What do you think?
Rate this book
Fear and Trembling
Soren Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher, theologian, and religious author interested in human psychology. He is regarded as a leading pioneer of existentialism and one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th Century.
In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham when God commanded him to offer his son as a human sacrifice. Abraham had a choice to complete the task or to forget it. He resigned himself to the loss of his son, acting according to his faith. In other words, one must be willing to give up all his or her earthly possessions in infinite resignation and must also be willing to give up whatever it is that he or she loves more than God. Abraham had passed the test -- his love for God proved greater than anything else in him. And because a good and just Creator would not want a father to kill his son, God intervened at the last moment to prevent the sacrifice.
In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham when God commanded him to offer his son as a human sacrifice. Abraham had a choice to complete the task or to forget it. He resigned himself to the loss of his son, acting according to his faith. In other words, one must be willing to give up all his or her earthly possessions in infinite resignation and must also be willing to give up whatever it is that he or she loves more than God. Abraham had passed the test -- his love for God proved greater than anything else in him. And because a good and just Creator would not want a father to kill his son, God intervened at the last moment to prevent the sacrifice.
152 pages, Paperback
First published October 16, 1843
3,154 people are currently reading
79.7k people want to read
About the author
Søren Kierkegaard
1,085books6,040followersSøren Aabye Kierkegaard was a prolific 19th century Danish philosopher and theologian. Kierkegaard strongly criticised both the Hegelianism of his time and what he saw as the empty formalities of the Church of Denmark. Much of his work deals with religious themes such as faith in God, the institution of the Christian Church, Christian ethics and theology, and the emotions and feelings of individuals when faced with life choices. His early work was written under various pseudonyms who present their own distinctive viewpoints in a complex dialogue.
Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted". Scholars have interpreted Kierkegaard variously as an existentialist, neo-orthodoxist, postmodernist, humanist, and individualist.
Crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, he is an influential figure in contemporary thought.
Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted". Scholars have interpreted Kierkegaard variously as an existentialist, neo-orthodoxist, postmodernist, humanist, and individualist.
Crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, he is an influential figure in contemporary thought.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 2,202 reviews
December 4, 2013
dear reader,
you don't even read this stuff anymore, do you?! i wouldn't if i were you! but that's the difference between me and you! you have no life, are pathetic, sit in front of your computer all day stalking your peers on various social networking sites, while i go on constantly mocking your efforts through half jest and utter disregard for the values you hold dear to your heart!
alas, perhaps the joke is on me?!
haha, boy do i get ahead of myself sometimes! silly me! yes, that is what i say! i say, "silly me!" and i sit in the bathtub at night and i make tiny little cuts into the backs of my thighs and the bottom of my feet! the pain let's me know i am alive! anywho! today's book is a classic by the greatly pathetic soren kierkegaard, entitled "fear and trembling: who let the dogs out?" ok let's go!
REVIEW:
one could easily argue that the central thesis of this book is the idea that "faith begins precisely where reason ends."
kierkegaard struggles with faith, simultaneously demonstrating that it is impossible to successfully rationalize faith (i.e., give any kind of logical explanation of it), just as it is impossible to achieve faith by way of reason.
another highlight is the four alternative retellings of the story of abraham and isaac, which are truly a mindfuck.
VERDICT:
in my supremely accurate and overwhelmingly insightful opinion, this book is most important as a device by which to make people at least recognize, and hopefully respect, the great personal struggle and triumph that is religious faith. too many people in this generation, it seems, write religion off without even knowing why they do so, other than that it doesn't agree with what science dictates. kierkegaard here demonstrates the difference and mutual exclusiveness of the two, and thus that it is possible to love and respect both. lol!
you don't even read this stuff anymore, do you?! i wouldn't if i were you! but that's the difference between me and you! you have no life, are pathetic, sit in front of your computer all day stalking your peers on various social networking sites, while i go on constantly mocking your efforts through half jest and utter disregard for the values you hold dear to your heart!
alas, perhaps the joke is on me?!
haha, boy do i get ahead of myself sometimes! silly me! yes, that is what i say! i say, "silly me!" and i sit in the bathtub at night and i make tiny little cuts into the backs of my thighs and the bottom of my feet! the pain let's me know i am alive! anywho! today's book is a classic by the greatly pathetic soren kierkegaard, entitled "fear and trembling: who let the dogs out?" ok let's go!
REVIEW:
one could easily argue that the central thesis of this book is the idea that "faith begins precisely where reason ends."
kierkegaard struggles with faith, simultaneously demonstrating that it is impossible to successfully rationalize faith (i.e., give any kind of logical explanation of it), just as it is impossible to achieve faith by way of reason.
another highlight is the four alternative retellings of the story of abraham and isaac, which are truly a mindfuck.
VERDICT:
in my supremely accurate and overwhelmingly insightful opinion, this book is most important as a device by which to make people at least recognize, and hopefully respect, the great personal struggle and triumph that is religious faith. too many people in this generation, it seems, write religion off without even knowing why they do so, other than that it doesn't agree with what science dictates. kierkegaard here demonstrates the difference and mutual exclusiveness of the two, and thus that it is possible to love and respect both. lol!
October 22, 2021
Frygt og Bæven = Fear and Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard
Fear and Trembling is a philosophical work by Søren Kierkegaard, published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio (John of the Silence).
Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham when "God tested [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall show you."
Abraham had a choice to complete the task or to refuse to comply to God's orders. He resigned himself to the three-and-a-half-day journey and to the loss of his son.
"He said nothing to Sarah, nothing to Eliezer. Who, after all, could understand him, for did not the nature of temptation extract from him a pledge of silence? He split the firewood, he bound Isaac, he lit the fire, he drew the knife."
Because he kept everything to himself and chose not to reveal his feelings he "isolated himself as higher than the universal."
Kierkegaard envisions two types of people in Fear and Trembling and Repetition. One lives in hope, Abraham, the other lives in memory, The Young Man and Constantin Constantius.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز پنجم اکتبر سال 1996میلادی
عنوان: ترس و لرز: غزل دیالکتیکی؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: محسن فاطمی؛ تهران، سازمان تبلیغات، سال1373؛ در231ص؛ چاپ دوم سال1374؛ چاپ سوم سال1376؛ موضوع مسیحیت - از نویسندگان دانمارک - سده 20م
عنوان: ترس و لرز؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: عبدالکریم رشیدیان؛ تهران، نشر نی، سال1378؛ در173ص؛ چاپ دوم سال1380؛ شابک9643124347؛ چاپ پنجم سال1385؛ چاپ ششم سال1386؛ هفتم سال1387؛ هشتم سال1388؛ یازدهم سال1392؛
عنوان: ترس و لرز؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: محمدصادق رئیسی؛ تهران، روزگار نو، سال1392؛ شابک9786006867625؛
سورن کی یرکگور، یا با نام مستعار: «یوهانس دو سیلنتیو»؛ داستان قربانی کردن پسر، و ایمان راسخ، و استوار «ابراهیم علیه السلام» را بنوشته؛ و ایشان را شهسوار ایمان نامیده است
نقل از متن:(1 تعلیق اخلاق: برای دستیابی به وضوح بیشتر، شاید مناسب باشد، که پرسش سوم را، قبل از دو پرسش دیگر، که ما آنها را جدا نمیدانیم، در نظر بگیریم؛ «کیرکگور» عهدش را شکست؛ در همان حال، برای جدا کردن نامزدش، از خود، برای دور کردن رنجی بیش از حد بزرگ از او، تا حد ممکن، برای نجات او، از این هیولای تدین، که خودش بود ــ معنویتی بیش از حد، اما نه کافی ــ خود را، در چشم او سیاه کرد؛ آیا «ابراهیم» نیز، خود را در چشم «اسحاق»، با آشکار نکردن اراده ی خدا برای او، که خطر از دست دادن ایمان «اسحاق» را، در بر داشت، سیاه نکرده بود؟ «ابراهیم» میاندیشد، بهتر بوده است «اسحاق»، ایمان به مرا، از دست بدهد، تا ایمان به خدا را؛ همین طور هم مردـ ماهی که «کیرکگور» داستانش را در بخش دوم «ترس و لرز»، برای ما نقل میکنند، باید «اگنس» را، به خاطر خودِ «اگنس» فریب دهد، باید جرئت شکستن قلب او را، داشته باشد
با اینحال، چیزی از این حقیقت، کاسته نمیشود، که در چشم مردمان، «ابراهیم»، مهیای ارتکاب جنایتی است، و «کیرکگور» عهدش را شکسته است؛ اما اخلاق چیست؟ و ارزش آن کدام است؟
یقینا در مفهوم اخلاقی از زندگی، نوعی زیبایی، احساس آسایش، و هماهنگی وجود دارد؛ این مفهوم، مستلزم جرئت، و تغذیه کننده ی شور و شوق است؛ اما «کیرکگور»، گرایش دارد، تا اخلاقیت، تکافوی درون و برون، ادغام فرد در یک مجموعه، عقلِ تلقی شده، به شیوه ی «هگل» و بالاخره کلیت را، یکسان کند؛ کلیت، ترجمه «درون» بود است، به زبان برون؛ و برای بیان خود، به شیوه ای اخلاقی، فرد باید خود را، در برون، ظاهر و آشکار سازد؛ اخلاق، همان کلی است؛ لیکن انسانهایی وجود دارند، که نمیتوانند خود را، به امر کلی، تحویل کنند؛ و بدون شک، وقتی از دیدگاه کلی، یا ایده بنگریم، خواستِ فرد، در قرار دادن خود، مافوق کلی، گناه شمرده میشود؛ اما اگر، چیزی شناخت ناپذیر، تقلیل ناپذیر، و پنهان، وجود داشته باشد، اگر، برخلاف خواستِ «هگل»، درون، نتواند، تماما در برون بیان شود، اگر درون، برتر از برون باشد، آنگاه وساطت، به معنای «هگلی» آن، فرومیریزد، و شیوه ای از قرار دادن خویش، مافوق کلی، از تصدیق خود، به مثابه سنجش ناپذیر، به وسیله امر کلی، وجود دارد، که دیگر گناه نیست (که گناه نخواهد بود مگر از دیدگاه اختیاری کلیت و ایده)؛ به لطف ایمان، درون از برون، برتر است؛ ایمان «هگل» را طرد میکند؛ همانگونه که «هگل» ایمان را نابود میکند: «اگر درون برتر از برون نباشد، ابراهیم خاسر است.»؛
در ایمان، فرد، خدای آسمانها را، تو خطاب میکند، و در رابطه ای خصوصی با او، قرار دارد؛ فرد به عنوان فرد، در رابطه ای مطلق با مطلق، وارد میشود؛ این همان حیطه ی تنهایی عظیم است؛ با همراه، نمیتوان به آن، وارد شد، در آن، هیچ آوای بشری، شنیده نمیشود؛ هیچ چیز نمیتواند، در آن تعلیم، یا تبیین شود؛
از این پس، وسوسه، همانا اخلاق، یعنی کلی است؛ همچنین، در حالیکه قهرمان تراژدی، میتواند خود را، بیان کند، همسرایان، و اشخاص دیگر را، شاهد بگیرد، شهسوار ایمان، جز برای خدا، و جز برای خویش، عمل نمیکند؛ او از وساطت، سر باز میزند؛ او نمیتواند سخن بگوید، زیرا این به معنای ترجمه ی خویش، به زبان، و بنابراین به امر کلی است؛ او نمیتواند، در کسی که ناظر اوست، جز احساسِ خوفِ مذهبی، و نه احساسِ ترحم، برانگیزد؛ میتوان گفت حتی نمیتواند، با خودش سخن بگوید
فراسوی سپهر تکلیف، گریزگاهی به سوی نامتناهی مییابیم
در اینجا دیگر، قاعده ای وجود ندارد؛ دیگر معیاری، وجود ندارد؛ دیگر توجیهی، وجود ندارد، که بر نتایج اجتماعی و تاریخی یک عمل، یعنی بر ملاحظه ی مجموعه ی آدمیان، و مجموعه ی تاریخ، اتکا کند؛ توجیه پس از عمل نمیآید، بلکه بی واسطه است، و از همان لحظه ی نخستین، از همان لحظه ی مقدس، که آغاز است، ظاهر میشود؛ این توجیهی است، یکسره فردی، و آنی؛ نتیجه، هرگز، جز پاسخی متناهی، به پرسش نامتناهی نیست، اما این توجیه، بیواسطه و آنی، پاسخ نامتناهی است، در تنش مفرط فرد، به سئوال نامتناهی، که فرد پیش مینهد؛ فقط چنین توجیهی، پیش نگر است، نه پس نگر)؛ پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/11/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 29/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Fear and Trembling is a philosophical work by Søren Kierkegaard, published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio (John of the Silence).
Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham when "God tested [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall show you."
Abraham had a choice to complete the task or to refuse to comply to God's orders. He resigned himself to the three-and-a-half-day journey and to the loss of his son.
"He said nothing to Sarah, nothing to Eliezer. Who, after all, could understand him, for did not the nature of temptation extract from him a pledge of silence? He split the firewood, he bound Isaac, he lit the fire, he drew the knife."
Because he kept everything to himself and chose not to reveal his feelings he "isolated himself as higher than the universal."
