The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Discussions on the philosophy, life and works of Søren Kierkegaard.

These books by Kierkegaard are available online (let me know if there are others):

Fear and Trembling

The Sickness Unto Death

Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing

Philosophical Fragments

Provocations

Re: Kate's comment in another thread on Abraham's faith in Fear and Trembling

Isn't the whole point that it wouldn't be socially acceptable? But it would be acceptable for God to suspend these socially accepted standards for His own purpose?

Perhaps it would help to look at the problem from three different viewpoints, God, Abraham and society.

God might suspend socially accepted standards for His own purpose, but not His own standards. Abraham's sacrificing Isaac to Him is dedicating Issac to the source of Life. From God's perspective, Issac is alive not dead, and there is no murder on Abraham's part.

From society's POV, sacrificing Isaac would be senseless murder, because Isaac would no longer be in the land of the living and his death would not serve the good of the whole.

Therein lies Abraham's dilemma. His intended action is socially unacceptable though acceptable in the sight of God. For his part, he believed that God would bring Issac back to life. It is an absurdity that would be rejected by society, but embraced by Abraham through faith.

What evidence is there that Abraham believed that God would bring Isaac back to life? I thought the dilemma (and the horror!) was posed by the fact that he was willing to make this sacrifice unconditionally?

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/a...

This is semantics. Even God tempting Abraham in this way is unacceptable and a form of mental torture.

He thought that God would bring Isaac back to live so that his prophecy could take place, Madge. See Genesis 21:12.

I see nothing there which says that Abraham thought such a thing.


KJV: And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

21:11 says 'And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son', nothing about thinking God would bring Isaac back to life.

Here's the 1984 New International Version translation of Gen 12:21:

"But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."

That sounds like God planned for Isaac to have some kids, don't it? Which might be hard to do if he stayed dead.

God said that but there is no indication that Isaac took it on board. He was 'distressed' and wouldn't have been if he had believed the sacrifice was not really take place.

He was distressed, because he had trouble believing that God would actually believe Isaac back to life. Hence the whole "leap of faith" idea.

Moving on already!

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense."
Hebrews 11:17-19 (NKJV)

Fear and Trembling is a book-long exposition of the above passage in Hebrews 11.

This passage still does not say that Isaac KNEW that his son would be raised from the dead - he was 'distressed' about being asked to do it. I know all about the many excuses made for God's cruel behaviour in this story and I still contend that it was mental cruelty. I don't believe in the leap of faith idea because there is no evidence in the Bible that he had such a leap of faith. I don't care what all the philosophers in the world say about it just to excuse one of God's many cruelties in the Bible. All I can say is, thank goodness it is only a fairy story and that it didn't really happen. If we heard of a father today who did such a thing because he heard voices, we would call it child abuse and if someone told him to do it then changed their mind we would call them a sadist!

Yes, move on. This story and the many trumped up justifications for it always make me angry.

This passage still does not say that Isaac KNEW that his son would be raised from the dead - he was 'distressed' about being asked to do it. I know all about the many excuses made for God's cruel behaviour in this story and I still contend that it was mental cruelty. I don't believe in the leap of faith idea because there is no evidence in the Bible that he had such a leap of faith. I don't care what all the philosophers in the world say about it to excuse just one of the many cruelties in the Bible. All I can say is, thank goodness it is only a fairy story and that it didn't really happen. If we heard of a father today who did such a thing because he heard voices, we would call it child abuse and if someone told him to do it then changed their mind we would call them a sadist!

Yes, move on. This story and the many trumped up justifications for it always make me angry. And the very idea of the 'fear and trembling' engendered by it appalls me. We should not condone anyone being in fear and trembling of anything or anyone.

I'm not sure that's he's suggesting that "fear and trembling" should be necessarily engendered by anything.

When we first started discussing this, you claimed that you didn't even know what the "teleological suspension of the ethical" was, Madge. Yet you seem awfully certain that you understand the argument and are ready to dismiss it summarily.

