Kierkegaard's paradox of faith

[tomarin]

I’ve been reading and re-reading about Kierkegaard’s “paradox of faith” and I can’t quite seem to grasp it. It has something to do with the individual, the universal which is equivalent to one’s moral duty, and God. The individual normally follows his own desires, or he can aspire happily to the universal by sublimating his own desires to the good, which is fine, but the paradox emerges when he embraces God’s will, which puts his duty to the universal at tragic odds with his duty to God, the paradigm of this paradox being Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac.

He also seems to be saying that part of the paradox is that by rejecting the universal in favor of his duty to and love of God, he becomes some kind of super-individual. He achieves super-individuation by suppressing his own individual desires and becoming a “knight of faith”.

Is this an adequate summary (probably not)? Can one of you kind people help to shed some light on this?

 

[John_Martin]

It has been 40 years since I read Kierkegaard (rarely read others’ explanations of a philosopher’s intent - prefer to read the philosopher directly). Anyway, the universal - a man Shall not kill (murder) another man, yet the author of life says, take your son whom you love and through whom I promised to bless you and make you a blessing, take your only son and kill him in sacrifice. You trust this God and you love your son and you know it is universally wrong to murder.

Faith is a combination of believing in One who is not verifiable, that it is good to be united to that One in love if he were truth, and assenting with the will to believe that He is Truth and good to be united with, and thus, in the will, loving that One above all. Yet the universal is recognized as true, understood as good to participate in the universal, and also then loved or desired as a measure of goodness.

When two things are loved, good, desired, yet opposed, then one becomes “evil” and the other remains “good” to the reason and then one “hated” and the other “loved” by the will. So, Abraham actually “hated” the universal as an obstacle to his “love” for his God, and he “hated his love for his son”, in a way, hated his own self having passion for his son’s life and hated the universal truth that he had known as good. And he raised the knife.

He could be termed a knight of faith, but also of charity and hope. Faith because he considered the unknowable to be true, good to be one with, and loved this unprovable God. Hope because he actually still believed it was in this son who would momentarily be dead that he would be blessed and this son would live, and charity because he gave himself to union with this God.

He was not a super-individual, though, but was using the Virtues we all received when baptized, the Habits infused in us by Grace from the Holy Spirit.

While at one time I devoured Kierkegaard and his way of understanding, since becoming a Catholic I find existentialism totally lacking in the “power” to live / move / act as Abraham. Knowing that “grace” is more than benevolent activity inside of God, but instead is a substantial object put into us, making us good, gives me certainty of life being fruitful now and in the future with “good works of faith” rather than faith being an end in itself because there is only sin in us and no Virtue substantially given to us.

I haven’t really said that clearly, but that is it for now.

John Martin

 

[Arizona_Mike]

He’s not an easy read, but rewarding.

I found this an interesting article/summary:

bywayofbeauty.com/2013/03/kierkegaard-and-abraham-in-bible.html

http://cdn.hitfix.com/photos/985953/sydow_article_story_main.jpg

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve been reading and re-reading about Kierkegaard’s “paradox of faith” and I can’t quite seem to grasp it. It has something to do with the individual, the universal which is equivalent to one’s moral duty, and God. The individual normally follows his own desires, or he can aspire happily to the universal by sublimating his own desires to the good, which is fine, but the paradox emerges when he embraces God’s will, which puts his duty to the universal at tragic odds with his duty to God, the paradigm of this paradox being Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac.

He also seems to be saying that part of the paradox is that by rejecting the universal in favor of his duty to and love of God, he becomes some kind of super-individual. He achieves super-individuation by suppressing his own individual desires and becoming a “knight of faith”.

Is this an adequate summary (probably not)? Can one of you kind people help to shed some light on this?

Stick to the Catechism and you won’t be confused.

Linus2nd.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Yeah, I’ve been lurking to see what others post, but from what you say it sounds as though Kierkegaard’s conception of “the universal” and God is taking something that Catholics say is one and splitting it into two. It is not possible to violate universal truth while following God. (Hence God would not actually make Abraham kill Isaac if such were universally wrong - and, in fact, He didn’t.)

Unless I misunderstand both what you and he are saying?

 

[tomarin]

Yeah, I’ve been lurking to see what others post, but from what you say it sounds as though Kierkegaard’s conception of “the universal” and God is taking something that Catholics say is one and splitting it into two. It is not possible to violate universal truth while following God. (Hence God would not actually make Abraham kill Isaac if such were universally wrong - and, in fact, He didn’t.)

Maybe so, but I think you’re sweeping under the rug the paradox that the story presents. Surely we can agree that regardless of how the story ends, the demand that God presented to Abraham represents a test of his faith? God may have stayed Abraham’s hand at the last moment, but he didn’t know He was going to do that, right? If he had known, the test of faith would not have been a real test; and then the whole episode would have been a ridiculous sham.