Kierkegaard envisions two types of people in Fear and Trembling and Repetition. One lives in hope, Abraham, the other lives in memory, The Young Man and Constantin Constantius.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز پنجم اکتبر سال 1996میلادی
عنوان: ترس و لرز: غزل دیالکتیکی؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: محسن فاطمی؛ تهران، سازمان تبلیغات، سال1373؛ در231ص؛ چاپ دوم سال1374؛ چاپ سوم سال1376؛ موضوع مسیحیت - از نویسندگان دانمارک - سده 20م
عنوان: ترس و لرز؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: عبدالکریم رشیدیان؛ تهران، نشر نی، سال1378؛ در173ص؛ چاپ دوم سال1380؛ شابک9643124347؛ چاپ پنجم سال1385؛ چاپ ششم سال1386؛ هفتم سال1387؛ هشتم سال1388؛ یازدهم سال1392؛
عنوان: ترس و لرز؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: محمدصادق رئیسی؛ تهران، روزگار نو، سال1392؛ شابک9786006867625؛
سورن کی یرکگور، یا با نام مستعار: «یوهانس دو سیلنتیو»؛ داستان قربانی کردن پسر، و ایمان راسخ، و استوار «ابراهیم علیه السلام» را بنوشته؛ و ایشان را شهسوار ایمان نامیده است
نقل از متن:(1 تعلیق اخلاق: برای دستیابی به وضوح بیشتر، شاید مناسب باشد، که پرسش سوم را، قبل از دو پرسش دیگر، که ما آنها را جدا نمیدانیم، در نظر بگیریم؛ «کیرکگور» عهدش را شکست؛ در همان حال، برای جدا کردن نامزدش، از خود، برای دور کردن رنجی بیش از حد بزرگ از او، تا حد ممکن، برای نجات او، از این هیولای تدین، که خودش بود ــ معنویتی بیش از حد، اما نه کافی ــ خود را، در چشم او سیاه کرد؛ آیا «ابراهیم» نیز، خود را در چشم «اسحاق»، با آشکار نکردن اراده ی خدا برای او، که خطر از دست دادن ایمان «اسحاق» را، در بر داشت، سیاه نکرده بود؟ «ابراهیم» میاندیشد، بهتر بوده است «اسحاق»، ایمان به مرا، از دست بدهد، تا ایمان به خدا را؛ همین طور هم مردـ ماهی که «کیرکگور» داستانش را در بخش دوم «ترس و لرز»، برای ما نقل میکنند، باید «اگنس» را، به خاطر خودِ «اگنس» فریب دهد، باید جرئت شکستن قلب او را، داشته باشد
با اینحال، چیزی از این حقیقت، کاسته نمیشود، که در چشم مردمان، «ابراهیم»، مهیای ارتکاب جنایتی است، و «کیرکگور» عهدش را شکسته است؛ اما اخلاق چیست؟ و ارزش آن کدام است؟
یقینا در مفهوم اخلاقی از زندگی، نوعی زیبایی، احساس آسایش، و هماهنگی وجود دارد؛ این مفهوم، مستلزم جرئت، و تغذیه کننده ی شور و شوق است؛ اما «کیرکگور»، گرایش دارد، تا اخلاقیت، تکافوی درون و برون، ادغام فرد در یک مجموعه، عقلِ تلقی شده، به شیوه ی «هگل» و بالاخره کلیت را، یکسان کند؛ کلیت، ترجمه «درون» بود است، به زبان برون؛ و برای بیان خود، به شیوه ای اخلاقی، فرد باید خود را، در برون، ظاهر و آشکار سازد؛ اخلاق، همان کلی است؛ لیکن انسانهایی وجود دارند، که نمیتوانند خود را، به امر کلی، تحویل کنند؛ و بدون شک، وقتی از دیدگاه کلی، یا ایده بنگریم، خواستِ فرد، در قرار دادن خود، مافوق کلی، گناه شمرده میشود؛ اما اگر، چیزی شناخت ناپذیر، تقلیل ناپذیر، و پنهان، وجود داشته باشد، اگر، برخلاف خواستِ «هگل»، درون، نتواند، تماما در برون بیان شود، اگر درون، برتر از برون باشد، آنگاه وساطت، به معنای «هگلی» آن، فرومیریزد، و شیوه ای از قرار دادن خویش، مافوق کلی، از تصدیق خود، به مثابه سنجش ناپذیر، به وسیله امر کلی، وجود دارد، که دیگر گناه نیست (که گناه نخواهد بود مگر از دیدگاه اختیاری کلیت و ایده)؛ به لطف ایمان، درون از برون، برتر است؛ ایمان «هگل» را طرد میکند؛ همانگونه که «هگل» ایمان را نابود میکند: «اگر درون برتر از برون نباشد، ابراهیم خاسر است.»؛
در ایمان، فرد، خدای آسمانها را، تو خطاب میکند، و در رابطه ای خصوصی با او، قرار دارد؛ فرد به عنوان فرد، در رابطه ای مطلق با مطلق، وارد میشود؛ این همان حیطه ی تنهایی عظیم است؛ با همراه، نمیتوان به آن، وارد شد، در آن، هیچ آوای بشری، شنیده نمیشود؛ هیچ چیز نمیتواند، در آن تعلیم، یا تبیین شود؛
از این پس، وسوسه، همانا اخلاق، یعنی کلی است؛ همچنین، در حالیکه قهرمان تراژدی، میتواند خود را، بیان کند، همسرایان، و اشخاص دیگر را، شاهد بگیرد، شهسوار ایمان، جز برای خدا، و جز برای خویش، عمل نمیکند؛ او از وساطت، سر باز میزند؛ او نمیتواند سخن بگوید، زیرا این به معنای ترجمه ی خویش، به زبان، و بنابراین به امر کلی است؛ او نمیتواند، در کسی که ناظر اوست، جز احساسِ خوفِ مذهبی، و نه احساسِ ترحم، برانگیزد؛ میتوان گفت حتی نمیتواند، با خودش سخن بگوید
فراسوی سپهر تکلیف، گریزگاهی به سوی نامتناهی مییابیم
در اینجا دیگر، قاعده ای وجود ندارد؛ دیگر معیاری، وجود ندارد؛ دیگر توجیهی، وجود ندارد، که بر نتایج اجتماعی و تاریخی یک عمل، یعنی بر ملاحظه ی مجموعه ی آدمیان، و مجموعه ی تاریخ، اتکا کند؛ توجیه پس از عمل نمیآید، بلکه بی واسطه است، و از همان لحظه ی نخستین، از همان لحظه ی مقدس، که آغاز است، ظاهر میشود؛ این توجیهی است، یکسره فردی، و آنی؛ نتیجه، هرگز، جز پاسخی متناهی، به پرسش نامتناهی نیست، اما این توجیه، بیواسطه و آنی، پاسخ نامتناهی است، در تنش مفرط فرد، به سئوال نامتناهی، که فرد پیش مینهد؛ فقط چنین توجیهی، پیش نگر است، نه پس نگر)؛ پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/11/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 29/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
April 27, 2025
And the seasons go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down -
We're captive on the Carousel of Time.
We can't return; we can only look behind
From where we came -
And go round and round in the Circle Game.
(Tom Rush)
When this infinitely persecuted and much-berated ironic Saint of a man could no longer function - and collapsed in a heap - no one of importance noticed.
Nobody, that is, except his vast legions of admiring fans, who swept into the streets (stalling traffic) - filling his funerary parish to the rafters!
And they, in no uncertain terms, viciously denounced the heretical State Religion of Denmark, comfortably enfolded in its comfortable pews to the sound of comforting sermonizing.
Existentialism had just been born. And along with it a new “Philosophy of NO.�
Fear and Trembling.
A Kierkegaardian Circle Game!
Hearing those fatal words pronounced nowadays immediately conjures up Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for us soul-seared postmoderns.
We've seen it all and done it all, you see. We’re spoiled rotten by our media. So nothing has changed since the time of the Danish state church.
But, believe me, those very words can kill.
Especially to the Edwardians who chanced upon Kierkegaard back in the old days. For in those days (even before Walter Lowry started translating K) the words conjured up the loud abjuration "work out your salvation with Fear and Trembling!�
That is, if we insatiable consumers ever got to the point where our life is no longer a matter for polite, double-edged chuckles.
And it's not, you know.
Guess what?
It's REAL and it HURTS!
You know, I'm the kinda guy who has amassed a vast assortment of glosses, summaries and guides to Kierkegaard. He's that tough to read. And this slim book, being short, might otherwise seem easy. But it's not.
For one thing, Kierkegaard - unlike so many wiseacres these days - doesn't skew his segues.
Nor does he, like them, cover his sins in bland sameness. He always gets us to the same somewhat tediously recirculating point. BUT the dull camouflage of his circling gets us there in new and startling ways, it we’re at all awake.
Wanna wake up?
By far the best "guide" to this book is another alluringly slim volume, Jacques Derrida's Literature in Secret. You should get it, if you want to figure the Kierkegaard Matrix out!
Here's how Derrida makes Kierkegaard clear as MUD:
He dwells, not on the conviction of his paradoxes - no.
For by extrapolating on and reworking the subtle areas of Fear and Trembling (at which point readers like me CRY OUT for a simple Crib Sheet) he takes our minds further and further out into the cold Arctic of a terra incognita. With nary a comfort.
NOW we're totally lost.
And we’re ITCHING for a distraction. A beer. Or TV. Or at least a smoke!
Sound familiar? We’re ALL like that. Me, too�
You see, don't you, that Derrida clarifies Kierkegaard by showing him to us as he must have seemed to the author's Original 19th Century audience: as something so totally FOREIGN to their habitual comfort zones that suddenly they HAD TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES?
Just as Socrates did for the Athenians. So they killed him off. An enemy of the state, just like Soren Kierkegaard.
Therefore, Derrida's is THE Ideal Crib Sheet. We media-crazed 21st Century couch potatoes are now for the first time, THINKING FOR OURSELVES.
The perfect methodology to apply to our nail-biting Finals for our Introduction to Modern Thought 101 class.
It is our REAL initiation.
And THAT was Kierkegaard's Intent.
And, that’s the "meaning" of this complex book, in a Nutshell!
And the painted ponies go up and down -
We're captive on the Carousel of Time.
We can't return; we can only look behind
From where we came -
And go round and round in the Circle Game.
(Tom Rush)
When this infinitely persecuted and much-berated ironic Saint of a man could no longer function - and collapsed in a heap - no one of importance noticed.
Nobody, that is, except his vast legions of admiring fans, who swept into the streets (stalling traffic) - filling his funerary parish to the rafters!
And they, in no uncertain terms, viciously denounced the heretical State Religion of Denmark, comfortably enfolded in its comfortable pews to the sound of comforting sermonizing.
Existentialism had just been born. And along with it a new “Philosophy of NO.�
Fear and Trembling.
A Kierkegaardian Circle Game!
Hearing those fatal words pronounced nowadays immediately conjures up Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for us soul-seared postmoderns.
We've seen it all and done it all, you see. We’re spoiled rotten by our media. So nothing has changed since the time of the Danish state church.
But, believe me, those very words can kill.
Especially to the Edwardians who chanced upon Kierkegaard back in the old days. For in those days (even before Walter Lowry started translating K) the words conjured up the loud abjuration "work out your salvation with Fear and Trembling!�
That is, if we insatiable consumers ever got to the point where our life is no longer a matter for polite, double-edged chuckles.
And it's not, you know.
Guess what?
It's REAL and it HURTS!
You know, I'm the kinda guy who has amassed a vast assortment of glosses, summaries and guides to Kierkegaard. He's that tough to read. And this slim book, being short, might otherwise seem easy. But it's not.
For one thing, Kierkegaard - unlike so many wiseacres these days - doesn't skew his segues.
Nor does he, like them, cover his sins in bland sameness. He always gets us to the same somewhat tediously recirculating point. BUT the dull camouflage of his circling gets us there in new and startling ways, it we’re at all awake.
Wanna wake up?
By far the best "guide" to this book is another alluringly slim volume, Jacques Derrida's Literature in Secret. You should get it, if you want to figure the Kierkegaard Matrix out!
Here's how Derrida makes Kierkegaard clear as MUD:
He dwells, not on the conviction of his paradoxes - no.
For by extrapolating on and reworking the subtle areas of Fear and Trembling (at which point readers like me CRY OUT for a simple Crib Sheet) he takes our minds further and further out into the cold Arctic of a terra incognita. With nary a comfort.
NOW we're totally lost.
And we’re ITCHING for a distraction. A beer. Or TV. Or at least a smoke!
Sound familiar? We’re ALL like that. Me, too�
You see, don't you, that Derrida clarifies Kierkegaard by showing him to us as he must have seemed to the author's Original 19th Century audience: as something so totally FOREIGN to their habitual comfort zones that suddenly they HAD TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES?
Just as Socrates did for the Athenians. So they killed him off. An enemy of the state, just like Soren Kierkegaard.
Therefore, Derrida's is THE Ideal Crib Sheet. We media-crazed 21st Century couch potatoes are now for the first time, THINKING FOR OURSELVES.
The perfect methodology to apply to our nail-biting Finals for our Introduction to Modern Thought 101 class.
It is our REAL initiation.
And THAT was Kierkegaard's Intent.
And, that’s the "meaning" of this complex book, in a Nutshell!
December 17, 2015
Many readers come to read this book via the Hegel pathway. Or at least realize that a Hegel preamble is required. And most probably such a preamble is indispensable.
Alas, I came to it through a side door. As an attendant of a cycle of lectures given at the Prado Museum on the Bible (Old Testament) and Art, I listened, and looked, in fascination to the exposé of one of the Speakers. He examined the myth of Abraham and the Sacrifice of his beloved son Isaac.
After portraying what he considered an utterly unethical behavior in the part of Abraham he presented Kierkegaard’s ideas as the only way to approach the dreadful myth. For it cannot be understood.
For such is the nature of Paradox.
Abraham was no Agamemnon (*). There was no heroism in his act: Agamemnon was driven by duty; Abraham by faith. Agamemnon could hate his own act but overcome his hatred and announce the intended outcome. Abraham, as the Knight of Faith could not doubt a single instant. He had to want to kill his son, while loving him dearly, because his god had ordered him to do so. And this he had to do quietly.
Abraham was greater than all, great by reason of his power whose strength is impotence, great by reason of his wisdom whose secret is foolishness, great by reason of his hope whose form is madness, great by reason of the love which is hatred of oneself.
And so at the core of Abraham’s act was the Absurd.
In this context of absurdity silence, elastic, takes its place. And opens the door to laughter.
And of the painters, Rembrandt, the master of capturing the interruption, was also the one who represented the force in Abraham’s unrelenting and unvacillating will. There is no second-guessing god in his Abraham. No acting and no hope.
Rembrandt was the one painter who understood what Kierkegaard stated about two hundred years later. Angel had to fight hard to stop Abraham in his unflinching intention to murder.
------
Do I need to point out that Beckett read this book?
---
(*) another example of this paternal filicide not mentioned in this book is Emperor Frederick II and his son Henry.
December 27, 2020
“To contend with the whole world is a comfort, but to contend with oneself is dreadful.�
Fear and Trembling is Kierkegaard’s astonishingly dexterous analysis of faith via the Old Testament story of Abraham and Isaac:
“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him…Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.�
–Genesis 22:1
According to Kierkegaard, Abraham was a true “knight of faith.� He didn’t merely resign himself to losing his son, but instead believed that Isaac wouldn’t actually be harmed. He had faith based on “the strength of the absurd,� or in spite of the fact that it made no rational sense to do so. Kierkegaard contended that Abraham’s belief in this undeniable absurdity elevated him to the highest plane of faith one can possibly hope to attain.
Kierkegaard then made an apparently simple (yet really rather profound) point: Abraham’s decision to make a leap of faith could not concern itself with the OUTCOME of that leap:
“Surely anyone with a speck of erectior ingenii [nobility of mind] cannot become so completely the cold and clammy mollusc as to lose sight altogether, in approaching the great, of the fact that ever since the Creation it has been accepted practice for the outcome to come last, and that if one is really to learn something from the great it is precisely the beginning one must attend to. If anyone on the verge of action should judge himself according to the outcome, he would never begin. Even though the result may gladden the whole world, that cannot help the hero; for he knows the result only when the whole thing is over, and that is not how he becomes a hero, but by virtue of the fact that he began.�
Kierkegaard concluded this section of the book by stating that faith is fundamentally a paradox, and that it goes beyond what reason can comprehend. He then proceeded to examine three “problemata.�
Problema 1: “Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?� Kierkegaard answered in the affirmative. Basically, taking care of your fellow human beings is generally your most important ethical concern. However, since murdering a helpless child doesn’t usually provide much benefit to humanity, and yet God commanded Abraham to do so, ethical considerations must have been suspended in favor of a higher imperative.
Problema 2: “Is there an absolute duty to God?� Short answer: Yes. Slightly longer explanation: Kierkegaard held that “faith’s paradox is this, that the single individual is higher than [the human race], that the single individual determines his relation to [the human race] through his relation to [God].� I tinkered with the previous quote in an effort to make it more user friendly. Kierkegaard was kind of a dweeb with some of his jargon and specialized slang. Perhaps also with his coiffure:
Problema 3: “Was it ethically defensible of Abraham to conceal his purpose from Sarah, from Eleazar, from Isaac?� Kierkegaard was of the opinion that honesty is usually the best policy. In Abraham’s case, however, since his task was Absurd with a capital A, and as such could not possibly be understood, he had to grapple with it alone. Abraham couldn’t even attempt to relate it to anyone else, since trying to explain what is absurd and incomprehensible is…well…absurd.
Kierkegaard wrapped things up by asserting that “the highest passion in a human being is faith,� and that this is something each person must wrestle with and ultimately earn for themselves.
Thus concludes my (probably overly detailed) summary of the main points presented in the book. I’d now like to share a few of Kierkegaard’s more brilliant quotes:
“Someone who has understood life’s horror has grasped Daub’s meaning when he says that a soldier standing guard alone with a loaded gun by a powder magazine on a stormy night gets strange thoughts.�
“There is greatness in meriting the tears of those who deserve to shed them; great indeed for the poet to dare hold the crowd in check, dare discipline people into testing their own worthiness to weep for the hero, for the waste-water of snivellers is a degradation of the holy.�
“Aesthetics is the most faithless of all sciences. Anyone who has truly loved it will in a way become unhappy; while anyone who has never done so is and will remain a blockhead.�
Overall, Kierkegaard was a phenomenal writer with an often merciless wit. His mind was arrestingly complex, nimble, fluid. I can’t claim to fully grasp everything he wrote; at times I got tangled up in the threads of his subtly nuanced logic, especially when I was frantically trying to keep up with some of his more peculiar terminology. That said, many of his points were beautifully reasoned, some even striking in their clarity. I especially appreciated his musings on the suffering that standing alone with your beliefs necessarily entails, and the importance of not letting the pain erode your resolve.