Also, starting sentences off with "I don't care what all the philosophers in the world say..." does come off as slightly anti-intellectual, which is at the root of a lot of the religious nonsense that you rightly argue against. Perhaps we should care. That doesn't mean you need to agree. But we should care about what some of the world's most eminent minds have said about such things.

Yes, I am rather anti-intellectual about religious philosophy John. As I posted earlier, much of it seems like counting angels dancing on a pinhead.

I fully understand that 'the teleological suspension of the ethical' means that Abraham's intention to sacrifice his son can be considered 'good' and I completely reject that idea no matter how many arguments to the contrary are put. I also reject the concomitant idea, often put, that there can be an absolute duty to God which is beyond the ethical. Acting 'beyond the ethical' in the name of God has justified many of the world's religious atrocities.

The phrase 'fear and trembling' is taken from Philippians 2:12: 'Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' and again, I reject the idea that anyone should do anything for anyone with fear and trembling.

These are my ethical positions and no amount of philosophising will make me change them. I agree with Kierkegaard that faith is founded in the belief in the absurd and that faith is contradictory to reason. Exactly my position and why I reject unreasonable beliefs and arguments no matter who puts them. Eminent minds writing about eugenics have come to the conclusion that we should sterilise the feebleminded to purify the race; I reject those philosophies too. There are many eminent minds we should not care a jot about if they are mired in unreason or the defense of the indefensible, especially the religious indefensible which perpetuates myth and superstition.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you've gotten in the habit of posting all of your comments twice. I assure you, once is enough.

As I repeatedly pointed out to Kate, nowhere does he state that the teleological suspension of the ethical "means that sacrificing his son can be considered good." Perhaps you read a translation I'm as yet unfamiliar with. After Kate said the same thing, I tried - in vain - to ask for page citations. Can you kindly provide me one where he excuses the killing of Isaac, or in any way suggests that someone should be "let off" for any crime whatsoever?

Page numbers, page numbers, page numbers, please.

And I'm very well aware of the provenance of the phrase "fear and trembling." I, unlike you it seems, have actually read the book.

John wrote: "I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you've gotten in the habit of posting all of your comments twice. I assure you, once is enough.
..."


Sorry John this sometimes happens when I edit after posting, I don't know why. I go back to delete if I see it but sometimes I log out in a hurry.

No worries, I just wanted to let you know that something might be wrong with the posting on your end of things.

John wrote:As I repeatedly pointed out to Kate, nowhere does he state that the teleological suspension of the ethical "means that sacrificing his son can be considered good." ..."

That is my own understanding of K. and one which I have repeatedly come across in my reading of theories surrounding the 'binding of Isaac'. Kate and I have probably read similar interpretations.

Moreover, if we suspend the idea of the ethical, it means ipso facto that we can consider Abraham's action to be 'good'. Kierkegaard assumes that we can suspend the ethical when we look at the 'binding of Isaac' (rather as theatregoers suspend disbelief) but I disagree because it is unreasonable (and dangerous) to do so.

I have no doubt that you and Kate share similar interpretations of what's going on. However, I would urge you to read the book first. I'm not sure how much you'd get, or appreciate, someone actively chiming into the "Brothers Karamazov" forums when they obviously hadn't read the book.

Actually, if you suspend the ethical, doesn't that mean that ethical categories - like "good" or "evil" - no longer have any substantive meaning?

One can discuss philosophical theories without reading the books they are in. This is a universal philosophical theory.

if you suspend the ethical, doesn't that mean that ethical categories - like "good" or "evil" - no longer have any substantive meaning

Yes, which is why I refuse to suspend the ethical - that way anything can be justified. If I suspend my disbelief at the theatre, I do no harm but if I suspend my belief in ethics then I can do a great deal of harm - like agree to kill my son.