From what little I know about him, Kierkegaard took Christianity extremely seriously but he had very little regard for the Christians of his time. Rightly or wrongly. I think he was of the “if Christ returned to earth you would be the first to persecute him again” school.

 

[tomarin]

Stick to the Catechism and you won’t be confused.

Linus2nd.

If I only read the catechism I wouldn’t get confused but I wouldn’t get any closer to understanding Kierkegaard’s thinking. You may see no value in Kierkegaard which is fine as you have a right to your own opinion, but I would like to understand him before I reject him.

 

[tomarin]

Unless I misunderstand both what you and he are saying?

I actually came across the answer later after I posted the OP, as I continued reading. It’s that by embracing faith the individual comes into an absolute relationship with the divine which puts him above the universal. Yet how can the singular (the individual) be above the universal unless it is a paradox.

 

[John_Martin]

If I only read the catechism I wouldn’t get confused but I wouldn’t get any closer to understanding Kierkegaard’s thinking. You see no value in Kierkegaard which is fine as you have a right to your own opinion, but I would like to understand him before I reject him.

It is actually difficult to reject Kierkegaard if he is the “most knowing” person you have read. I believed him when I read him. If you understand him without already understanding “more” than he knew, you will embrace him as teaching truth. But now, understanding what I am reading in Aquinas gives me the “sight” to see what is missing or unknown to Kierkegaard. I see that Grace is something totally different to Lutherans and Catholics, as well as Faith, and the Soul also. Faith ends up being a work of man for SK, though he would probably not call it that.

John Martin

 

[tomarin]

It is actually difficult to reject Kierkegaard if he is the “most knowing” person you have read. I believed him when I read him. If you understand him without already understanding “more” than he knew, you will embrace him as teaching truth. But now, understanding what I am reading in Aquinas gives me the “sight” to see what is missing or unknown to Kierkegaard. I see that Grace is something totally different to Lutherans and Catholics, as well as Faith, and the Soul also. Faith ends up being a work of man for SK, though he would probably not call it that.

John Martin

I think he’s an intriguing character but I’m under no illusions that he is an orthodox Christian. Still I think he was someone who took Christianity extremely seriously.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Maybe so, but I think you’re sweeping under the rug the paradox that the story presents. Surely we can agree that regardless of how the story ends, the demand that God presented to Abraham represents a test of his faith? God may have stayed Abraham’s hand at the last moment, but he didn’t know He was going to do that, right? If he had known, the test of faith would not have been a real test; and then the whole episode would have been a ridiculous sham.

True, but this doesn’t put God against some distinct universal, but rather a test of Abraham’s faith that God is Good - God would have required Abraham to proceed if and only if that were in fact what really should happen, if that were the good thing. It is not a test of whether on Abraham would do what is contrary to some universal good for the sake of God (in fact doing evil for good is definitely disallowed in scripture), but rather of whether or not Abraham has faith.

The fact that the “universal good” and God are in fact the same thing doesn’t just sweep a paradox under the rug, it keeps it from ever happening in the first place. Considering that there is a universal moral system apart from God leads to all kinds of contradictions: does the system apply to God? If so, then God is not supreme and not God. If not, then it’s not really universal. If it and God can disagree, which is really truly good? If one should follow God rather than the universal, than the universal looses its claim to that title, and if one should follow the universal rather than God, then God becomes capable of evil and is no longer God.

You can’t have two ultimate truths like that - in the end, one of them has to be at most a pale shadow of the other.

 

[jimmy]

The question for kierkegaard is, ‘why do we honor Abraham rather than treat him like a psychopathic.’ He was asked to kill his only son, and he would have if his hand wasn’t held back. What makes the act honorable? Kierkegaard explains it by seperating the moral from the religious life. Abraham violates the moral law even in his intent to kill his son, whom he loves completely (it is necessary according to kierkegaard that Abraham loves his son like this for his act to be a true act of faith. The paradox of faith is that in faith Abraham gives up everything for God with the trust that he will recieve it back from God. He and Sarah are almost 100. How are they supposed to have another child?

Read Fear and Trembling. That is where he discusses this the most.there is a section where he describes what the man with true faith is like. The man of faith almost appears like a hedonistic in many ways because he expects to be blessed now in this life. He might not have food for dinner but he trusts that by the time he gets home his wife will have a feast prepared. For K, now is the time of blessing. Faith isn’t the sacrifice of this life for a blessings in the afterlife.

Kierkegaard wrote a short article called The Crowd is Untruth, that argues againstthe crowd. The subject of virtue and vice is the individual in reality, but it is usually the case that it is blamed on the crowd. It might be the case that one man actually committed a crime but it is blamed on the mob. For K, Brutus is honorable in a sense, because he acted as an individual, rather than as part of the mob. He didn’t retreat into the crowd to allow the crowd to take the blame for his murder.