Although the aforementioned merits made this a fascinating read, I couldn’t wholly relate to it, as I do not count religious faith among the more worthwhile pursuits available to us as thinking beings. I do agree with him on this:
“How monstrous a paradox faith is, a paradox capable of making a murder into a holy act well pleasing to God, a paradox which gives Isaac back to Abraham, which no thought can grasp because faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off.�
I just tend to side with Hitchens as to its rather dubious value:
July 15, 2017
کیرکگور، پس از معرفی سه سپهر انسانی (زیبایی طلب، اخلاقی، ایمانی) کتاب "یا این یا آن" خود را به تحلیل دو سپهر نخست اختصاص می دهد، اما سپهر سوم شخصیتی را به کتاب دیگرش، ترس و لرز وا می گذارد.
ترس و لرز به تمامی در وصف ماهیت ایمان است، آن سان که کیرکگور تعریف می کند. این دید منحصر به فرد از ایمان مخالف دید مرسوم کلیسای پروتستان بود، به همین سبب کیرکگور تا پایان عمر با کلیسای پروتستان در نبرد بود. کیرکگور می گفت: کلیسا ایمان را به امری سهل الوصول بورژوازی تبدیل کرده، که هر کس و در هر زمان می تواند بی دردسر و با خیال راحت مؤمن باشد و زندگی اش را بکند. اما ایمان حقیقی، آن ایمانی که ابراهیم را بر آن داشت که اسحاق را به مذبح ببرد، به هیچ وجه با زندگی هر روزه سازگار نیست.
من در نظر دارم که زمانی بگردم دنبال شباهت ها و تفاوت های این دیدگاه از ایمان، با دیدگاه اسلامی-شیعی.
در جستجوی ایمان
کیرکگور برای ایمان سه خصوصیت کلیدی بر می شمارد، که هر یک همچون ضربه ای سهمگین است بر پیکرۀ ایمان سهل الوصول کلیسایی.
١. غيرعقلانى
ايمان از مقوله ى اراده است، نه علم و نه احساس، در نتيجه غيرعقلانى است.
٢. غيراخلاقى
ايمان شخصى است، در نتيجه غير اخلاقى است.
٣. خودمتناقض
امید داشت�� به چیزی که ممکن نیست تحقق یابد.
كيركگور خود عزيزترين چيزش را در راه تحصیل ایمان ترك كرد: معشوقش و نامزدش "رگينه اولسن" را. اما با اندوهى ناتمام مى گويد: من شهسوار ترك نامتناهى شدم، بى آن كه واقعاً ايمان داشته باشم. رگينه اولسن با مرد ديگرى ازدواج كرد، و كيركگور تا آخرين لحظه ى حيات نتوانست به چيز ديگرى بينديشد.
از کتاب
هر كس به قدر عظمت آن چه با آن زورآزمايى كرد بزرگى يافت:
آن كس كه با جهان ستيز كرد با چيرگى بر جهان بزرگ شد؛
و آن كس كه با خويشتن نبرد كرد با چيرگى بر خويشتن بزرگ شد؛
اما آن كس كه با خدا زورآزمايى كرد از همه بزرگ تر بود.
ترس و لرز به تمامی در وصف ماهیت ایمان است، آن سان که کیرکگور تعریف می کند. این دید منحصر به فرد از ایمان مخالف دید مرسوم کلیسای پروتستان بود، به همین سبب کیرکگور تا پایان عمر با کلیسای پروتستان در نبرد بود. کیرکگور می گفت: کلیسا ایمان را به امری سهل الوصول بورژوازی تبدیل کرده، که هر کس و در هر زمان می تواند بی دردسر و با خیال راحت مؤمن باشد و زندگی اش را بکند. اما ایمان حقیقی، آن ایمانی که ابراهیم را بر آن داشت که اسحاق را به مذبح ببرد، به هیچ وجه با زندگی هر روزه سازگار نیست.
من در نظر دارم که زمانی بگردم دنبال شباهت ها و تفاوت های این دیدگاه از ایمان، با دیدگاه اسلامی-شیعی.
در جستجوی ایمان
کیرکگور برای ایمان سه خصوصیت کلیدی بر می شمارد، که هر یک همچون ضربه ای سهمگین است بر پیکرۀ ایمان سهل الوصول کلیسایی.
١. غيرعقلانى
ايمان از مقوله ى اراده است، نه علم و نه احساس، در نتيجه غيرعقلانى است.
٢. غيراخلاقى
ايمان شخصى است، در نتيجه غير اخلاقى است.
٣. خودمتناقض
امید داشت�� به چیزی که ممکن نیست تحقق یابد.
كيركگور خود عزيزترين چيزش را در راه تحصیل ایمان ترك كرد: معشوقش و نامزدش "رگينه اولسن" را. اما با اندوهى ناتمام مى گويد: من شهسوار ترك نامتناهى شدم، بى آن كه واقعاً ايمان داشته باشم. رگينه اولسن با مرد ديگرى ازدواج كرد، و كيركگور تا آخرين لحظه ى حيات نتوانست به چيز ديگرى بينديشد.
از کتاب
هر كس به قدر عظمت آن چه با آن زورآزمايى كرد بزرگى يافت:
آن كس كه با جهان ستيز كرد با چيرگى بر جهان بزرگ شد؛
و آن كس كه با خويشتن نبرد كرد با چيرگى بر خويشتن بزرگ شد؛
اما آن كس كه با خدا زورآزمايى كرد از همه بزرگ تر بود.
October 1, 2017
It is not an exaggeration to say that Fear and Trembling (1843) was a challenging piece for me to to read, maybe being someone of no religious faith had something to do with it. Kierkegaard (Johannes de silentio) compounds the essential difficulty that lies within the theme of the work, the Akedah, through choosing an alternative pseudonym to praise Abraham as a knight of faith and examine his movements. That the pseudonym's perspective is shrouded in silence seemingly precludes any clear and straightforward understanding of this work. Ultimately, whether Kierkegaard's Johannes de silentio is to be read with irony or edification appears as undecidable as whether we should view Abraham as a murderous madman -- who in contrast to Nietzsche's madman proclaiming the death of god proclaims a living god who has commanded the death of his son and then later a ram, or the great father of faith.
He goes over the story of Abraham and Isaac and can make no sense of it. he concludes that 'faith' must be a 'leap in the dark' Take the leap he seems to say and God will catch you. Most people do no such thing. They are too sensible and do not jump anywhere unless there is a soft landing of a safety net. Sadly he has bequeathed to the world the idea that Christianity is a religion and belief in god is not rational. Generations of Humanists, Rationalists and Materialists have taken this up as a stick with which to beat Christians and Christian belief. Because he thought God told him to?. Will this have you either going to church every Sunday believing it's OK to kill your kids as long as God gives you his blessing, or tearing the pages out and throwing the cover across the room screaming and swearing at Kiekegaard for being morally and ethically wrong. Like I said as piece of historical philosophy it challenged me, something most books I read never do, hence the four stars. But still left me feeling bemused and dumbfound. Definitely requires a second reading, but me doubt will happen. It's the sort of book that could fire great debate and war of words. I will just sit on the fence though and keep my opinions to myself.
He goes over the story of Abraham and Isaac and can make no sense of it. he concludes that 'faith' must be a 'leap in the dark' Take the leap he seems to say and God will catch you. Most people do no such thing. They are too sensible and do not jump anywhere unless there is a soft landing of a safety net. Sadly he has bequeathed to the world the idea that Christianity is a religion and belief in god is not rational. Generations of Humanists, Rationalists and Materialists have taken this up as a stick with which to beat Christians and Christian belief. Because he thought God told him to?. Will this have you either going to church every Sunday believing it's OK to kill your kids as long as God gives you his blessing, or tearing the pages out and throwing the cover across the room screaming and swearing at Kiekegaard for being morally and ethically wrong. Like I said as piece of historical philosophy it challenged me, something most books I read never do, hence the four stars. But still left me feeling bemused and dumbfound. Definitely requires a second reading, but me doubt will happen. It's the sort of book that could fire great debate and war of words. I will just sit on the fence though and keep my opinions to myself.
June 22, 2007
I was going to write that I still come back to this book, even ten years after reading it for the first time. But that's not quite true. What is true is that this book has never really left me; it has worked itself into my psyche and become an automatic philosophical reference point for my life.
Kierkegaard's discussion of faith versus resignation is an exhileration to read. His unfolding of the concept of the absurd in the universe is sublime. Everyone should dive into this work, grapple with it, and re-emerge with some of Kierkegaard's Romantic greatness internalized.
Kierkegaard's discussion of faith versus resignation is an exhileration to read. His unfolding of the concept of the absurd in the universe is sublime. Everyone should dive into this work, grapple with it, and re-emerge with some of Kierkegaard's Romantic greatness internalized.
September 9, 2021
کیرکگور ذهن آدم را تسخیر میکن�. مجبورت میکن� که در اضطراب غرق شوی و مدام از خودت بپرسی انسان بودن در جهان چگونه است؟ چگونه زندگی کنیم که پشیمان نشویم؟ چه گونه زمانی که مدام از لای انگشتانما� میلغز� را به چنگ بیاوریم؟ مگر میشو� که با خواندن کتابهای� ترسولر� به جانت نیفتد؟
شاید پاسخ کیرکگور و اشتیاقش به ترک نامتناهی و جهش ایمان برای انسان سکولار قرن بیست و یک، جوابِ قانعکنندها� نباشد اما بیتاب� کلماتش و تلاش خستگی ناپذیرش برای دستوپ� زدن میان مخمصه بشری و ناامیدنشدن، دعوتی است برایِ حتی اگر شده کمی قهرمانانهت� زیستن.
شاید پاسخ کیرکگور و اشتیاقش به ترک نامتناهی و جهش ایمان برای انسان سکولار قرن بیست و یک، جوابِ قانعکنندها� نباشد اما بیتاب� کلماتش و تلاش خستگی ناپذیرش برای دستوپ� زدن میان مخمصه بشری و ناامیدنشدن، دعوتی است برایِ حتی اگر شده کمی قهرمانانهت� زیستن.
January 13, 2022
“If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment...if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?�
Considered a precursor of existential thought, Søren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling explores anxiety and the paradox of faith through the story of Abraham's sacrifice of his son, Isaac. Kierkegaard's interpretation makes for a deceptively easy read. Because it is up to the individual to figure things out, there are no easy answers for Kierkegaard on how Abraham should take on his burden. That is why, I think, there's this sense that Kierkegaard approaches faith with dread and what he calls 'infinite resignation.'
Kierkegaard embraces the anxiety and anguish that forces Abraham to look inward instead of to some objective outward truth about whether it is right to obey God even when God is asking him to do something that lies outside the moral or ethical code he lives by (murdering his own son). Likewise, Kierkegaard regards faith as something very personal that is not arrived at in some objective or deliberative way. Instead, he contends, “Faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off.� There is a lot to think about in Fear and Trembling.
“And to contend with the whole world is a comfort, but to contend with oneself dreadful.�
Considered a precursor of existential thought, Søren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling explores anxiety and the paradox of faith through the story of Abraham's sacrifice of his son, Isaac. Kierkegaard's interpretation makes for a deceptively easy read. Because it is up to the individual to figure things out, there are no easy answers for Kierkegaard on how Abraham should take on his burden. That is why, I think, there's this sense that Kierkegaard approaches faith with dread and what he calls 'infinite resignation.'
Kierkegaard embraces the anxiety and anguish that forces Abraham to look inward instead of to some objective outward truth about whether it is right to obey God even when God is asking him to do something that lies outside the moral or ethical code he lives by (murdering his own son). Likewise, Kierkegaard regards faith as something very personal that is not arrived at in some objective or deliberative way. Instead, he contends, “Faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off.� There is a lot to think about in Fear and Trembling.
“And to contend with the whole world is a comfort, but to contend with oneself dreadful.�
April 5, 2019
کتاب ترس و لرز، دارای سبک نگارشی خاصی ست. شاید بتوان گفت نویسنده در این کتاب سعی کرده تا جای ممکن مخاطب را در مراحل اندیشه و جدال با متن درگیر کند. گاه او را تمسخر کند و گاه زیباتر از هر چیزی شکستش دهد. کیرکگور را نویسنده ای با طرز فکر خاص، با ایمانی به زعم خود جزم، کاشفگر و نوآور دانستم. استعارات و تحلیل هایی که در این متن به کار برده و بخشی از آن ها مربوط به زندگی شخصی خود اوست، نشان از نبوغ وی در پرورش موضوع، در زبان ورزی، در هستی شناسی و نوآوری دارد.
داستان حضرت ابراهیم و قربانی فرزندش، دستمایه عظیم ترین تحلیل های نویسنده نسبت به دین، اخلاق، اجتماع و ... شده است.خواننده با خوانش بیشتر، در این تحلیل تلمیحی مستحیل می گردد.
زیباترین و اساسی ترین بخش این کتاب در بخشی ست که ماهیت کار ابراهیم را تحلیل می کند و از دو منظر «افشا» و «سکوت» حرف می زند. سورن کیرکگور از طریق ابراهیم خودش را می ستاید. او ابراهیم را درک می کند و در نهایت می شناسد
اما در این کتاب به دنبال شناخت ابراهیم از زبان کگور نباشید
زیرا او از این کار بصورت مبهم و زیبایی طفره می رود.
داستان حضرت ابراهیم و قربانی فرزندش، دستمایه عظیم ترین تحلیل های نویسنده نسبت به دین، اخلاق، اجتماع و ... شده است.خواننده با خوانش بیشتر، در این تحلیل تلمیحی مستحیل می گردد.
زیباترین و اساسی ترین بخش این کتاب در بخشی ست که ماهیت کار ابراهیم را تحلیل می کند و از دو منظر «افشا» و «سکوت» حرف می زند. سورن کیرکگور از طریق ابراهیم خودش را می ستاید. او ابراهیم را درک می کند و در نهایت می شناسد
اما در این کتاب به دنبال شناخت ابراهیم از زبان کگور نباشید
زیرا او از این کار بصورت مبهم و زیبایی طفره می رود.
