“The paradox can also be expressed by saying that there is an absolute duty to God, for in this relationship of duty the single individual relates himself as the single individual absolutely to the absolute.” (61)
Man’s duty to the absolute is formed by man being a single individual in a state of absolute aloneness and in isolation from the universal. The man of faith is formed by entering into a state of aloneness and becoming an absolutely single individual. The man of faith raises himself as an individual above the universal and his being is beyond the restrictions of ethics imposed by the universal.
The man who sands in relation to the universal is a reasonable and ethical man who is understood by the world. The man of faith is aware of the pleasure of being understood by the world, yet he finds the courage to live in isolation for the sake of creating an absolute duty to the absolute. The state of man as being an absolutely single individual is a state of deep inwardness which cannot be expressed to the outer universal world. Any attempt to explain himself to the world would end in failure and he would lose his status of being a single individual man of faith. The man of faith must extinguish any desire to rationalize his faith to the world. For the man of faith loneliness and isolation are the makeup of his being.
If man wanted to enter into the world of faith then man must enter alone with no partner in the experience of faith. The man of faith has no partner to comfort him; his only comfort is his absolute duty to the absolute as a single individual man of faith. As soon as the man of faith tries to find comfort and consolation with someone other than the absolute he ceases to be a man of faith. It is not possible to ask a friend take my hand and let us journey together into the world of faith. Entering into the world of faith must be done with man’s own initiation and alone. The man of faith knows the comfort of resting in the friendly abode of the universal world yet he releases the outer universal world and dwells in inner isolation.
If the man of faith cannot make himself understood by the world then the world will view him as a mad man. But the problem is that if the world cannot understand the man of faith then the world will hate him and this will lead to a conflict between the man of faith and the universal world. Is this conflict avoidable? It can be said for certain that any attempt to explain faith to the universal world would ignite the conflict. But even though the man of faith cannot make himself understood on his own terms, it might be possible for someone in the universal world to see the man of faith through his own loneliness and here the silent’s of faith through his own mind. This vision would claim admiration even from the weakest of men.
The solitude Kierkegaard demands of faith gives it its strength and allows Abraham's sacrifice to be understood beyond the universal. But it also seems to limit faith in the ways you mentioned. Wouldn't a communal version of faith be easier to justify for anyone? The faithful usually create small communities for themselves, and seem to communicate their faith through revelation. Isn't the story of Abraham told through revelation? It seems then, that faith can be communicated. However, the first person subjective experience of faith will never be completely captured or understood through language, though I do think language gets us close.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe question you pose raises an interesting problem for Kierkegaard’s faith. Is it possible to have faith as a single individual and yet maintain a faith community? It may be possible that a collection of individuals which have faith as particulars and belong to a community of individuals sharing this faith in common. The question is what would the community contribute to a single individual’s faith. And it seems that there is nothing that the community could contribute to a single individual faith according to Kierkegaard. Man must enter into the world of faith alone as a particular.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as if the concept of faith applies only to individuals. However if faith can only belong to an individual, faith can only be attempted to be explained. For a concept that is so vague, too vague for even Kierkegaard to simply explain; is it possible for men/women to actually attain faith?
ReplyDeletewhat is the difference between a faithful man/woman, and a quite shy man/woman? Or is faith so mysterious and internal that only the person him or herself can know if they are a knight of faith?
I think your point is well taken. It seems that according to Kierkegaard ones faith can only be viewed from the first person perspective; faith cannot be objectively examined from the third person perspective. If one is in a state of faith one is not in a position to rationalize or explain ones faith to the Other. Faith can never be logically or rationally proven. If it were possible to do so then there would be no place for faith as such.
ReplyDelete