 

[jimmy]

True, but this doesn’t put God against some distinct universal, but rather a test of Abraham’s faith that God is Good - God would have required Abraham to proceed if and only if that were in fact what really should happen, if that were the good thing. It is not a test of whether on Abraham would do what is contrary to some universal good for the sake of God (in fact doing evil for good is definitely disallowed in scripture), but rather of whether or not Abraham has faith.

The fact that the “universal good” and God are in fact the same thing doesn’t just sweep a paradox under the rug, it keeps it from ever happening in the first place. Considering that there is a universal moral system apart from God leads to all kinds of contradictions: does the system apply to God? If so, then God is not supreme and not God. If not, then it’s not really universal. If it and God can disagree, which is really truly good? If one should follow God rather than the universal, than the universal looses its claim to that title, and if one should follow the universal rather than God, then God becomes capable of evil and is no longer God.

You can’t have two ultimate truths like that - in the end, one of them has to be at most a pale shadow of the other.

A few years ago a woman from Texas killed her children. She drowned them in the bathtub. And she claimed that God told her to do it. What makes her different than Abraham? What makes Abraham’s act honorable and hers horrific?

 

[John_Martin]

A few years ago a woman from Texas killed her children. She drowned them in the bathtub. And she claimed that God told her to do it. What makes her different than Abraham? What makes Abraham’s act honorable and hers horrific?

The Abraham account is not told from the testimony of Abraham saying “God talked to me” but is told from the point of view of the author and the reader knowing that God told him to do it. As readers we know the word came from God. The woman in Texas does not have that third party infallible witness telling us that God spoke to her. She is claiming the justification based on her own credibility as the authority of truth. If God suddenly opened the heavens and said “I told her to do it”, then we would regard her as likened to Abraham. Or even, as Catholics, if the Pope were to validate that God spoke to her, we would treat her as like to Abraham. So the argument of comparison does not hold.

John Martin

 

[jimmy]

The Abraham account is not told from the testimony of Abraham saying “God talked to me” but is told from the point of view of the author and the reader knowing that God told him to do it. As readers we know the word came from God. The woman in Texas does not have that third party infallible witness telling us that God spoke to her. She is claiming the justification based on her own credibility as the authority of truth. If God suddenly opened the heavens and said “I told her to do it”, then e would regard her as likened to Abraham. Or even, as Catholics, if the Pope were to validate that God spoke to her, we would treat her as like to Abraham. So the argument of comparison does not hold.

John Martin

Whether it is first person or third person is irrelevant. Catholicism doesn’t teach that the bible was dictated by God and the author was just writing what God told him to write. The human author is a genuine author. He wrote about a human experience. The story comes from an actual human witness.

 

[jimmy]

My point in the above post wasn’t to cast doubt on Abraham, but simply to give kierkegaards perspective. What is it that makes Abraham special? It really isn’t praiseworthy to kill your own son (even if God tells you to). Is obedience to God enough to vindicate Abraham’s actions or is his faith as kierkegaard says? Kierkegaard says that faith gives up all with the expectation of receiving it back from God. Abraham really meant to sacrifice Isaac: he didn’t expect God to hold him back. Kierkegaard thinks Abraham expected to receive Isaac back alive even though it seems impossible. This is why he became the father of faith. That is the paradox of faith.

In kierkegaards view, the present life is an end in itself. A man of faith fully expects that he will be blessed in this life. He is living in the present, not for a future life. So Abraham didn’t expect some blessing after his death.

I wish I could find my copy of Fear and Trembling. I could give a better explanation then.

 

[John_Martin]

Whether it is first person or third person is irrelevant. Catholicism doesn’t teach that the bible was dictated by God and the author was just writing what God told him to write. The human author is a genuine author. He wrote about a human experience. The story comes from an actual human witness.

Actually, it is relevant - AUTHORITATIVELY (as a matter of record it was actually God who was speaking rather than Abraham’s imagination) God spoke to Abraham, but the woman did not have an authoritative description of God talking to her, and then her actions which said, “God spoke to this woman and because God spoke to her she did as God said”. The Elohist and Jahwist were not simple people, but fully understood first and third person, someone imagining something and something that they wish to portray as objectively happening.

You did not write “God spoke to a woman in Texas a few years ago telling her to kill her children, and then she did as he asked her to.” You knew that you wanted to portray it as “in her own mind or imagination” where the word from God was.

Moses, however did write ‘Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering…"’(though you may choose to say the JE Redactor of the text)

As Catholics, we take it literally that it was indeed from God. We do not however believe the woman in Texas without full or reliable confirmation, plus in itself it is contrary to the teaching of the Church, which is also Authoritative for us.

John Martin

 

[tomarin]

My point in the above post wasn’t to cast doubt on Abraham, but simply to give kierkegaards perspective. What is it that makes Abraham special? It really isn’t praiseworthy to kill your own son (even if God tells you to). Is obedience to God enough to vindicate Abraham’s actions or is his faith as kierkegaard says?

I think this is the crux of the matter.

I wish I could find my copy of Fear and Trembling. I could give a better explanation then.

I think you’re doing a fine job.