Read
July 22, 2016افتضاح بود و بسیار بد دوستانِ گرانقدر... این کتاب سرشار از خزعبلاتِ تاریخی و نوشتن از نادانی بود
دوستانِ گرامی، نویسنده 155 صفحه چرت و پرت و خرافات تحویل داده است، خواهشاً کاری به اسم و رسمِ نویسنده نداشته باشید، این گونه نویسندگان فقط می نویسند برای آنکه نوشته باشند
از آغازِ کتابش را با داستانِ موهومِ ابراهیم و ضبحِ اسحاق شروع کرده است، یک بیخرد و ابله به این داستانِ خیالی و موهومِ یهودیان باور دارد و خاک بر سرِ آن ابلهانی که اینگونه بازیچهٔ داستان های موهومِ مذهبی میشوند
نویسنده سعی دارد بگوید که ایمان و دین از همه چیز بالاتر است و اخلاق در گروِ ایمان است... در صفحۀ 157 از این کتاب نوشته: ایمان عالیترین شور در انسان است، چه بسیار کسان که در هر نسل به مرتبۀ ایمان نمیرسند
سپس در ادامه نوشته کسانی که به مرتبۀ ایمان نمیرسند، زندگی بیهوده دارند
عزیزانم، این نویسندگانِ نادان، خرد را در چالهٔ حماقت گندانده اند و نمیدانند که اخلاق بر ایمان و دین ارجعیت دارد
عزیزانم، تا زمانی که این بیشعورها باور دارند که همهٔ امور اخلاقی بدونِ حضورِ خدایِ موهوم و نادیده درآسمانها، نمی تواند به سامان بنشیند، و شعورِ ناپختهٔ انسان ها در هویتِ حاضرِ خود سیر میکند، جنایت هایِ بشری، تمامی نخواهد داشت
بینشِ این تودۀ احمق و ایمان آورنده به خرافات و ادیانِ ابراهیمی، تحتِ هیچ شرایطی نمیگذارد تا آنان چشمِ خودشان را برای رفعِ حوائج از آسمان به زمینی که در آن زندگی میکنند معطوف دارند
آیا نادان ها به قدرِگنجشککی به گرسنگیِ شعور خود ایمان دارند؟ که از ایمان کتاب مینویسند؟! ... اصلاً و ابدااا
دوستانِ خردگرا، مکتبی که از روزِ نخست جز به کشتن و خونِ انسانها دوام و بقایی برایِ خود فهم نکرده است، چگونه میتواند اخلاقِ انسانیِ شما را نهادینه کند؟!؟ ... عزیزانم، خزعبلات و مهملاتِ مذهبی و دینی را با اخلاق درهم نکنید، به جایِ ایمان به داستانِ ابلهانۀ گوسفند و ابراهیم و اسحاق یا اسماعیل، اخلاق را در خود و در وجودتان تقویت کنید
دوستانِ عزیزم، باید اخلاقِ انسانیمان را تربیت کنیم نه تَحَکُّماتِ دین و مذهبِ مسخره را که در طول زمان در خرد ما تِرید و پَروار کردند و منزلتِ انسانی مارا بردۀ توهماتِ خویش کرده و خرد ما را مثالِ گوسفند قربانی نمودند و ایمان به دینی را برایمان تعریف کردند که به هیچ عنوان با واقعیتِ انسانیِ انسانیمان سازگار نیست
عزیزانم، فرار کنید از این نویسندگانی که شما را، با وعده هایِ دروغینِ اخُروی به بازی گرفته اند... هستی همین خاکی است که شما در آن زندگی میکنید، حال اگر به این معنا فهم یابید هیچ شخصی تحتِ هیچ شرایطی و با هیچ کتابی نمیتواند شما را فریب دهد
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
دوستانِ گرامی، نویسنده 155 صفحه چرت و پرت و خرافات تحویل داده است، خواهشاً کاری به اسم و رسمِ نویسنده نداشته باشید، این گونه نویسندگان فقط می نویسند برای آنکه نوشته باشند
از آغازِ کتابش را با داستانِ موهومِ ابراهیم و ضبحِ اسحاق شروع کرده است، یک بیخرد و ابله به این داستانِ خیالی و موهومِ یهودیان باور دارد و خاک بر سرِ آن ابلهانی که اینگونه بازیچهٔ داستان های موهومِ مذهبی میشوند
نویسنده سعی دارد بگوید که ایمان و دین از همه چیز بالاتر است و اخلاق در گروِ ایمان است... در صفحۀ 157 از این کتاب نوشته: ایمان عالیترین شور در انسان است، چه بسیار کسان که در هر نسل به مرتبۀ ایمان نمیرسند
سپس در ادامه نوشته کسانی که به مرتبۀ ایمان نمیرسند، زندگی بیهوده دارند
عزیزانم، این نویسندگانِ نادان، خرد را در چالهٔ حماقت گندانده اند و نمیدانند که اخلاق بر ایمان و دین ارجعیت دارد
عزیزانم، تا زمانی که این بیشعورها باور دارند که همهٔ امور اخلاقی بدونِ حضورِ خدایِ موهوم و نادیده درآسمانها، نمی تواند به سامان بنشیند، و شعورِ ناپختهٔ انسان ها در هویتِ حاضرِ خود سیر میکند، جنایت هایِ بشری، تمامی نخواهد داشت
بینشِ این تودۀ احمق و ایمان آورنده به خرافات و ادیانِ ابراهیمی، تحتِ هیچ شرایطی نمیگذارد تا آنان چشمِ خودشان را برای رفعِ حوائج از آسمان به زمینی که در آن زندگی میکنند معطوف دارند
آیا نادان ها به قدرِگنجشککی به گرسنگیِ شعور خود ایمان دارند؟ که از ایمان کتاب مینویسند؟! ... اصلاً و ابدااا
دوستانِ خردگرا، مکتبی که از روزِ نخست جز به کشتن و خونِ انسانها دوام و بقایی برایِ خود فهم نکرده است، چگونه میتواند اخلاقِ انسانیِ شما را نهادینه کند؟!؟ ... عزیزانم، خزعبلات و مهملاتِ مذهبی و دینی را با اخلاق درهم نکنید، به جایِ ایمان به داستانِ ابلهانۀ گوسفند و ابراهیم و اسحاق یا اسماعیل، اخلاق را در خود و در وجودتان تقویت کنید
دوستانِ عزیزم، باید اخلاقِ انسانیمان را تربیت کنیم نه تَحَکُّماتِ دین و مذهبِ مسخره را که در طول زمان در خرد ما تِرید و پَروار کردند و منزلتِ انسانی مارا بردۀ توهماتِ خویش کرده و خرد ما را مثالِ گوسفند قربانی نمودند و ایمان به دینی را برایمان تعریف کردند که به هیچ عنوان با واقعیتِ انسانیِ انسانیمان سازگار نیست
عزیزانم، فرار کنید از این نویسندگانی که شما را، با وعده هایِ دروغینِ اخُروی به بازی گرفته اند... هستی همین خاکی است که شما در آن زندگی میکنید، حال اگر به این معنا فهم یابید هیچ شخصی تحتِ هیچ شرایطی و با هیچ کتابی نمیتواند شما را فریب دهد
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
March 16, 2016
" خوف و رع��ة "
أنشودة جدلية
تأليف :
-يوحنا الصامت - وهو اسم وهمي لكيركيغارد
كوبنهاغن ١٨٤٣
( الإيمان يبدأ تمامًا عندما يرحل التفكير )
تقوم فلسفة كيركيغارد عمومًا على التمييز بين كل سؤال فلسفي عن وجود الله وبين موقفنا الفردي من الإجابة على هذا السؤال، كل إجابة يجدها العقل بمفرده بإيمانه المطلق، لذلك يجب على كل فرد تكوين علاقة مطلقة مع المطلق/ الله/ دون وساطة خارجية كما يقول كيركيغارد.. بذلك هو يتنقل بالإنسان عبر ثلاث مراحل وجودية ( الجمال/ الأخلاق/ الدين) نستطيع تلخيص اهتماماته الفلسفية عبرهم.
المقدمة بقلم ولتر لاوري تتبنّى تحليل وافٍ عن ��يركيغارد قائم بشكل أساسي على يومياته و بشهادة معاصريه، لذلك يجد المترجم للنص من الدنماركية للإنجليزية قراءة المقدمة إلزامية لمعرفة أسباب غزارة انتاجه و كذلك أسباب الصراع في نفس الفيلسوف / اللاهوتي صاحب المشاعر المتقدة بعد فسخ خطوبته على ريجينا أولسن وصراعاته الفكرية مع فلاسفة عصره والدينية مع الكنسية اللوثرية آنذاك، شخصيًا وددت لو أجلّت قرائتها لحين الإنتهاء من هذا النص المرهق جدًا و الجامع للفلسفة بشكل تحقيق شعري وتدقيق ديني ، بناءًا على آية في سفر المزامير ( خوف و رعدة أتيا عليّ و غشيني رعبٌ ) قام العنوان متحدًا مع القصة المعروفة عن تضحية النبي إبراهيم ب إبنه الوحيد إسحاق على جبل المريا تلبية لأمره عزّ و جلّ - كما ورد في سفر التكوين / العهد القديم خلافًا للقصة المتعارف عليها في القرآن الكريم والتي يذهب فيها قسم من المسلمين لتعريف هوية الذبيح بأنه اسماعيل و ليس اسحاق عليهم السلام بينما ينادي بعض المسلمين بالعكس ولنبعد هذه الحقيقة عن كونها مثار للجدل ونكتفي بفكرة القصة - لترى القصة من أكثر من منظور، ما الذي يستلهمه المطلع على هذه القصة من معانٍ ، و كيف يتغير منظور الفرد لهذه التضحية منذ الطفولة لمرحلة النضوج كقارئ، كلما نضج المرء منا فسد مفهوم هكذا قصص دينية عقليًا لديه، إلا لمن رجّح كفة تسليمه لدينه على استنباطاته العقلية، ربما يغنينا ديننا الإسلامي عن الخوض في هكذا تبريرات لقصة امتثال النبي ابراهيم لأمر ربه لإكتمال حيثيات القصة في القرآن، ولكن بالطبع تبقى لقراءة هذا التحليل الفلسفي لما يرونه كتضحية جمال لا يقاوم، كيركيغارد يجعلك ترى أسباب تنفيذ ابراهيم كأحد آباء الإيمان لأمر البارئ دون مناقشة من أكثر من زاوية، شرّين وجوديين يصعب الاختيار بينهما فإما التضحية بالولد أو معصية الخالق والتشكيك في دوافع الأمر الإلهي ،أن تخترق نفس ابراهيم وتعيش عذابه الوجودي جرّاء إرجاءه للجانب الأخلاقي عند تضحيته بإبنه وهو كنبي يتوجب إن يكون مثل يحتذى به و مُجسد إنساني للأخلاق، إتخاذه القرار الوجودي الذي يحدد مدى إيمانه وكيف ستتحول معاناته و ألمه لجمال فكري .. تفهمه و لا تفهمه! تجيز فعله وتؤيده أو تشجب وتستنكر موقفه أخلاقيًا .. وهكذا .. كل ذلك منوط بإيمانك ، ينبغي للقارئ الإلمام بالقصة من وجهة نظر الديانات الثلاث ليكون على استعداد نفسي لتشرّبها و استيعاب مواقفها.
الإيمان هل هو تقبل المفارقات أم الإرادة الفردية أم التسليم للعاطفة أو العقل في زمن تكون فيه مشاعر المؤمن وتصرفاته عرضة للاستهزاء، كيركيغارد يرى الإيمان طبيعتنا المرعبة التي تمدنا بالقوة للتحرك وتفسير ما حولنا والخروج بنا من حلة المتفرج لحلة المُطبِّق، هو يرى أن الحقيقة هي تطبيقنا الفردي لذلك عارض الكثير من فلاسفة عصره.
Read
September 13, 2017It seems to me that after reading "Fear and Trembling" that all of my thinking on faith lies within Kierkegaard. Which isn't to claim that I understand his arguments but that his arguments have come to dominate the way I think about the issues.
Curiously although Kierkegaard's voice comes at us from the margins he seems oddly part of a broad current of nineteenth century writing, Dostoevsky, if he cold have got past the author being a non-Russian and a Lutheran would have agreed with the emphasis on faith alone I feel. Though then again I can be no adequate reader of Kierkegaard as he reveals himself only through a nest of alternative identities as though engaging in plausible deniability, or hide and seek, with the reader.
I think I read this first, and then was brought back to it several times by reading Dostoevsky more seriously in my 20s and then by means of David Lodge's novel - although Kierkegaard is more of a staging post in his downward path until the central character clings to a desperate ridiculous, plan through faith alone which results in his renewal.
Historically I think it's interesting because it offers in the knight of faith a rejection of the triumph of reason. Not having been raised as regular church goer, I was slightly surprised by Kierkegaard, because my assumption was that all religious people were naturally Kieregaardian knights of faith.
What strikes me as interesting about the Abraham story is that he isn't bothered by the concept of child sacrifice, which seems to be as a concept an entirely reasonable one to him, what is bvothersome is just the logical conundrum of how God may not be sticking to his side of the bargain and that leads, even requires Kierkegaard to dub Abraham a knight of faith, the champion of sola fide. We might well think that in those days God was plainly so slippery and elusive that one was obliged to cling to pure faith to avoid being completely hopeless. A golden calf is at least reliably golden and immobile.
Curiously although Kierkegaard's voice comes at us from the margins he seems oddly part of a broad current of nineteenth century writing, Dostoevsky, if he cold have got past the author being a non-Russian and a Lutheran would have agreed with the emphasis on faith alone I feel. Though then again I can be no adequate reader of Kierkegaard as he reveals himself only through a nest of alternative identities as though engaging in plausible deniability, or hide and seek, with the reader.
I think I read this first, and then was brought back to it several times by reading Dostoevsky more seriously in my 20s and then by means of David Lodge's novel - although Kierkegaard is more of a staging post in his downward path until the central character clings to a desperate ridiculous, plan through faith alone which results in his renewal.
Historically I think it's interesting because it offers in the knight of faith a rejection of the triumph of reason. Not having been raised as regular church goer, I was slightly surprised by Kierkegaard, because my assumption was that all religious people were naturally Kieregaardian knights of faith.
What strikes me as interesting about the Abraham story is that he isn't bothered by the concept of child sacrifice, which seems to be as a concept an entirely reasonable one to him, what is bvothersome is just the logical conundrum of how God may not be sticking to his side of the bargain and that leads, even requires Kierkegaard to dub Abraham a knight of faith, the champion of sola fide. We might well think that in those days God was plainly so slippery and elusive that one was obliged to cling to pure faith to avoid being completely hopeless. A golden calf is at least reliably golden and immobile.
October 30, 2017
Fear and Trembling was originally published in 1843 written in Danish and under a pseudonymous name. The purpose of the book was two fold. First Kierkegaard wanted to describe the nature of true faith using the story of almost sacrificing to illustrate the concept. Second he wanted to counter the philosophy of who maintained that reason was the highest form of thought. Kierkegaard argued that faith was higher than reason.
However, Kierkegaard's understanding of faith was something different or beyond common understandings of the word in everyday usage. To distinguish the faith he's talking about Kierkeaard uses the term Knight of Faith. According to him anyone who says they are a Knight of Faith is by definition not a Knight of Faith. It is a personal characteristic that can't be shared.
For that matter it can't be explained, understandable, or made rational. Nevertheless, this book attempts to do just that.
My main problem with the book is that the story of nearly sacrificing a son as told in the story of Abraham and Isaac is abhorrent to my senses. I would much rather have faith explained using some other story. Ironically, the story of a father killing their child for supposedly honorable reasons seems to have been a fairly popular plot line in ancient literature. The two prominent examples noted in this book are the and the stories. These as well as the Abraham story had their origins in the Bronze Age and were probably passed along in the oral tradition many years before they were written down. I can see how a story like this would grab the attention of the listeners.
Kierkegaard maintains that Abraham is a true Knight of Faith because he acted only in response to God's request and his planned action was known only to himself (and God). Agamemmon's and Jephthah's actions on the other hand were public and done to maintain personal honor, thus they are not true Knights of Faith.
I'm inclined to believe that Hegel's philosophy makes more sense than Kierkegaard until it's pointed out that the Nazis and Communists used Hegel to prove that loyalty to the government was the highest calling. By contrast Kierkegaard's message places responsibility of one's action on the individual. Viewed that way Kierkegaard makes more sense. Although, the fact that I say Kierkegaard makes sense is an indication that I don't understand him properly because he says faith doesn't make sense.
I would never read Fear and Trembling on my own initiative. It was discussed by Great Books KC group of which I am a part. Fortunately, members of the group are smarter than me so the discussion went well.
However, Kierkegaard's understanding of faith was something different or beyond common understandings of the word in everyday usage. To distinguish the faith he's talking about Kierkeaard uses the term Knight of Faith. According to him anyone who says they are a Knight of Faith is by definition not a Knight of Faith. It is a personal characteristic that can't be shared.
For that matter it can't be explained, understandable, or made rational. Nevertheless, this book attempts to do just that.
