite your attempts to talk him/her out of doing this, he/she insists that it must be done for them to show their ‘faith’ to God. Do you attempt to physically stop the person or do you wait to see if something miraculous happens? If you interfere, are you interfering in something of a divine nature and what are the ramifications for interfering? My conclusion is that they seemingly cannot co-exist. If rationality pales in the light of faith, what then is the utility of rationality?
The main problem I have with this book is that what is called faith is closer to what is generally called trust, although faith is a component of trust. While using the word faith in this sense may be sufficient for analyzing the story Abraham, I do not see how it might be applied to one’s own faith in God (and I take that to be one of the purposes of this book). In the story of Abraham, God is a being taken for granted, the question is not whether or not he exists, but whether or not he is benevolent (whether or not it is a good idea to listen to Him). Here is a scenario that is exclusive to figures of the scriptures. Abraham’s faith is analogous to the faith a patient has in his or her surgeon (although of course Abraham’s is to the highest degree). While this type of faith (to lower degrees) is prevalent and necessary in the world, it never can occur with regards to God; unless someone believes God specifically communicates with him or her.
ReplyDeleteAlthough (so far) this book does not offer (for me at least) much that is valuable with regards to faith in God, I think if faith is understood (as I understand it) as faith in other people, as practical faith, it becomes very profound. An example of this faith is the faith that one has when he or she is going into a job interview, or something like that. Here faith is a productive force. Faith in this sense is of the utmost importance, and I would agree with Kierkegaard, or JDS, that it cannot be strictly rationalized. Faith in this sense, though not the type JDS is talking about, is not only compatible with rationality but it is necessary for it as well (at the least we have to have faith that things are as they seem, before we attempt to rationalize them).
In response to Billy’s comment, I would have to disagree to an extent with the notion that what is known as faith in Fear and Trembling closely resembles what is generally known as trust. It seems that faith does take on this conventional meaning, but I will then suggest that it is something that exceeds and transforms trust, rather than something that is equivalent to it. Faith is alluded to as this movement through a realm of absurdity, which nullifies the idea of a “practical faith.” The faith that is described in the text is not understood, nor is it something that is within the external and immediate world. God is the primary source of such faith. Faith, in the sense that Billy mentions, is of a different type which is not applicable to Abraham’s story or Johannes de silentio’s account. The faith in which Billy speaks seems, on the contrary, very much like a rational task and incompatible with that pertaining to God. It occurred to me that this is tending to lean more towards an account of the knight of infinite resignation, whose faith is of a practical and ethical nature.
ReplyDeleteI was also very interested by an inquiry within the post that questions the existence of rationality at all. It is easy to jump to such a question given that faith is somehow the ultimate goal, but what then would we have, simply faith? We need the rational to guide the external world as a way to construct and mold faith. This is proven and further explained in the distinction between the knight of infinite resignation and the knight of faith. There cannot be faith without some sort of resignation. In recognizing their limits and functions with respect to one another, it seems to me that rationality and faith must exist together.
I think that trust is part of faith rather than the other way around. There needs to be trust and also something beyond it. Trust is achieved through reaffirmation and slow build up of reciprocal comfort of the two. With faith in God, it is more akin to blind trust and positive belief that compose it.
ReplyDeleteWith rationality, while it seems very intuitive that rationality and faith are opposed, they need to co-exist in certain ways. The rationality is what allows for the common laws to exist and work. I think similar to the idea that if everyone decided to follow the example of Abraham and sacrifice their son, it would be chaos and rationality steps in here.
I think Billy was right to draw a distinction between faith and trust, but I think that trust is a component of faith. I understand faith in the religious sense as a belief in a set of principles and holding a certain attitude towards the idea of a God. Through time a person's faith can grow stronger, by that person being reaffirmed about God through their expectations being met, etc. Trust is one of principles that enables faith to grow, and they are positively correlated. Anyway, I don't think you can make the claim that rationality and faith cannot co-exist in a society because there is a difference between individual actions being rational and a society being rational. As Maria said, if everyone decided to follow Abraham's example there would be chaos. However, I think Abraham had rational reasons (grounded in faith) for what he did.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Meryam's comment that "Abraham had rational reasons (grounded in faith) for what he did", I think that JdS would disagree completely. Given the ideas of the "promise of Isaac" and the "sacrifice of Isaac", I think that JdS is saying that faith is not a rational action. Faith is something that goes against all reasonable odds, and it is not something that could ever be rationally comprehended. JdS is saying that the Knight of Faith has faith by virtue of the absurd, which clearly indicates an irrational kind of faith; it is the releasing of the notion that we could ever understand God.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the seeming impossibility of this account of faith in a seemingly rational world, I would point out that it is perhaps a dangerous assumption to make that JdS and Kkgd have similar views. To me, the account of faith that is irrevocably linked with doubt, a strictly rational activity, is perhaps more along the lines of what Kkgd is trying to really tell us. We doubt that which we cannot logically understanding or that which seems irrational, so if faith is intertwined with doubt, then it is an activity that has a large component in rationality. By removing himself from JdS, Kkgd might be sending us a signal that this account of faith which lacks rationality is not one that really works. Hence, the contradiction.