Actually, you can't discuss philosophical ideas without having read them before. You can say things about them. But that hardly means that you're taking the ideas on their own terms. If someone made the same argument you just made about reading Karamazov, you'd call them stubborn and suggest they read the book first. Otherwise, what's the point of having a book club in the first place?

"Alexei sounds stupid." "Oh my god, so does Fyodor, he's so mean!" "I don't like atheists either."

That sounds really productive.

PS. Don't respond to my posts right after I have posted them because I often go back in to edit as I find the boxes in which we have to post very difficult to read - cataract problems:(

I am now logging off to get some dinner and to do some much needed housework!

Madge, I just saw your picture on the home and garden site. You look like Hyacinth from "Keeping up Appearances." You're the Bucket woman!

My favorite show ever!

Dinner? Isn't it just 2:30 or 3:30 in the afternoon over there now?

LOL. I am not much like her in behaviour though, far too unconventional:).

I meant lunch!

John wrote: "Actually, you can't discuss philosophical ideas without having read them before. You can say things about them. But that hardly means that you're taking the ideas on their own terms. If someone ..."

But I have read philosophical ideas before, as I have pointed out. This 'binding of Isaac' is a very old philosophical conundrum which crops up many times in many books. K was just one of many to tackle it. Dostoevsky himself, when he was put before a firing squad on the orders of the Tsar and then reprieved, was subject to such a 'binding'. Philosophical ideas are not worth the paper they are written on them unless we apply them to real life situations.

My pragmatism and anti-intellectualism tends to make me get down to the nitty-gritty of philosophical ideas so I ask you to consider this scenario:-

A religious fundamentalist [Abraham} hears a voice he presumes to be God/Allah/Yahweh telling him that his son is an unbeliever and must be killed. He then plans to murder him by leading him to commit jihad. He buys a rucksack and fills it with timed explosives and sends his son [binds him] to the destination God told him about [altar]. Fortunately, the son is apprehended before the explosion takes place and the father is eventually arrested for attempted murder. In court his barrister pleads that he was guilty whilst the balance of his was disturbed and explains to the court that the fundamentalist father believed God/Allah/Yahweh had told him to kill his son and that he had accordingly suspended his ethical judgement in order to commit the crime [teleological suspension of the ethical]. The jury listen to the evidence and found the father guilty as pleaded. The judge sentenced him to 2 years in prison and a course of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. (Hopefully he came out of prison an atheist:D.)

Is there really any fundamental 'philosophical' difference between this story and the one in the Bible? The suspension of the ethical is what all murderers and criminals do when they commit a crime which goes against the mores of their society, like murder. They temporarily delude themselves into thinking that what they are doing is justified.
Why do philosophers tie themselves in knots over it when any court could settle the case in fifteen minutes? That, to me is the 'absurdity'.

Another interpretation is that Abraham's action was not 'absurd' but it was a moment of madness, it was a 'God delusion' a la Dawkins.

This is a drive-by comment. I shouldn't be here. I have 2000 things to do today, but there is a paragraph toward the end of Fear and Trembling which is apropos to this "discussion" which Madge and John are engaged in:

"...That the whole constitutions of many persons may be such that this paradox repels them is indeed true, but one ought not for this reason make faith something different in order to be able to possess it, but ought rather to admit that one does not possess it, whereas those who possess faith should take care to set up criteria so that one might distinguish the paradox from a temptation."

It would be interesting to know what criteria would allow an individual (even one of faith) to do this!!

I'm not convinced after rereading F&T last night that Kierkegaard resolved Abraham, even in his own mind. He leaves it up to the faith of the individual and gets fascinatingly close to Nietzsche in his closing paragraph: ethics and morals informed solely by personal belief.

As an aside, the best part of rereading was looking at the marginalia I scribbled 30+ years ago and trying to decipher it. (not entirely successful at that)

PS. John, have you read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche: Faith and Eternal Acceptance? It looks interesting, but I'm looking for a data point. No one on GR has rated it.

MadgeUK wrote: "This passage still does not say that Isaac KNEW that his son would be raised from the dead - he was 'distressed' about being asked to do it. ..."