My main problem with the book is that the story of nearly sacrificing a son as told in the story of Abraham and Isaac is abhorrent to my senses. I would much rather have faith explained using some other story. Ironically, the story of a father killing their child for supposedly honorable reasons seems to have been a fairly popular plot line in ancient literature. The two prominent examples noted in this book are the and the stories. These as well as the Abraham story had their origins in the Bronze Age and were probably passed along in the oral tradition many years before they were written down. I can see how a story like this would grab the attention of the listeners.
Kierkegaard maintains that Abraham is a true Knight of Faith because he acted only in response to God's request and his planned action was known only to himself (and God). Agamemmon's and Jephthah's actions on the other hand were public and done to maintain personal honor, thus they are not true Knights of Faith.
I'm inclined to believe that Hegel's philosophy makes more sense than Kierkegaard until it's pointed out that the Nazis and Communists used Hegel to prove that loyalty to the government was the highest calling. By contrast Kierkegaard's message places responsibility of one's action on the individual. Viewed that way Kierkegaard makes more sense. Although, the fact that I say Kierkegaard makes sense is an indication that I don't understand him properly because he says faith doesn't make sense.
I would never read Fear and Trembling on my own initiative. It was discussed by Great Books KC group of which I am a part. Fortunately, members of the group are smarter than me so the discussion went well.
August 14, 2019
واقعا چی شد که کیرکگور یاد ابراهیم افتاد؟!
توی زندگی بهکدو� بن بست رسیده بود که باعث شد برگرده و نگاهی با این دقت و ظرافت بهابراهی� و عملکردِ عجیب و غریبش بندازه؟!
و اصولا چرا ما کمی بهابراهی� فکر نمیکنیم؟چر� نقش ایمان رو در حیاتِ پوچِ این روزها تبیین نمیکنیم�
ایمانی که کیرکگور رد و نشانش رو در عمل ابراهیم نشان میده اعتقادی ورای انسانِ امروزه. من کاری ندارم قربانی کردن اسحاق برای خدا و آزمایش ابراهیم بود، اصولاً قربانی کردن عمل شنیع و غلطی بود یا هرچیز دیگه؛ چیزی که برای من جالب بود همین "ایمان" بود. نگاه و برداشتی که مهرجویی از ترس و لرز داشت. ایمانِ حمید هامون بهعشق� بهقربان� کردن مهشیدی که عاشقش بود و یقینی که بهپشتوان� ایمان بهعشق� داشت؛ به اینکه عشق، مهشید رو بهش برمیگردون�. اما نشد و مجنون شد.
ایمان ابراهیم یعنی اعتقادِ بیش� و تردید بهمحا�.
یعنی عملی کاملا غیر اخلاقی اما ورای اخلاق؛ یعنی سکوت در برابر توضیح بهدیگران� یعنی پذیرفتن هرگونه سرزنش و اتهام؛ یعنی ارتباط مستقیم با مطلق بدون هیج واسطها�.
بعد از خوندن ترس و لرز دلم نمیخواس� دیگه داستان ابراهیم رو افسانه بدونم. دلم میخواس� ابراهیم رو کشف کنم. خودم رو توی لحظهها� قرار بدم. چهار روز با مرکبِ کند و پسرِ بیگناه� در راه وادی موریه باشم ولی لحظها� به بازگشت فکر نکنم. لحظها� به این فکر نکنم که چرا پسری که هفتاد سال عاجزانه منتظر اومدنش بودم رو وحشیانه، برای هیچ، فنا کنم.
دوست داشتم مثل اون یاد بگیرم که موقع عمل با تردید بهاطرا� نگاه نکنم؛ سکوت کنم و بههی� وز وز و شک و شبها� اهمیت ندم.
اندیشه ابراهیم یعنی پیدا کردن معنای زندگی. بهقو� کیرکگور یعنی خلاص شدن از شرِ کمدیِ خندهدار� اینروزه�. ایمانِ ابراهیمی به زندگی روح و رنگ میده؛ هرچقدر هم ابلهانه و غیر اخلاقی باشه.
ایمان به ایمانِ سرشار از پارادوکسِ ابراهیم بهدر� والایی نیاز داره. کار ما نیست فهمیدنش. ارمغانش برای ما چیزی نیست جز؛ سرگیجه و سردرگمی.
اما اگر لحظهای� فقط اندازه یک پلک زدن، خودمون رو جای ابراهیم تصور کنیم؛ زمانی میرسه که پرده دوم زندگی ما ظاهر میشه.
توی زندگی بهکدو� بن بست رسیده بود که باعث شد برگرده و نگاهی با این دقت و ظرافت بهابراهی� و عملکردِ عجیب و غریبش بندازه؟!
و اصولا چرا ما کمی بهابراهی� فکر نمیکنیم؟چر� نقش ایمان رو در حیاتِ پوچِ این روزها تبیین نمیکنیم�
ایمانی که کیرکگور رد و نشانش رو در عمل ابراهیم نشان میده اعتقادی ورای انسانِ امروزه. من کاری ندارم قربانی کردن اسحاق برای خدا و آزمایش ابراهیم بود، اصولاً قربانی کردن عمل شنیع و غلطی بود یا هرچیز دیگه؛ چیزی که برای من جالب بود همین "ایمان" بود. نگاه و برداشتی که مهرجویی از ترس و لرز داشت. ایمانِ حمید هامون بهعشق� بهقربان� کردن مهشیدی که عاشقش بود و یقینی که بهپشتوان� ایمان بهعشق� داشت؛ به اینکه عشق، مهشید رو بهش برمیگردون�. اما نشد و مجنون شد.
ایمان ابراهیم یعنی اعتقادِ بیش� و تردید بهمحا�.
یعنی عملی کاملا غیر اخلاقی اما ورای اخلاق؛ یعنی سکوت در برابر توضیح بهدیگران� یعنی پذیرفتن هرگونه سرزنش و اتهام؛ یعنی ارتباط مستقیم با مطلق بدون هیج واسطها�.
بعد از خوندن ترس و لرز دلم نمیخواس� دیگه داستان ابراهیم رو افسانه بدونم. دلم میخواس� ابراهیم رو کشف کنم. خودم رو توی لحظهها� قرار بدم. چهار روز با مرکبِ کند و پسرِ بیگناه� در راه وادی موریه باشم ولی لحظها� به بازگشت فکر نکنم. لحظها� به این فکر نکنم که چرا پسری که هفتاد سال عاجزانه منتظر اومدنش بودم رو وحشیانه، برای هیچ، فنا کنم.
دوست داشتم مثل اون یاد بگیرم که موقع عمل با تردید بهاطرا� نگاه نکنم؛ سکوت کنم و بههی� وز وز و شک و شبها� اهمیت ندم.
اندیشه ابراهیم یعنی پیدا کردن معنای زندگی. بهقو� کیرکگور یعنی خلاص شدن از شرِ کمدیِ خندهدار� اینروزه�. ایمانِ ابراهیمی به زندگی روح و رنگ میده؛ هرچقدر هم ابلهانه و غیر اخلاقی باشه.
ایمان به ایمانِ سرشار از پارادوکسِ ابراهیم بهدر� والایی نیاز داره. کار ما نیست فهمیدنش. ارمغانش برای ما چیزی نیست جز؛ سرگیجه و سردرگمی.
اما اگر لحظهای� فقط اندازه یک پلک زدن، خودمون رو جای ابراهیم تصور کنیم؛ زمانی میرسه که پرده دوم زندگی ما ظاهر میشه.
March 13, 2017
بی تردید این کتاب از هر جهت کتابی فوق العاده است. کتابی ست که تو را با خود به لبه های پرتگاه انسان می برد، به مرزهای اخلاق، مرزهای دین داری، مرز های ایمان، و مرزهای انسانیت. کتاب حکایت ترس و لرز است، ترس و لرزی که به واقع سراپای هستی انسان را یک آن فرا میگیرد و انسان در می ماند، خشک و ناتوان. از آن دست ترس و لرزهایی که در زندگی هر کسی رخ نمی دهد!! ترس و لرزی که چه بسا باید ابراهیم باشی تا بتوانی بدان بترسی و به خود بلرزی، و البته اسماعیل (اسحاق)!
این کتاب یکی از مهم ترین کتاب هایی ست که در سنت فلسف هستی (اگزیستانس) جای میگیرد و آن را می توان به نوعی سرآغاز فلسف هستی دانست.
به دوستانی که این کتاب را میخوانند توصیه میکنم که ترجیحا ترجمه جناب رشیدیان را بخوانند که ایشان هم فلسف میداند و هم زبان و هم اهل ادب ادبیات است و حقا که به خوبی از عهدۀ کار دشوار ترجمه چنین کتابی بر آمده است.
توصیه دیگر اینکه پس از خواندن این کتاب فیلم نوح را هم تماشا کنید
خواندن این کتاب و دیدن این فیلم در کنار هم لذتهایی ست که خوب با هم جفت و جور می شوند؛ شاید به همان خوبی که ترس با لرز جور و جفت می افتد!
این کتاب یکی از مهم ترین کتاب هایی ست که در سنت فلسف هستی (اگزیستانس) جای میگیرد و آن را می توان به نوعی سرآغاز فلسف هستی دانست.
به دوستانی که این کتاب را میخوانند توصیه میکنم که ترجیحا ترجمه جناب رشیدیان را بخوانند که ایشان هم فلسف میداند و هم زبان و هم اهل ادب ادبیات است و حقا که به خوبی از عهدۀ کار دشوار ترجمه چنین کتابی بر آمده است.
توصیه دیگر اینکه پس از خواندن این کتاب فیلم نوح را هم تماشا کنید
خواندن این کتاب و دیدن این فیلم در کنار هم لذتهایی ست که خوب با هم جفت و جور می شوند؛ شاید به همان خوبی که ترس با لرز جور و جفت می افتد!
September 27, 2017
انتظاری که برآورده نشد...
اونقدر که انتظار داشتم و ازش شنیده بودم برام جذاب نبود.
نقاط ضعف :
حالا بریم سراغ
نقاط قوت :
در نهایت میتونم بگم که برای من چیز جدیدی برای ارائه نداشت که قبلا نخوانده باشم، البته این موضوعات رو از نویسنده هایی که بعد از کیرکگور بودن خواندم، پس بنابراین چیزی بدی متوجه نویسنده نمیشه و در اصل قدرت این نویسنده رو نشون میده. حل کردن مسائل اصلی داستان هم، با توجه به موضوع اخلاق، قدرت تفکر و محاسبات ریاضی، به سادگی قابل حل هستش و بر خلاف تصور عموم، این کتاب رو به اثری نه چندان پیچیده تبدیل میکنه.
برای من، به یک بار خواندنش می ارزید.
اونقدر که انتظار داشتم و ازش شنیده بودم برام جذاب نبود.
نقاط ضعف :
- توضیحات اضافه زیادی توی این اثر وجود داره. مطلبی رو که میخواد بیان میکنه، مطمئن میشه که شما مطلب رو متوجه شدید، دوباره مثال میزنه، دوباره مطلب رو بیان میکنه و دوباره مثال میزنه و تغییرات جزئی در اصل مساله میده. مثل جایگشت در ریاضیات، اگر اصل مساله رو فهمیده باشی و بتونی کانسپت اصلی رو درک کنی، دیگه لازم نیست ادامه سوال، فقط با تکرار های جزئی دوباره پرسیده بشه، و در نتیجه جواب هایی با تغییرات جزئی دوباره به آن داده بشه. اگر کسی نمیتونه این قضیه رو با تمام توضیحاتی که داده شده، متوجه بشه، حتی اگه تمام حالت های مختلف جزئیات رو دوباره بیان کنی و جواب رو با تغییرات جزئی بدی، باز هم کمکی به فهم خواننده نخواهد کرد.
- نکته ای که ذکر کردم، میتونه قابل توجه دوستانی هم باشه که میگن که این اثر با سیستم کاملا هگلی نوشته شده، یا این ایده که این اثر از قصد سخت نوشته شده و فهمیدنش سخته.
- در ادامه باید بگم که با اینکه کتاب حجم زیادی نداره، اما اگر نکته ای که ذکر کردم رعایت میشد، حجم این اثر خیلی کمتر میشد و زمینه تفکر بیشتری در متن برای خواننده باقی میماند.
- برای افرادی که بیان کردن که خواندن این اثر سخت هستش، میتونم بگم که ابتدا سعی کنید عنوان مساله رو کامل متوجه بشید، سپس ابتدای قضیه توضیحی رو کامل درک کنید و با سیستم پیشروی نویسنده آشنا بشید، اونوقت میتونید به تنهایی تمام موضوع رو خودتون با قدرت تفکر، متوجه بشید. در نتیجه خواندن ادامه اثر هم سریع تر و آسان تر خواهد شد.
- نکته جزئی دیگری که بشخصه دوست نداشتم، که البته با توجه به سلیقه هر کس میتونه متفاوت باشه، وارد کردن جزئیات مساله زندگی شخصی فرد، در باطن مساله ای هستش که ذکر شده، که باعث میشه افرادی مثل من، به این نکته فکر کنند که محرک اصلی و واقعی نوشتن این اثر برای نویسنده چی بوده. بخش جالب و طعنه آمیز این قضیه اینجاست که با توجه به محتوای این اثر، نکته ای که ذکر کردم، کاملا پارادوکسیکال میشه. (باید این اثر رو بخونید تا کامل متوجه منظورم بشید.)
- نکته جزئی دیگه اینکه عنوان کتاب با محتوای آن زیاد سازگاری نداره...
- یک نکته شخصی : به عنوان یک آتئیست، خواندن دوباره داستان های خدا، ایمان و پیامبرش، کمی برام حوصله سر بود، به طوری که اگر واقعا حرفی برای گفتن نداشت، خواندنش رو ادامه نمیدادم.
حالا بریم سراغ
نقاط قوت :
- پوشش کامل اثر، بر روی مساله ذکر شده طوری که اگر همگام با نویسنده پیش برید، هیچ نکته تاریکی براتون باقی نمی مونه.
- تِم معما گونه مناسبی که اثر داره، جوری که کاملا یک اثر دیگه در باطن نیست و از طرفی معمای خیلی سختی هم در مفهوم و مخاطب خاصش نداره.
- مانور مناسب نویسنده روی موضوع مورد بحث و بیان قوی پارادوکسیکال آن در ظاهر و باطن مفهوم مساله.
در نهایت میتونم بگم که برای من چیز جدیدی برای ارائه نداشت که قبلا نخوانده باشم، البته این موضوعات رو از نویسنده هایی که بعد از کیرکگور بودن خواندم، پس بنابراین چیزی بدی متوجه نویسنده نمیشه و در اصل قدرت این نویسنده رو نشون میده. حل کردن مسائل اصلی داستان هم، با توجه به موضوع اخلاق، قدرت تفکر و محاسبات ریاضی، به سادگی قابل حل هستش و بر خلاف تصور عموم، این کتاب رو به اثری نه چندان پیچیده تبدیل میکنه.
برای من، به یک بار خواندنش می ارزید.
July 30, 2019
I read this book in translation. I was in awe of its author. However, the book is an easy read, and the central situation (that Abraham has to sacrifice his only son Issac on God's command) around which the whole text revolves is intriguing and exciting too. Almost on every second page, I would read a line or two, and then reflect on what is relayed. For instance, ''Faith begins where reason stops,'' and there are long sentences that one can think about for a long time. It is one of those books that has to be read slowly. Look at this; ''If there was no eternal consciousness in man, and if at the bottom of everything there was only a wildly seething power � if beneath everything there lurked a bottomless void never to be filled� what else were life but despair! If it were thus, and if there were no sacred bonds which knit mankind together, if one generation followed upon another like leaves in the forest � how hollow and without consolation life would be.'' The book has many such amazing passages.
