Fear and Trembling is written by Soren Kierkegaard and was published in 1843 under the pseudonym of Johannes de silentio. The book is presented in a dialectical mode relating different issues such as between a life of religious faith and the ethical life. Fear and Trembling begins with a preface that focuses on the concept of doubt and faith. “Not only in the commercial world but in the realm of ideas as well, our age is holding a veritable clearance sale. Everything is had so dirt cheap that it is doubtful whether in the end anyone will bid. Every speculative score-keeper who conscientiously keep account of the momentous march of modern philosophy, every lecture, tutor, student, every outsider and insider in philosophy does not stop doubting everything but goes further”(p.3).
In the biblical story of Abraham and Issac, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Issac in the Mount Moriah. At that time, Abraham has a choice to either complete the task of killing his son or just simply disobey the God. Despite of his choices, he just follows God’s command without any question and went to kill his son. When he is going to kill his son an angel came and stop him from sacrificing his innocent son. In this way, Abraham became a knight of faith because he was willing to do what God asked of him. If we considered Abraham’s act ethically, he is wrong because he cannot take someone’s life. However, he is right if Absolute is concerned. Therefore, we can clearly see that this book is not about ethics (what is morally or wrong) but it is about faith. By the definition of faith, we can understand that it is a trust on person or thing and it is not based on proof. In the first section of Fear and Trembling, the author present four different stories and it has its own morality and outcome in each story. Each part of the answer corresponds to the question that Abraham asks his inner sight, but he never asks any question to God’s command. We can see that Faith is the highest passion in Abraham.
From above mentioned things in this section of Fear and Trembling, people believe in their faith. Sometimes they are ethically wrong but they relate their act to faith (belief). Abraham’s action to take his son’s life is incomprehensible to others. There are so many religious paradox beliefs like in the story of Abraham and people still believe in those irrational and ethically wrong act. In my Hindu culture also we have ritual acts like sacrificing animals in the name of God. For me those acts are ethically and morally wrong. It make me to think is there such thing like a God who will make us to do evil things or it is just our system of religion that is leading us to act in the name of Faith? We can see everyday people are dying all around the world in the name of Faith.
I don't know if it should be stated that this book isn't about "ethics", but rather, solely about "faith." I believe that this book happens to be about both, and the conflicting nature of the two.
ReplyDeleteKierkegaard goes on to explain the ethical as the "telos", which is translated to mean end goal or final goal. He believes that there is no final goal beyond the ethical goal, which means that faith does not go beyond the ethical goal. The ethical goal is the furthest possible telos because it is, in Kierkegaard's mind, what brings an individual into the over arching group of man.
Faith is something that,while prevalent in many societies, is not shared by everyone. It is not universal. Therefore it can be considered to be below the universal in terms of importance (maybe).
I think religion belief is most concerned with the issue of the human will, and that this human will is one of the most important values in human beings. As for faith, it seems to be like an examination to me. The teacher who grades our exam is god, and the students take on the role of Abraham, whereas the exam itself is how much time and effort we are willing to sacrifice for the grade.
ReplyDeleteBecause we have options (even if it might be limited or constraint by some circumstances), we can choose to do or not to do something. Even though Joanne de silencio is somewhat praising Abraham's belief without any hesitation of doubt in this story, he seems to hint that his faith is absolute, but why no hesitation at all? Some students might just do what the teacher tells them to do without hesitation and take it as part of their obligation, but on the other hand, there are also students who disagree with this kind of educational system, who often choose to do what they think is best for themselves.
I am starting to get the inclination that through Johannes de silentio, The Man, and their accounts concerning “doubt and faith,” Kierkegaard is undermining the validity of accounts in “The Bible.” In order to validate the claim, that doubt and faith, are incompatible. It is as though Kierkegaard is implying that the idea of “pure faith or its fathering,” is a notion that has been propounded on individuals throughout history. In other words, humans to some effect have been conditioned to believe through biblical accounts such as those about Abraham, that the maintenance of faith is as simple as attending church every Sunday.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, my interpretation to “A Tribute to Abraham,” is that God chose Abraham almost as a guinea pig, to test the faith of all Mankind. With every test God imposed on Abraham, it seemed as though it was of way for God to extract or diminish any doubt, be it slight or grand, left in Abraham. As J.D.S states “there was the one who conquered all by his power and there was one who conquered God by his powerlessness.” In other words, by putting Abraham through extreme tests, like the murder of his own son. Through extreme trials God was then convinced of Abraham’s faith and thus secured his legacy as God’s most faithful.