He was "distressed" (in Genesis 21:12) over sending away Hagar and Ishmael, not over Isaac. The Bible does not say how Abraham felt about sacrificing Isaac, but it does say that Abraham believed God was able to raise Isaac up from the dead. He KNEW this by faith.

Abraham was the Father of Faith, but the great faith required to sacrifice Isaac didn't occur overnight. Faith can grow like a seed, and there are ten chapters in Genesis (Genesis 12-21) that describe the growth of Abraham's faith in God and the development of friendship and trust between God and Abraham, leading up to the climax in Genesis 22.

People sometimes say they trust their friends with their lives. If mere mortals can be trusted, why shouldn't Abraham trust God with the life of his son, who would not have been born if not for God's promise? By sacrificing /committing Isaac to God, Abraham acknowledges that God is the Source of all lives and He is able to bring Isaac back to life.

"For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 16:25)

but it does say that Abraham believed God was able to raise Isaac up from the dead. He KNEW this by faith.

Where does it say this?

However much one dances around this Abraham was still guilty of attempted murder. End of story for me. I do not possess faith and the paradox repels me.

MadgeUK wrote: "Where does it say this? However much one dances around this Abraham was still guilty of attempted murder. ..."

It says in Hebrews 11:17-19. If that's not enough, I'm a bit confused about what you'd consider as evidence that Abraham had faith.

Abraham loved his son Isaac, his only son. If any court tries to convict him of attempted murder, it would not be able to establish motive. This is one of the differences between the paradox and the "jihad" scenario.

OK I have read those verses now Nemo and see what you are getting at. They do not change my p.o.v. though because I still see Abraham as deluded and God as a sadist.

If Abraham was caught in the act of attempting to murder his son a motive does not have to be established. Binding his son to an altar as part of a sacrificial act (or loading up his rucksack) establishes intent. Murdering a loved one is the commonest of murders which is why we have the legal category of 'a crime of passion'.

The binding of Isaac is also central to Jewish philosophical thought and I have heard it discussed at a Rosh Hashanah gathering:-

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts...

I'm not clear on your position, Madge. Here's what I'm getting from your posts:

You don't believe in God. I would venture to say, then, that you regard God or the concept of a or any gods as a human construct. Would that be correct?

If that assumption is correct, why do you then accuse the God of the Isaac story of being a sadist? Isn't the whole thing an imaginary story from your point of view? So, taking this a bit further, that would put the God of this episode on the same level, as, say, Dracula, would it not? Why not put the blame on the men (or women, possible but unlikely) who created the story and indeed the concept of god(s) itself?

And, on another point, if the religious system of old Russia can be seen as a major cause of the later totalitarian state in Russia, what would you say was/is the major cause of the totalitarian states in China and North Korea, to take just two examples?

You seem to give too much credit/blame to what you cconsider a set of fables. Wouldn't it be the creators and purveyors of those myths who are to blame, rather than a non-existent being?

Kate, no I haven't read the book on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. I've found the secondary literature on Kierkegaard to be much, MUCH less satisfying and enlightening than the stuff on Nietzsche, generally speaking, so I've stopped looking. Please let me know if you have better luck.

MadgeUK wrote: "OK I have read those verses now Nemo and see what you are getting at. They do not change my p.o.v. though because I still see Abraham as deluded and God as a sadist. ..."

If we accept that Abraham had faith in God, then he was not deluded and his intended action was good and rational from his perspective. The only absurdity, from a rational pov, is his faith that God could raise Isaac from the dead.

Abraham has no motive or intent to destroy Isaac's life. To sacrifice is to give, and to sacrifice Isaac to God is to give him to God. If Isaac's life is destroyed during the sacrifice, then God receives nothing, so Isaac has to be alive to God.

In addition, Isaac himself was given by God to Abraham and Sarah in their old age, when Sarah was past the time of childbearing. Therefore Abraham was giving back to God what he had received from Him in the first place. Even the ram that was eventually sacrificed had been provided by God, that's why he called the place "The Lord Will Provide".