I also found the 'Notes' at the end of the book interesting. Kierkegaard did not write this book in his own name, but he was superbly conscious of its depth and worth. In fact, he was quite cocky about his achievement. In his journals, he wrote that this book alone has the strength to immortalize him. It is rare that someone knows his writing so well ( the content and value of his work) and can issue such definitive statements. I admire him because all such claims finally became true, and he knew this all along. In the contemporary world, especially in the western world, we talk a lot about 'culture,' 'clash of civilizations', religions� particularly Islam. The West also has a very settled tendency to separate itself from the rest, and views its tradition and culture in strictly demarcated boundaries of East/West (so famously espoused by Kipling). However, there is a lot in the Danish philosopher that blurs these rigid binaries. One can trace several key concepts of Eastern Philosophy in his works, particularly Hinduism. The books dwells a lot on the idea of faith and what it means. The kind of significance that Kierkegaard assigns to 'Faith' somehow directs one's attention to the various tropes of Islam in the western imagination.Of course, there is much in the book that is singularly Kierkegaard's –his contribution to the world.
July 30, 2020
یکی از جنبه های تاثیرگذار بحران کرونا مربوط به تعطیلی آیین های مذهبی بود و هست. من هرگز نشنیده بودم که در تاریخ اسلام یک سال مراسم حج برگزار نشود. ولی این اتفاق امسال افتاد. پس شاید همه ما باید یاد بگیریم جنبه کاملا فردی دین داری را تمرین کنیم. چیزی که کیرکگور خیلی بر آن اصرار داشت و گوهر دین را در آن میدید. در رابطه مطلق با مطلق: فرد با خدا. و این رابطه کامل ترین تجلی اش از نظر کیرکگور در امتحان الهی قربانی کردن فرزند برای ابراهیم -پدر ایمان- بود.
همان طور که کیرکگور خودش را کمتر از آن میداند که ابراهیم را درک کند و فقط میتواند در برابر او شگفتزده بشود، من هم خودم را کمتر از آن میدانم که چیز تازه ای در این کتاب کشف بکنم و فقط از عمق نگاه نویسنده حیرتزده ام.
مهم ترین دریافتی که میتوان از کتاب داشت این است که یک ساحت زندگی ساحت زیبایی شناسانه است که در آن انسان می آموزد چگونه میتوان زندگی را گرامی داشت. اما ساحت اخلاقی از آن فراتر است و انسان در این ساحت می آموزد باید به خاطر جامعه از زندگی فردی خودش بگذرد. اما از آن هم بالاتر ساحت ایمان است که حتی اخلاق هم نمیتواند آن را توضیح بدهد. آری اخلاق نمیتواند کاری که ابراهیم کرد را توضیح بدهد
ترس و لرز اصلا کتاب روانی نیست و علتش به نظرم نثر استعاری و موجز کیرکگور باشد اما من این یازده برش روشن و شفاف را از کتاب برگزیدم که واقعا احتیاج به هیچ توضیح اضافه ای ندارند:
"کیرکگور می گوید: من ابراهیم نیستم. اما مسأله برای او این است که ابراهیم را توصیف کند، او را بفهمد، یا به عبارت دقیق تر بفهمد که نمی توان او را فهمید، مسأله این است که باید با صداقت هرچه تمام تر مرزهای میان حیطه های گوناگون زندگی را مشخص کرد، باید با صداقت هرچه تمام تر زندگی کردن تا پایان با اعتقاد مذهبی را دید، در اعتقاد زندگی کرد و ایمان را که شرابی است مردافکن به چیز دیگری، به آب بی مزه عقلانیت هگلیان، وامگذاشت..."
"_
در حالی که به نظر می رسد «ترس و لرز» فریادی است که کیرکگور توسط آن نامزدش را می خواهد و او را مطالبه میکند اما در آثار بعدیش کیرکگور ملاحظه میکند که طلب فلان نعمت خاص از خداوند گناه است و فقط باید از او خواست که آنچه را که می خواهد بدهد عطا کند؛ او میگوید که باید به گونه ای مطلق با مطلق رفتار کرد و به گونه ای نسبی با نسبی؛ او انسان مذهبی را همچون بیگانه ای در جهان زمانی تصویر می کند؛"
"_
نه! هر آن کس که در جهان، بزرگ بوده است فراموش نخواهد شد. اما هر کس به شیوۀ خویش و هر کس به قدر عظمت محبوب خویش بزرگ بوده است. زیرا آن کس که خویشتن را دوست داشت به واسطه خویشتن بزرگ شد، و آن کس که دیگران را دوست داشت به برکت ایثار خویش بزرگی یافت؛ اما آن کس که خدای را دوست داشت از همه بزرگ تر شد. یکایک آنان باید به یاد آورده شوند، اما هر کس به قدر توقع خویش بزرگی یافت..."
"بيان اخلاقی عمل ابراهیم این است که می خواست اسحاق را به قتل برساند؛ بیان مذهبی آن این است که می خواست اسحاق را قربانی کند؛ اما در همین تناقض اضطرابی که می تواند انسان را بی خواب کند، نهفته است، اما ابراهیم بدون این اضطراب ابراهیم نیست..."
"مردم معمولا به اکناف عالم سفر می کنند تا چیزهای عجیبی از انسانها را سیاحت کنند. من به این چیزها علاقه ای ندارم. اما اگر میدانستم شهسوار ایمان کجا زندگی می کند، پای پیاده به زیارتش می شتافتم. زیرا به این شگفتی به طور مطلق علاقمندم؛ آنی از او جدا نمی شدم؛ هر لحظه حرکات او را زیر نظر میگرفتم، خود را مادام العمر ایمن می دانستم و اوقاتم را به دو قسمت یکی برای نگریستن به او و دیگری برای عمل کردن به حرکات او تقسیم می کردم،"
"هیچ کس حق ندارد به دیگران بباوراند که ایمان چیزی پیش پا افتاده و آسان است در حالی که برعکس از همه چیز بزرگ تر و دشوارتر است.
اما مردم میپندارند كل ماجرا به همان سرعت که نقل می شود سپری می شود: بر اسبی راهوار می نشینند و در چشم بهم زدنی می رسند و بی درنگ گوسفند را می بینند. فراموش می کنند که ابراهیم بر چارپایی کند راه می پیمود، و سفر سه روز به درازا کشید، و مدتی بایست تا هیزم آورَد، اسحاق را ببندد و کارد را تیز کند..."
"ابراهیم با عملش از کل حوزه اخلاق فراتر رفت؛ او در فراسوی این حوزه غایتی داشت که در مقابل آن این حوزه را معلق کرد. زیرا مایلم بدانم چگونه می توان عمل او را در رابطه با امر کلی قرار داد. عمل ابراهیم به خاطر نجات یک خلق، یا دفاع از آرمان کشور نبود. کل عملش اقدامی کاملا شخصی است. پس در حالی که عظمت قهرمان تراژدی در فضیلت اخلاقی اوست، عظمت ابراهیم به واسطه فضیلتی کاملا شخصی است."
"_
اما چگونه میتوان از اقربا نفرت داشت؟!
وظیفه مطلق می تواند به انجام عملی منجر شود که اخلاق آن را منع کرده است، اما به هیچ وجه نمی تواند شهسوار ایمان را از دوست داشتن بازدارد. این آن چیزی است که ابراهیم نشان می دهد. لحظه ای که میخواهد اسحاق را قربانی کند به لسان اخلاق از او متنفر است. اما اگر به راستی از او متنفر باشد می تواند مطمئن باشد که خدا این قربانی را از او نخواسته است�� در حقیقت قابیل و ابراهیم یکسان نیستند."
"مذهب تنها قدرتی است که میتواند زیباشناسی را از نزاعش با اخلاق نجات دهد."
"زیباشناسی بی تعارف می پذیرد که در ازدواج مثل حراج، هر چیز در همان حالتی که به هنگام فرود آمدن ضربه چکش هست به فروش می رسد. زیباشناسی تنها مراقب آن است که عشاق را در آغوش یکدیگر بیاندازد و به بقیه اش کاری ندارد. می بایستی بقیه ماجرا را می دید، اما او وقتی برای این کار ندارد بلکه هم اینک در تدارک آن است که زوج دیگری را پیوند دهد. زیباشناسی از همه علوم بی وفاتر است. هرکس واقع آن را دوست داشته به گونه ای بدبخت شده است؛"
"هر اندازه نی�� نسلی از نسل دیگر بیاموزد باز هم هرگز نمی تواند عنصر اصالتا انسانی را از نسل پیش فرا گیرد. از این حیث هر نسلی از ابتدا آغاز می کند، هیچ نسلی وظیفه تازه ای فراتر از وظیفه نسل قبلی ندارد و از آن پیشتر نمی رود، به شرط آنکه این نسل به وظیفه خود خیانت نکرده و خود را فریب نداده باشد..."
همان طور که کیرکگور خودش را کمتر از آن میداند که ابراهیم را درک کند و فقط میتواند در برابر او شگفتزده بشود، من هم خودم را کمتر از آن میدانم که چیز تازه ای در این کتاب کشف بکنم و فقط از عمق نگاه نویسنده حیرتزده ام.
مهم ترین دریافتی که میتوان از کتاب داشت این است که یک ساحت زندگی ساحت زیبایی شناسانه است که در آن انسان می آموزد چگونه میتوان زندگی را گرامی داشت. اما ساحت اخلاقی از آن فراتر است و انسان در این ساحت می آموزد باید به خاطر جامعه از زندگی فردی خودش بگذرد. اما از آن هم بالاتر ساحت ایمان است که حتی اخلاق هم نمیتواند آن را توضیح بدهد. آری اخلاق نمیتواند کاری که ابراهیم کرد را توضیح بدهد
ترس و لرز اصلا کتاب روانی نیست و علتش به نظرم نثر استعاری و موجز کیرکگور باشد اما من این یازده برش روشن و شفاف را از کتاب برگزیدم که واقعا احتیاج به هیچ توضیح اضافه ای ندارند:
"کیرکگور می گوید: من ابراهیم نیستم. اما مسأله برای او این است که ابراهیم را توصیف کند، او را بفهمد، یا به عبارت دقیق تر بفهمد که نمی توان او را فهمید، مسأله این است که باید با صداقت هرچه تمام تر مرزهای میان حیطه های گوناگون زندگی را مشخص کرد، باید با صداقت هرچه تمام تر زندگی کردن تا پایان با اعتقاد مذهبی را دید، در اعتقاد زندگی کرد و ایمان را که شرابی است مردافکن به چیز دیگری، به آب بی مزه عقلانیت هگلیان، وامگذاشت..."
"_
در حالی که به نظر می رسد «ترس و لرز» فریادی است که کیرکگور توسط آن نامزدش را می خواهد و او را مطالبه میکند اما در آثار بعدیش کیرکگور ملاحظه میکند که طلب فلان نعمت خاص از خداوند گناه است و فقط باید از او خواست که آنچه را که می خواهد بدهد عطا کند؛ او میگوید که باید به گونه ای مطلق با مطلق رفتار کرد و به گونه ای نسبی با نسبی؛ او انسان مذهبی را همچون بیگانه ای در جهان زمانی تصویر می کند؛"
"_
نه! هر آن کس که در جهان، بزرگ بوده است فراموش نخواهد شد. اما هر کس به شیوۀ خویش و هر کس به قدر عظمت محبوب خویش بزرگ بوده است. زیرا آن کس که خویشتن را دوست داشت به واسطه خویشتن بزرگ شد، و آن کس که دیگران را دوست داشت به برکت ایثار خویش بزرگی یافت؛ اما آن کس که خدای را دوست داشت از همه بزرگ تر شد. یکایک آنان باید به یاد آورده شوند، اما هر کس به قدر توقع خویش بزرگی یافت..."
"بيان اخلاقی عمل ابراهیم این است که می خواست اسحاق را به قتل برساند؛ بیان مذهبی آن این است که می خواست اسحاق را قربانی کند؛ اما در همین تناقض اضطرابی که می تواند انسان را بی خواب کند، نهفته است، اما ابراهیم بدون این اضطراب ابراهیم نیست..."
"مردم معمولا به اکناف عالم سفر می کنند تا چیزهای عجیبی از انسانها را سیاحت کنند. من به این چیزها علاقه ای ندارم. اما اگر میدانستم شهسوار ایمان کجا زندگی می کند، پای پیاده به زیارتش می شتافتم. زیرا به این شگفتی به طور مطلق علاقمندم؛ آنی از او جدا نمی شدم؛ هر لحظه حرکات او را زیر نظر میگرفتم، خود را مادام العمر ایمن می دانستم و اوقاتم را به دو قسمت یکی برای نگریستن به او و دیگری برای عمل کردن به حرکات او تقسیم می کردم،"
"هیچ کس حق ندارد به دیگران بباوراند که ایمان چیزی پیش پا افتاده و آسان است در حالی که برعکس از همه چیز بزرگ تر و دشوارتر است.
اما مردم میپندارند كل ماجرا به همان سرعت که نقل می شود سپری می شود: بر اسبی راهوار می نشینند و در چشم بهم زدنی می رسند و بی درنگ گوسفند را می بینند. فراموش می کنند که ابراهیم بر چارپایی کند راه می پیمود، و سفر سه روز به درازا کشید، و مدتی بایست تا هیزم آورَد، اسحاق را ببندد و کارد را تیز کند..."
"ابراهیم با عملش از کل حوزه اخلاق فراتر رفت؛ او در فراسوی این حوزه غایتی داشت که در مقابل آن این حوزه را معلق کرد. زیرا مایلم بدانم چگونه می توان عمل او را در رابطه با امر کلی قرار داد. عمل ابراهیم به خاطر نجات یک خلق، یا دفاع از آرمان کشور نبود. کل عملش اقدامی کاملا شخصی است. پس در حالی که عظمت قهرمان تراژدی در فضیلت اخلاقی اوست، عظمت ابراهیم به واسطه فضیلتی کاملا شخصی است."
"_
اما چگونه میتوان از اقربا نفرت داشت؟!
وظیفه مطلق می تواند به انجام عملی منجر شود که اخلاق آن را منع کرده است، اما به هیچ وجه نمی تواند شهسوار ایمان را از دوست داشتن بازدارد. این آن چیزی است که ابراهیم نشان می دهد. لحظه ای که میخواهد اسحاق را قربانی کند به لسان اخلاق از او متنفر است. اما اگر به راستی از او متنفر باشد می تواند مطمئن باشد که خدا این قربانی را از او نخواسته است�� در حقیقت قابیل و ابراهیم یکسان نیستند."
"مذهب تنها قدرتی است که میتواند زیباشناسی را از نزاعش با اخلاق نجات دهد."
"زیباشناسی بی تعارف می پذیرد که در ازدواج مثل حراج، هر چیز در همان حالتی که به هنگام فرود آمدن ضربه چکش هست به فروش می رسد. زیباشناسی تنها مراقب آن است که عشاق را در آغوش یکدیگر بیاندازد و به بقیه اش کاری ندارد. می بایستی بقیه ماجرا را می دید، اما او وقتی برای این کار ندارد بلکه هم اینک در تدارک آن است که زوج دیگری را پیوند دهد. زیباشناسی از همه علوم بی وفاتر است. هرکس واقع آن را دوست داشته به گونه ای بدبخت شده است؛"
"هر اندازه نی�� نسلی از نسل دیگر بیاموزد باز هم هرگز نمی تواند عنصر اصالتا انسانی را از نسل پیش فرا گیرد. از این حیث هر نسلی از ابتدا آغاز می کند، هیچ نسلی وظیفه تازه ای فراتر از وظیفه نسل قبلی ندارد و از آن پیشتر نمی رود، به شرط آنکه این نسل به وظیفه خود خیانت نکرده و خود را فریب نداده باشد..."
January 5, 2023
In Fear and Trembling (1843) Danish theologian Søren Kierkegaard uses the Biblical story of Abraham to sketch his picture of faith. The work itself is short, but offers a deep and wide panorama into Kierkegaard's conception of faith.
Abraham and his wife Sarah were long without child, but placed their hope in God and never lost faith. Finally, Isaac was born. Later, the same God the couple put their faith in orders Abraham to kill Isaac. He sets out to do this and just at the last moment, God tells him he should offer a lamb instead.