After reading this section and analyzing it... something that kept ringing in my mind was this notion of story telling. Kierkegaard himself writes the book with the pseudonym of Johannes de Silentio, and when "Johannes" tells they story of Abraham he talks about a "man" who wishes to have been there to witness Abraham's act. The man tell us that Abraham is the example of goodness because his faith drove him to undoubtedly follow God's commands and bring Issac to Mount Moriah. But before this is even mentioned.. Johannes says that we have faith when we fear and when we tremble. So why is that the meaning of faith through the man's understanding of Abraham's story is presented to us as undoubtedly following God's commands?
ReplyDeleteBy looking over this I ask myself: Is Johannes trying to disprove religious institutions such as the Church in this book? I mean, It's the church that presents us these stories of "undoubted faith" (through stories in the bible), and who asks us to live our lives according to the actions of people like Abraham. Some of us therefore, are like the man who wishes to have been there when Abraham brought his son to Mount Moriah, we believe what we are told without ever being present to see it.
Could Johannes' message be that there is no perfect faith such as Abraham's. That there is no need for the church to play the role of a mediator to God? That faith in fact is present when we doubt and when fear because fear acknowledges that we in fact believe in something? This implies that even when we think we don't believe in anything, and we fear..we have faith even if we can't recognize it.
@ Matt, When I read your comment, it make me think that whether faith and ethics goes together. But As far as I am concerned, I beleive that they are interrelated to each other and at the same time they don't. In this Fear and trembling, I think it is only about Faith but not about ethics. However, it is really hard to mention about one and not the other.
ReplyDelete@ Ying, Yeah I do agree with your example of Examination. I think it depends on all our choces that we make in our daily lives. But to Abraham his choice is too extreme. To take your son's life is not a joke. It is not matter of choices but rather I think it is matter of humanity.
ReplyDelete@ Ed: your Comment was great. I really appreciate for that. I think Kierkegaard is trying to impose how greateful Abraham is to sacrifice his son in the name of God. Above all it seems like he is chosen by God because God( Supreme Power) knows that Abraham will do anything for him. In addition, I think Kierkegaard is trying to explain that how greateful Abraham is to give up the most precious posession that he ever had undoubtly.
As Cristina pointed out, there seems to be competing, antithetical, narratives in the first sections of the book. Just as J.D.S. criticizes the unrelenting doubt of subsequent generations, Kierkegaard seems to want the reader to criticize the unrelenting faith of J.D.S. (The unrelenting doubt which J.D.S. criticizes is seen especially in the beginning of the preface, “ Every speculative score-keeper who conscientiously keeps account of the momentous march of modern philosophy […] does not stop at doubting everything but goes further.”) Yet, despite J.D.S.’s praise of faith, the first sections of the book create doubt through the various retellings of the same event by a fictitious author. The use of a pseudonym also gives the reader an idea of the dubious quality of our oral history.
ReplyDeleteStill, there are things both narratives seem to share, (or maybe these should strictly pertain to J.D.S.?)such as the historical development of faith. According to J.D.S., people are assumed to have faith, not because it is innate, but because it is part of our collective human history. J.D.S. stresses the historical development of faith by stating, “In our age nobody stops at faith but goes further” (4). The story of Abraham intersects religions that have shaped much of human history and that still comprise a great deal of followers. New generations easily take for granted the struggles of past generations because we have picked up where they left off; “Where those venerable figures arrived, there everyone in our age begins in order to go further” (5). And yet, the anonymous man seems to signify that our faith in this history is excessive.