How a person goes about achieving faith is an implicit question within Kierkegaard's “fear and trembling.” He explains in which ways faith cannot be achieved but does not overtly explain how to go about obtaining it. It is apparent from the preface that Kierkegaard’s approach in his writing is, in part, a reaction to Hegel’s dialectic philosophy. "I prostrate myself in deepest deference before every systematic snooper: "This is not the System, it does not have the least thing to do with the System." (6)
Hegel developed a system in which all knowledge should fit. Kierkegaard mentions that his writing is "not the system" to make the point clear that faith cannot fit within any conceivable system and so Hegel's system is not the way to go about achieving faith.
He focuses on the example of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac which is to be seen as the epitome of perfect faith. With this example it becomes apparent that there is a grand paradox in trying to communicate faith; faith is beyond comprehension. He offers different tales of Abraham’s journey up the mountain that were far more understandable for they were rationally explained ( Abraham pretends to enjoy killed Isaac, feeling sorrow of his deed, ect) For Abraham to be the father of faith, faith cannot be explained to us. Faith should be beyond explanation because it is about the relationship of a person to God not to other people; only God and that singular individual can understand it.
“I have devoted considerable time to understanding the Hegelian philosophy…. All this I do easily, naturally, without getting a headache form it. However when I must thing about Abraham am virtually annihilated.” (27) He says his writing is not philosophy because philosophy can be understood through writings while faith cannot.
This could be why Johannes de Silentio (his pseudonym) mentions that "the present writer is not at all a philosopher; he has not understood the System..." He refers to himself as a non-philosopher; perhaps hinting that faith cannot be found in books or expressed in words. His pseudonym Silentio translates to silent; how one goes about achieving faith is probably what Kierkegaard remains silent about through his book.
You mention that the relationship between God and an individual can only be understood by those two people. I wonder, though, can the individual understand his own faith? Faith cannot be conveyed through writing and it cannot be explained. If the individual cannot convey his faith--does he truly understand it?
ReplyDeleteThat is a really good question; I was only thinking about understanding Abraham's faith toward God from my perspective but I wonder if even Abraham understood it.
ReplyDeleteFaith was described as following passion so maybe faith can be understood in the same way as instincts that overtake a person. Things involving passion can sort of be understood by a person like if I have a passion for cooking I understand that I have it and I know I follow it because of the joy it brings me. I couldn't explain this passion for cooking to anyone though. In the same way that faith cannot be explained or rationalized if I were to say cooking was beneficial because I was able to feed my family; I leave the realm of passion for cooking and lead into justification and rationalization for the action of cooking.
Just an idea, what do you think?