From a Christian perspective, Abraham sacrificing Isaac is a figure of God sacrificing His only begotten Son. In both instances, the sacrifice of one produces many seeds. Compare the following two passages:

"By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore;..." (Genesis 22:16-17)

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain." (John 12:24)

Gail wrote: "I'm not clear on your position, Madge. ..."

I am just trying to enter into the spirit of the story as others see it Gail, perhaps badly because I am an atheist. Yes to me they are a set of fables but fables have ethics/morals too and those morals can be discussed, irrespective of the authors of the stories (whose names we often do not know). I could describe the non-existent Giant in Jack and the Beanstalk as a sadist so I can describe God in this story as one. We surely discuss the morals of stories all the time and many of them were written to provide moralistic instruction - like Aesop's fables. I put the Bible in the same category, that's all. Also, in this instance we are discussing a story which Kierkegaard wrote based on the bible story.

http://www.religion-online.org/showbo...


Totalitarianism in both China and North Korea came about through revolution. Revolution generally comes about when something has gone very wrong in countries, like the oppressive regimes of Emperors, Moghuls, Tsars, Kings etc., often allied to equally oppressive religious systems, as in both France and Russia. However, this is not the place to discuss this issue.

Thanks, Madge, that's a bit clearer, although I'm still a bit confused. But I appreciate your response.

I always find philosophy confusing Gail - I am philosophy-lite:D.

It helps if you read the book.

I read ... part ... of the book. A very little part. I read those 5 or 6 pages of The Knight of Faith from Fear and Trembling.

I absolutely loved it. I didn't understand it. That made me love it all the more. I thought it a piece to wrestle with. And I thought, too, that discussing Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith is quite different than discussing the story of Abraham and Issac as presented in the Bible---although that has, of course, great bearing.

From my perspective (and I did manage to get that from Kierkegaard----that my perspective matters in my life) in Kierkegaard's account, God never enters the picture. It was the story, I thought, of Abraham and Issac and perhaps narrator.

I say perhaps, because I wasn't sure whether the narrator was "Johannes de Silentio"...and whether or not Silentio was "the man who as a child."

Anyway, wanted to let Nemo, (the starter of the thread??) that there are ordinary people who have been glad that they've read a bit of Kirkegaard.


I don't have a background in theology and am barely on speaking terms with the term telological.

"I didn't understand it. That made me love it all the more." Welcome to the joys of Kierkegaard's irrationalism, Adelle!

As far as theology is concerned, you don't have to have a firm grasp of it to appreciate him. Kierkegaard is usually considered more of a philosopher than a theologian, to whatever degree you think those two categories can be meaningfully separated.

See, I prefer clarity in written communication. If a person can't express his thoughts in reasonably clear prose, then perhaps the fact is that his/her thoughts are not clear. This may not apply to Kierkegaard (I can't begin to remember his philosophical stance now that I've grown remote from academe), but it surely applies to some others, Hegel (groan) and Kant (errgggg) coming quickly to mind.

I can deal with the classical (read: Greek and Roman) philosophers, and some medieval folks, but anything after Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides is difficult for me. I did appreciate William James. But I'm not going to wade through acres of obscure prose, probably not well translated, to get at a teensy kernel of meaning.

That may be a weakness on my part. If so, it's one I'm really, really comfortable with.

Gail wrote: "See, I prefer clarity in written communication. If a person can't express his thoughts in reasonably clear prose, then perhaps the fact is that his/her thoughts are not clear. This may not apply to..."

LOL Gail. I washed up on the shores of Kant and gave up. I figure if someone has to be that abstruse to get his point across, he doesn't really know what he's saying. I have similar opinions about James Joyce.

Adelle wrote: "Anyway, wanted to let Nemo, (the starter of the thread??) that there are ordinary people who have been glad that they've read a bit of Kierkegaard. ..."