The subtitle of Fear and Trembling is 'Dialectical Lyric by Johannes de Silentio'. Unpacking this subtitle offers us a firm grasp of Kierkegaard's intentions with his book. A lyric expresses a poet's personal feelings, while dialectical refers to unsolvable paradoxes springing from (the then current) Hegelian philosophy. 'John of the Silence' is the pseudonym Kiekegaard uses to write the text - the word silence hinting at one of the major conclusions of Fear and Trembling (i.e. we cannot speak about nor understand Abraham's deeds).
The book starts with a Preface in which Johannes claims his contemporaries have obsessed themselves with doubt. They use Descartes as their example but as Johannes (rightly) says Descartes never doubted in matters of faith and only used his doubts as a temporary stepping stone in order to reach certain knowledge. In general, philosophy has replaced faith as the ideal. The problem is that philosophy never ends, doubt never ends, and system builders (like Hegel) subject faith to a minor and partial role in a bigger project: understanding.
Johannes disagrees. In the first chapter he tells of an old man who is obsessed with the tale of Abraham and envisages different scenes and outcomes. The point being: the man is trying to understand Abraham's deeds but is unable to grasp the truth in them.
Next, Johannes delivers a eulogy to Abraham. He praises him for his blind faith and contrasts Abraham (at a conceptual level "the knight of faith") with the tragic hero. While the tragic hero has to overcome worldly obstacles he remains firmly in the worldly domain of aesthetics and ethics; only the knight of faith leaps to the domain of the religious. (What this means will become clearer in the next paragraphs...)
So much for the 'lyric' part of Fear and Trembling. Next up is the 'dialectical' part. Kierkegaard uses the rest of the book to tackle certain unsolvable, fundamental problems arising from the the fact that philosophy looks at faith in general and at Abraham in particular from the standpoint of the Hegelian system - never grasping the essence of Abraham's tale - while one should step outside of the bounds of aesthetics and ethics in order to look at the tale. Doing the latter, one will conclude that there's nothing really to say about Abraham - words do not apply to this case, it lies wholly outside the range of our understanding.
The lesson here, of course, is that Abraham simply has faith, wilfully obeys God's command - not out of prudential motives but because he simply *wants* to obey. This is a case of blind and total resignation to the absolute.
The problems Johannes analyzes and tackles stem from the dialectical nature of Abraham's story. While contemporary (Hegelian) philosophy seeks to solve these paradoxes and find the truth, Johannes acknowledges the unsolvability of these paradoxes. One simply has to accept them and stop talking about them and trying to understand them.
Problem 1 deals with the fact that murdering ones son seems to contradict the ethical. The ethical is the universal. The individual, as particular, is subjected to the universal. One is part of a society, a state, a moral system. According to Johannes, in order to will the absurd (as in: the unintelligible) one has to step outside of the realm of the universal (as particular) and place oneself in an absolute relation to the absolute (instead of in relation to the relative, the universal). In other words: as particular one places oneself above the universal and in relation to the absolute. In still other words: God's command to Abraham suspends the ethical for Abraham.
We can only understand the paradox described above if we either accept there's an absolute duty to God or accept that faith has never existed and Abraham is done for. In Hegelian terms: Abraham stepping outside of the ethical means he is a murderer. In Problem 2 and 3 Kierkegaard claims this is the wrong way to look at it: ethics, language, knowledge fall within the bounds of the universal; stepping outside of this domain means giving them up; this leads to Abraham's actions being not susceptible to ethics, linguistics and epistemology. We simply cannot judge of, speak about or know anything that happened. We have to accept it for what it is: faith, obedience to God.
Looking at all of the above from a different point of view, we can say that Abraham was tested by God. He was tempted to remain within the ethical, and insofar as he was on his way to murder his own beloved son, to step back into the ethical. Yet he persisted and remained firmly within the religious (the state opposed to and higher than the ethical, according to Kierkegaard). In his moments of fear and trembling he kept true to his faith, never uttering a word nor trying to understand what he was doing. Abraham blindly accepted the absurd, resigned to it, (i.e. the unintelligibility of God and his commands) and in so doing was saved.
Four years ago I read Fear and Trembling and was not impressed. I was still in my atheist stage and found Kierkegaards case for blind faith and against reason to be perverted and morally wrong. To a certain degree I still feel appalled by the fact that not only does he blindly accept the killing of one's own beloved son - Johannes even warns for copycats among Christian believers and points to the priests who supposedly have to convince these copycats from refraining from their plans! -but he glorifies it as an improvement to the rationality of philosophy. But my biggest problem with Fear and Trembling is that Kierkegaard, by claiming Abraham's deeds lie outside of the universal, we cannot speak or know about what Abraham did.
Yet, four years later and much wiser, I could definitely understand Kierkegaard's plan with Fear and Trembling better and see the beauty in this literary work. I guess blind faith can be a very beautiful yet also a very dangerous thing. Also, the disctintion between the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious is a very ingenious and helpful scheme to think about human existence.
Abraham and his wife Sarah were long without child, but placed their hope in God and never lost faith. Finally, Isaac was born. Later, the same God the couple put their faith in orders Abraham to kill Isaac. He sets out to do this and just at the last moment, God tells him he should offer a lamb instead.
The subtitle of Fear and Trembling is 'Dialectical Lyric by Johannes de Silentio'. Unpacking this subtitle offers us a firm grasp of Kierkegaard's intentions with his book. A lyric expresses a poet's personal feelings, while dialectical refers to unsolvable paradoxes springing from (the then current) Hegelian philosophy. 'John of the Silence' is the pseudonym Kiekegaard uses to write the text - the word silence hinting at one of the major conclusions of Fear and Trembling (i.e. we cannot speak about nor understand Abraham's deeds).
The book starts with a Preface in which Johannes claims his contemporaries have obsessed themselves with doubt. They use Descartes as their example but as Johannes (rightly) says Descartes never doubted in matters of faith and only used his doubts as a temporary stepping stone in order to reach certain knowledge. In general, philosophy has replaced faith as the ideal. The problem is that philosophy never ends, doubt never ends, and system builders (like Hegel) subject faith to a minor and partial role in a bigger project: understanding.
Johannes disagrees. In the first chapter he tells of an old man who is obsessed with the tale of Abraham and envisages different scenes and outcomes. The point being: the man is trying to understand Abraham's deeds but is unable to grasp the truth in them.
Next, Johannes delivers a eulogy to Abraham. He praises him for his blind faith and contrasts Abraham (at a conceptual level "the knight of faith") with the tragic hero. While the tragic hero has to overcome worldly obstacles he remains firmly in the worldly domain of aesthetics and ethics; only the knight of faith leaps to the domain of the religious. (What this means will become clearer in the next paragraphs...)
So much for the 'lyric' part of Fear and Trembling. Next up is the 'dialectical' part. Kierkegaard uses the rest of the book to tackle certain unsolvable, fundamental problems arising from the the fact that philosophy looks at faith in general and at Abraham in particular from the standpoint of the Hegelian system - never grasping the essence of Abraham's tale - while one should step outside of the bounds of aesthetics and ethics in order to look at the tale. Doing the latter, one will conclude that there's nothing really to say about Abraham - words do not apply to this case, it lies wholly outside the range of our understanding.
The lesson here, of course, is that Abraham simply has faith, wilfully obeys God's command - not out of prudential motives but because he simply *wants* to obey. This is a case of blind and total resignation to the absolute.
The problems Johannes analyzes and tackles stem from the dialectical nature of Abraham's story. While contemporary (Hegelian) philosophy seeks to solve these paradoxes and find the truth, Johannes acknowledges the unsolvability of these paradoxes. One simply has to accept them and stop talking about them and trying to understand them.
Problem 1 deals with the fact that murdering ones son seems to contradict the ethical. The ethical is the universal. The individual, as particular, is subjected to the universal. One is part of a society, a state, a moral system. According to Johannes, in order to will the absurd (as in: the unintelligible) one has to step outside of the realm of the universal (as particular) and place oneself in an absolute relation to the absolute (instead of in relation to the relative, the universal). In other words: as particular one places oneself above the universal and in relation to the absolute. In still other words: God's command to Abraham suspends the ethical for Abraham.
We can only understand the paradox described above if we either accept there's an absolute duty to God or accept that faith has never existed and Abraham is done for. In Hegelian terms: Abraham stepping outside of the ethical means he is a murderer. In Problem 2 and 3 Kierkegaard claims this is the wrong way to look at it: ethics, language, knowledge fall within the bounds of the universal; stepping outside of this domain means giving them up; this leads to Abraham's actions being not susceptible to ethics, linguistics and epistemology. We simply cannot judge of, speak about or know anything that happened. We have to accept it for what it is: faith, obedience to God.
Looking at all of the above from a different point of view, we can say that Abraham was tested by God. He was tempted to remain within the ethical, and insofar as he was on his way to murder his own beloved son, to step back into the ethical. Yet he persisted and remained firmly within the religious (the state opposed to and higher than the ethical, according to Kierkegaard). In his moments of fear and trembling he kept true to his faith, never uttering a word nor trying to understand what he was doing. Abraham blindly accepted the absurd, resigned to it, (i.e. the unintelligibility of God and his commands) and in so doing was saved.
Four years ago I read Fear and Trembling and was not impressed. I was still in my atheist stage and found Kierkegaards case for blind faith and against reason to be perverted and morally wrong. To a certain degree I still feel appalled by the fact that not only does he blindly accept the killing of one's own beloved son - Johannes even warns for copycats among Christian believers and points to the priests who supposedly have to convince these copycats from refraining from their plans! -but he glorifies it as an improvement to the rationality of philosophy. But my biggest problem with Fear and Trembling is that Kierkegaard, by claiming Abraham's deeds lie outside of the universal, we cannot speak or know about what Abraham did.
Yet, four years later and much wiser, I could definitely understand Kierkegaard's plan with Fear and Trembling better and see the beauty in this literary work. I guess blind faith can be a very beautiful yet also a very dangerous thing. Also, the disctintion between the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious is a very ingenious and helpful scheme to think about human existence.
June 25, 2017
نمیدان� این کتاب و معانی مطروحه در آن چقدر می تواند خوشایند همه باشد یا نباشد. مخصوصا که بنا به اقوال گوناگون فلاسفه، کیرکگور در این کتاب خود بیش از همه کتاب هایش سعی کرده مخاطب را سرگردان کند. اما اگر بدانم کسی دوست دار مطالعات عرفانی و اندیشۀ ایمان گرایی است، در هدیه دادن این کتاب به او تامل نمی کنم.
ترس و لرز نوشته سورن کیرکگور (فیلسوف، عارف و نویسنده سرشناس دانمارکی قرن نوزدهم) با ترجمه استاد ما آقای دکتر عبدالکریم رشیدیان ، به نظرم یکی از مهمتری� کتاب های دست اول در زمینه فلسف و عرفان مغرب زمینیان و مسیحیان است. خود کیرکگور (این آغازگر فلسف وجودی و چهرۀ شاخص اگزیستانسیالیسم موحدانه) هم معتقد بوده این کتاب بهترین و ماندگارترین اثر اوست، هرچند آن را با نام مستعار منتشر کرده است (به قول همان فلاسفه برای بیشتر سرگردان کردن مخاطب!). با همین اندک دریافت هایی که از معنای ایمان در عرفان اسلامی دارم، به نظرم جناب کیرکگور در این اثر خود خیلی بیشتر از خیلی از هم ولایتی ها و هم مسلکانش پی به عمق و حقیقت معنای ایمان برده است و به حق آموزگار و سرسلسله دارِ اندیشۀ ایمانی گرایی در مغرب زمین است. من فکر می کنم او به همان دریافتی از حقیقت ایمان و ماهیتش رسیده، که ما از پیران و مشایخ و بزرگان دینی و عرفانی خویش آموخته ایم. گوهر و ریشه یکی است، ولو در اعراض و شاخه ها متفاوتیم.
زیباترین و مهم ترین بخش کتاب «ترس و لرز» به دریافت من، همان بخش نخستین «سرآغاز» است. همان پنج روایت از پیامبر والامقام حضرت ابراهیم (علی نبینا و آله السلام) که با «بامدادان» آغاز می شود. به نظرم این ینج روایت، نه تنها عمیق و پرمفهوم است، بلکه بسیار هم زیباست و از لحاظ زیبایی شناسی قدر و منزلتی شگرف دارد. نخستین بار که پس از خواندن ترس و لرز، شعر دکتر محمدرضا شفیعی کدکنی تقدیم به کیرگکور را خواندم، دیدم این شعر (با همه دقت هایش) از آن شاعر (با آنهمه توش و توان و دانش ادبی و زیبایی دانی) حتی به گرد پای روایت شگفت انگیز کیرگکور هم نمی رسد
ترس و لرز نوشته سورن کیرکگور (فیلسوف، عارف و نویسنده سرشناس دانمارکی قرن نوزدهم) با ترجمه استاد ما آقای دکتر عبدالکریم رشیدیان ، به نظرم یکی از مهمتری� کتاب های دست اول در زمینه فلسف و عرفان مغرب زمینیان و مسیحیان است. خود کیرکگور (این آغازگر فلسف وجودی و چهرۀ شاخص اگزیستانسیالیسم موحدانه) هم معتقد بوده این کتاب بهترین و ماندگارترین اثر اوست، هرچند آن را با نام مستعار منتشر کرده است (به قول همان فلاسفه برای بیشتر سرگردان کردن مخاطب!). با همین اندک دریافت هایی که از معنای ایمان در عرفان اسلامی دارم، به نظرم جناب کیرکگور در این اثر خود خیلی بیشتر از خیلی از هم ولایتی ها و هم مسلکانش پی به عمق و حقیقت معنای ایمان برده است و به حق آموزگار و سرسلسله دارِ اندیشۀ ایمانی گرایی در مغرب زمین است. من فکر می کنم او به همان دریافتی از حقیقت ایمان و ماهیتش رسیده، که ما از پیران و مشایخ و بزرگان دینی و عرفانی خویش آموخته ایم. گوهر و ریشه یکی است، ولو در اعراض و شاخه ها متفاوتیم.
زیباترین و مهم ترین بخش کتاب «ترس و لرز» به دریافت من، همان بخش نخستین «سرآغاز» است. همان پنج روایت از پیامبر والامقام حضرت ابراهیم (علی نبینا و آله السلام) که با «بامدادان» آغاز می شود. به نظرم این ینج روایت، نه تنها عمیق و پرمفهوم است، بلکه بسیار هم زیباست و از لحاظ زیبایی شناسی قدر و منزلتی شگرف دارد. نخستین بار که پس از خواندن ترس و لرز، شعر دکتر محمدرضا شفیعی کدکنی تقدیم به کیرگکور را خواندم، دیدم این شعر (با همه دقت هایش) از آن شاعر (با آنهمه توش و توان و دانش ادبی و زیبایی دانی) حتی به گرد پای روایت شگفت انگیز کیرگکور هم نمی رسد
December 10, 2020
I don't even know where to begin, what to say. Talking solely in philosophical terms, I understand why is Kierkegaard considered the Father of Existentialism; trying to reinstate the particular as opposed to the universal. From my limited understanding of it, Abraham is great because he dared to establish his particularity; challenging the despotism and the repose of the ethical; at least that's what the French Existentialists went on about.
The Kierkegaardian echoes are very evident in Sartre's 'Existentialism is Humanism'; making decisions and not being able to verbalise why.
But I also couldn't shake off the feeling that he's trying to rationalise something that is well beyond that; this absurd stance to prove faith higher than the ethical, which keeps me coming back to what Nietzche said about philosophers pretending to be objective in their philosophical enterprises.
Is Faith higher than the Ethical? In terms of passion and pain, yes. But in terms other than that, absolutely no!
"Not the finely wrought fabric of imagination, but the shudder of thought."