Glad to know that, Adelle, and welcome to the discussion.:) I don't have a background in theology or philosophy either. Fear and Trembling was the first book by Kierkegaard that I read, and I enjoyed it very much. That was three months ago, since then I've been slowly making my way through his other works.

in Kierkegaard's account, God never enters the picture.

God never enters the picture because He is invisible. :)

I agree that Kierkegaard's focus is on the individual not on God, but He is always present. Kierkegaard stresses the individual's relation and "absolute duty to God", above and over the socially accepted ethical standards. IOW, God's Supreme Court overrides society's Court of Appeal.

Kate Mc. wrote: "Gail wrote: "See, I prefer clarity in written communication. If a person can't express his thoughts in reasonably clear prose, then perhaps the fact is that his/her thoughts are not clear. This may..."

I get the impression, after having read all of Kant, that he knows very well what he's saying.

And I'm not sure that judging Joyce on his intelligibility is an accurate metric, since that wasn't what he was aiming for.

Gail wrote: "See, I prefer clarity in written communication. If a person can't express his thoughts in reasonably clear prose, then perhaps the fact is that his/her thoughts are not clear. This may not apply to..."

Surely you haven't judged the readability of all philosophers after Aquinas on simply Kant and Hegel, two of the more notoriously difficult.

Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Smith, Schopenhauer, Burke, Hume, Berkeley, et alii are all extraordinarily approachable.

Also, one shouldn't confuse "lack of clarity" with the ability to take multiple interpretations away from a text. "Billy Budd" isn't a particularly hard read, but academic journals abound with different readings - all based on exactly the same words.

John wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "Gail wrote: "See, I prefer clarity in written communication. If a person can't express his thoughts in reasonably clear prose, then perhaps the fact is that his/her thoughts are no..."

Exaggerated sarcasm, John. It's a wonderful thing, no matter how poorly it translates on the internet. Kant and Joyce both needlessly obfuscate what they are saying. You may not mind teasing out their meaning from an ocean of words. I do.

Oh. I didn't really find anything sarcastic about claiming that someone didn't know what they were intending to say. It seemed like a sincere opinion to me. But, okay.

Kant didn't do so needlessly, seeing as how he had to create an entire new vocabulary. But Joyce certainly did.

Nemo wrote: " Fear and Trembling was the first book by Kierkegaard that I read, and I enjoyed it very much..."

I shall put it on my Christmas wish list.

God never enters the picture because He is invisible. :)

..."

I suppose that could the reason. I had attributed to Kierkegaard's pov being that God would exist whether Abraham believed in Him or not. So God wasn't the issue. Rather, Abraham's belief or lack thereof, Abraham's relationship with God, that was what was at stake in the story...for Abraham's sake and for the sake of Issac...and those that came after.

BTW, I used to tutor a Muslim man. (He was working on improving his English.) One day we happened to start talking about the Abraham story. Because Muslim's have the Abraham and the ram story as well as Christians. Imagine my surprise when, in his telling, the son was not Issac, but was Ishmael.

Why is that surprising?

John wrote: "Why is that surprising?"

Simply because I had never heard that version before and it had never crossed my mind. Why would it have?

Edit: That last sentence I wrote somehow reads rather sharp ... instead of merely being a question. My bad. Sorry.

I thought you might have had some familiarity with Quranic theology.

Adelle wrote: "Nemo wrote: " Fear and Trembling was the first book by Kierkegaard that I read, and I enjoyed it very much..."

I shall put it on my Christmas wish list. ..."

You can read Fear and Trembling online for free. MadgeUK (being a goldmine that she is :)) posted the link above. The edition I have was translated by Alastair Hannay for Penguin Classics, with a helpful introduction. The online version is by Walter Lowrie for Princeton University Press. Both are good, as far as I can tell.

"Fear and Trembling" at religion-online.org.

Abraham's relationship with God, that was what was at stake in the story

Agreed.