Keeping the technicalities aside, the writing stirred my heart in more ways than I'm capable of elucidating, it constantly made me feel like I'm on the brink of some epiphany, something beautiful, but somehow could never cross the threshold. Its elusive quality made me want to jump out of my skin.
I am sure I missed several layers of nuances and subtleties, which I think are impossible to grasp in just one reading. I can talk about this book for days on end, and I must stop for the fear that the trauma of language might make me want to scratch my skin again.
This is an absolute beauty; an absolute piece of art - one that I'm going to pick up again sometime in future.
The Kierkegaardian echoes are very evident in Sartre's 'Existentialism is Humanism'; making decisions and not being able to verbalise why.
But I also couldn't shake off the feeling that he's trying to rationalise something that is well beyond that; this absurd stance to prove faith higher than the ethical, which keeps me coming back to what Nietzche said about philosophers pretending to be objective in their philosophical enterprises.
Is Faith higher than the Ethical? In terms of passion and pain, yes. But in terms other than that, absolutely no!
"Not the finely wrought fabric of imagination, but the shudder of thought."
Keeping the technicalities aside, the writing stirred my heart in more ways than I'm capable of elucidating, it constantly made me feel like I'm on the brink of some epiphany, something beautiful, but somehow could never cross the threshold. Its elusive quality made me want to jump out of my skin.
I am sure I missed several layers of nuances and subtleties, which I think are impossible to grasp in just one reading. I can talk about this book for days on end, and I must stop for the fear that the trauma of language might make me want to scratch my skin again.
This is an absolute beauty; an absolute piece of art - one that I'm going to pick up again sometime in future.
October 28, 2019
نیمۀ اول کتاب اونقد� برام هیجانانگی� و لذتبخ� بود که نمیتون� در موردش چیزی بگم! البته بذار واقعبی� باشیم؛ اگر اینهم� هیجانانگی� هم نبود، باز من نمیتونست� در موردش چیزی بگم.
اما از نیمۀ دوم کتاب، اونقدره� لذت نبردم. حقیقتش خیلی ثقیل و پیچیده بود و بسیاری از مطالبش هم جزء دغدغهها� من نبود.
اما از نیمۀ دوم کتاب، اونقدره� لذت نبردم. حقیقتش خیلی ثقیل و پیچیده بود و بسیاری از مطالبش هم جزء دغدغهها� من نبود.
December 29, 2024
“Fear and trembling� is a phrase that appears twice in the Bible. In Psalm 55:5, King David writes that “Fear and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me�; and Saint Paul tells his disciples in his letter to the Philippians (chapter 2, verse 12) that “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.� The phrase is a daunting one, and Søren Kiekkegaard sets himself, and his readers, a daunting set of philosophical tasks in his 1843 work Frygt og baeven (Fear and Trembling).
Søren Kiekkegaard is known as an early exponent of Christian existentialism � and, therefore, as someone who brought together two intellectual traditions that might have been considered incompatible. After all, Christianity holds that meaning is to be found in human life through acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s Saviour, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity � and through adherence to the tenets of the Christian faith (in one of its various sects). Existentialism, by contrast, holds that the individual, alone in the universe, must create meaning for themselves, through thought, perception, imagination, and action. Two more different and seemingly irreconcilable intellectual traditions would be hard to imagine.
Yet Kierkegaard was deeply committed to the principles of the Christian faith � and to the existential concept that the individual creates meaning through their own choices and actions. In the case of Fear and Trembling, all of Kierkegaard’s interests come together through an examination of the Biblical story of Abraham taking his son Isaac to be sacrificed, in accordance with God’s command.
This story is at the center of three of the world’s great faiths, and yet it is a profoundly troubling story. It is a three-day journey from Abraham’s home to Mount Moriah, where Abraham has been told that he is to sacrifice Isaac � meaning that he has plenty of time to think about how he has been asked to commit what would usually be considered the most unnatural of acts. As Kierkegaard puts it, “The ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he was willing to murder Isaac; but in this contradiction lies the very anguish that can indeed make one sleepless; and yet without that anguish, Abraham is not the one he is� (p. 59). Kierkegaard feels that conventionally, “What is left out of the Abraham story is the anguish; for…to a son the father has the highest and most sacred of obligations� (p. 58).
Kierkegaard states at one point that “It is God who demands absolute love� (p. 100). And the story of Abraham and Isaac reminds one how heavy that demand can be. I like how Kierkegaard sets forth the difficulties involved in addressing this story: “So either there is an absolute duty to God � and, if so, then it is the paradox described, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal, and as the particular stands in an absolute relation to the absolute � or else faith has never existed because it has existed always; or else Abraham is done for� (p. 107).
Kierkegaard is deeply interested in the nature of faith � “For faith is just this paradox, that the single individual is higher than the universal, though in such a way, be it noted, that the movement is repeated; that is, that, having been in the universal, the single individual now sets himself apart as the particular above the universal� (p. 84). Of faith, he says that “he who loves God without faith reflects on himself, while the person who loves God in faith reflects on God� (p. 66). Adverting to the earlier story of how Sarah became pregnant and gave birth even though she was advanced in years, Kierkegaard affirms the power of faith, stating that “he who always hopes for the best becomes old, deceived by life, and he who is always prepared for the worst becomes old prematurely; but he who has faith, retains eternal youth� (p. 51). Faith involves expecting what, in strictly rational terms, is impossible: “One became great through expecting the possible, another by expecting the eternal; but he who expected the impossible became greater than all� (p. 50).
For all of his interest in philosophy, Kierkegaard feels that philosophy has its limits where faith is concerned: “Philosophy cannot and should not give us an account of faith, but should understand itself and know just what it has indeed to offer, without taking anything away, least of all cheating people out of something by making them think it is nothing� (p. 62).
Kierkegaard is also strongly interested in the concept of “infinite resignation� -- meaning the moment when one resigns oneself to losing forever the thing that one loves most. The applicability of this concept to the story of Abraham’s prospective sacrifice of Isaac is apparent. Kierkegaard writes that “Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so that anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does my eternal validity become transparent to me, and only then can there be talk of grasping existence on the strength of faith.� He follows upon this idea by stating that “Faith is therefore no aesthetic emotion, but something far higher, exactly because it presupposes resignation; it is not the immediate inclination of the heart, but the paradox of existence� (p. 75).
The footnotes by Alistair Hannay, an English-born emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Oslo, are quite helpful in situating Kierkegaard’s work within its Scandinavian linguistic and cultural context. When, for instance, Kierkegaard writes in “Problema I� that “Whenever…the single individual feels an urge to assert his particularity, he is in a state of temptation� (p. 83), Hannay points out that “‘Temptation expresses three distinct notions in Fear and Trembling, all of them distinguished in the Danish. When God ‘tempts� Abraham, God is putting Abraham to a test. The test, however, is Abraham’s ability to withstand temptation (Fristelse) in another, the usual sense, namely the power to attract someone away from a course he or she believes to be the right one. In the present context, temptation (Դڲղٱ) is a state in which someone’s being, tempted in this usual sense, is connected with the idea of passing or failing a test of spiritual adequacy� (p. 152).
To call Fear and Trembling challenging would be an understatement � but then, the story of Abraham and Isaac is challenging in its own right.
Søren Kiekkegaard is known as an early exponent of Christian existentialism � and, therefore, as someone who brought together two intellectual traditions that might have been considered incompatible. After all, Christianity holds that meaning is to be found in human life through acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s Saviour, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity � and through adherence to the tenets of the Christian faith (in one of its various sects). Existentialism, by contrast, holds that the individual, alone in the universe, must create meaning for themselves, through thought, perception, imagination, and action. Two more different and seemingly irreconcilable intellectual traditions would be hard to imagine.
Yet Kierkegaard was deeply committed to the principles of the Christian faith � and to the existential concept that the individual creates meaning through their own choices and actions. In the case of Fear and Trembling, all of Kierkegaard’s interests come together through an examination of the Biblical story of Abraham taking his son Isaac to be sacrificed, in accordance with God’s command.
This story is at the center of three of the world’s great faiths, and yet it is a profoundly troubling story. It is a three-day journey from Abraham’s home to Mount Moriah, where Abraham has been told that he is to sacrifice Isaac � meaning that he has plenty of time to think about how he has been asked to commit what would usually be considered the most unnatural of acts. As Kierkegaard puts it, “The ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he was willing to murder Isaac; but in this contradiction lies the very anguish that can indeed make one sleepless; and yet without that anguish, Abraham is not the one he is� (p. 59). Kierkegaard feels that conventionally, “What is left out of the Abraham story is the anguish; for…to a son the father has the highest and most sacred of obligations� (p. 58).
Kierkegaard states at one point that “It is God who demands absolute love� (p. 100). And the story of Abraham and Isaac reminds one how heavy that demand can be. I like how Kierkegaard sets forth the difficulties involved in addressing this story: “So either there is an absolute duty to God � and, if so, then it is the paradox described, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal, and as the particular stands in an absolute relation to the absolute � or else faith has never existed because it has existed always; or else Abraham is done for� (p. 107).
Kierkegaard is deeply interested in the nature of faith � “For faith is just this paradox, that the single individual is higher than the universal, though in such a way, be it noted, that the movement is repeated; that is, that, having been in the universal, the single individual now sets himself apart as the particular above the universal� (p. 84). Of faith, he says that “he who loves God without faith reflects on himself, while the person who loves God in faith reflects on God� (p. 66). Adverting to the earlier story of how Sarah became pregnant and gave birth even though she was advanced in years, Kierkegaard affirms the power of faith, stating that “he who always hopes for the best becomes old, deceived by life, and he who is always prepared for the worst becomes old prematurely; but he who has faith, retains eternal youth� (p. 51). Faith involves expecting what, in strictly rational terms, is impossible: “One became great through expecting the possible, another by expecting the eternal; but he who expected the impossible became greater than all� (p. 50).
For all of his interest in philosophy, Kierkegaard feels that philosophy has its limits where faith is concerned: “Philosophy cannot and should not give us an account of faith, but should understand itself and know just what it has indeed to offer, without taking anything away, least of all cheating people out of something by making them think it is nothing� (p. 62).
Kierkegaard is also strongly interested in the concept of “infinite resignation� -- meaning the moment when one resigns oneself to losing forever the thing that one loves most. The applicability of this concept to the story of Abraham’s prospective sacrifice of Isaac is apparent. Kierkegaard writes that “Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so that anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does my eternal validity become transparent to me, and only then can there be talk of grasping existence on the strength of faith.� He follows upon this idea by stating that “Faith is therefore no aesthetic emotion, but something far higher, exactly because it presupposes resignation; it is not the immediate inclination of the heart, but the paradox of existence� (p. 75).
The footnotes by Alistair Hannay, an English-born emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Oslo, are quite helpful in situating Kierkegaard’s work within its Scandinavian linguistic and cultural context. When, for instance, Kierkegaard writes in “Problema I� that “Whenever…the single individual feels an urge to assert his particularity, he is in a state of temptation� (p. 83), Hannay points out that “‘Temptation expresses three distinct notions in Fear and Trembling, all of them distinguished in the Danish. When God ‘tempts� Abraham, God is putting Abraham to a test. The test, however, is Abraham’s ability to withstand temptation (Fristelse) in another, the usual sense, namely the power to attract someone away from a course he or she believes to be the right one. In the present context, temptation (Դڲղٱ) is a state in which someone’s being, tempted in this usual sense, is connected with the idea of passing or failing a test of spiritual adequacy� (p. 152).
To call Fear and Trembling challenging would be an understatement � but then, the story of Abraham and Isaac is challenging in its own right.
September 5, 2011
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
"The most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one you'll never have."
Such a happy guy. I think the old sitcom Family Ties got it right when the Dad was reading "Kierkegaard for Dads." He summed it up by saying that "no matter how depressed I am, he is even more depressed. I find that strangely comforting."
Now somebody needs to write Kierkegaard for Dads.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
"The most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one you'll never have."
Such a happy guy. I think the old sitcom Family Ties got it right when the Dad was reading "Kierkegaard for Dads." He summed it up by saying that "no matter how depressed I am, he is even more depressed. I find that strangely comforting."
Now somebody needs to write Kierkegaard for Dads.
March 2, 2024
This book lives up to its title, because it almost gave me a panic attack. Sometimes the best works of literature (and the worst) are the result of a writer trying to figure their own problems out, as was certainly the case here.
You see, Kierkegaard was kind of a weirdo, at least in the eyes of his generation. First of all, he criticized Hegel. Blasphemer! But also, here was this handsome, intelligent Nordic paladin who in his thirties was still single. He almost was married, but he ended his engagement in one of the most famed break-ups in the literary world. What was his problem? Well, he seems to have been an indecisive and melancholic emo, who talked himself out of marrying the woman he loved because he was afraid of being shackled to the old ball-and-chain, lacking faith in his own ability to be faithful or to be a devoted husband. Like an alcoholic newly sober who is overwhelmed with the idea of never having a drink again, when he played forward the rest of his life married, the idea sent him into a panic. He wanted to be free.
Over time, he saw his self-imposed bachelorhood as a kind of sacrifice. He gave up the one thing he truly wanted. In his mind, he began to formulate the idea that he was perhaps not so weird as people thought him to be, and his writing tried to reconcile his choice with the popular literary and philosophical themes of his day.
"Fear and Trembling" is part of his working through of his inner turmoil. He wasn't really writing for anyone else but himself. He even admits as much in his preface. He says that he was financially comfortable (which he was, after his wealthy parents left him a nice inheritance in his twenties), so he didn't need anyone to buy his books. But as he was writing "Fear and Trembling," he got the sense that here was something that, if he were to be remembered at all, would guarantee his immortality.
As we know, he was right. But what makes this book so memorable? And why did it cause me so much anxiety?
I think the main reason is his ingenious analysis of the Biblical story of "The Binding of Isaac." Abraham was God's chosen who, in his old age, was blessed with a son. And then what does God do? After raising and loving the child, God demands Abraham to murder his only son as a sacrifice. Wha-what?! Kierkegaard tries to put himself, and his readers, in Abraham's shoes. What would YOU do in such a situation? Tell God to go bugger off? Kill yourself instead? Would you believe that God had lied to you, was playing some practical joke on you, was a sadistic torturer who gleefully took away the same blessings that He bestowed?
Kierkegaard imagines all kinds of scenarios about what Abraham may have been thinking as he takes the four day journey with his son to the mountain where Isaac is to be sacrificed. Did he dare tell Isaac what he planned to do with him? Should he have conviently forgotten to bring a knife so that he could tell God, "Oops, my bad!" He must have been sweating bullets for those entire four days, wondering how he could go through with it, or whether he even should. And what was he thinking when he arranged the wood upon which he would burn his own son? Or when he bound Isaac and raised the knife? Did his son plead for his life, and if so, how did Abraham block out the image of his baby boy's face as he looked into a monster?
As a father, I was absolutely absorbed in this idea, and terrified. I had never thought about the story of Abraham and Isaac like this before. Kierkegaard's point was that few people do think about what they read in these Biblical stories. They just accept the story at face value, that Abraham was so faithful that he was willing to sacrifice his "best." But we're not talking about donating wealth, or relinquishing material pleasures, or giving up meat on Fridays for God. No, if people really thought about Abraham's story, they'd see far greater implications to what it truly means to be exalted as the father of faith rather than be prosecuted for attempted murder.
Though the Bible never goes into detail as to what Abraham was thinking, we do know that Abraham was put in a state of terrible conflict. God had promised that his descendants would come through Isaac. So why was God demanding Isaac to be sacrificed? That makes no sense! At least not in Abraham's understanding, or that of any human, of a finite world. So Abraham had to have doubt. And true faith requires doubt. Blind faith just makes you a moron.
This is why, after I read Hegel's "Philosophy of Right," one of my ŷ friends suggested I read Kierkegaard. Hegel believed that the moral life came from the working through of God's rational mind, therefore, for an individual to live morally was to be rational. Kierkegaard says the opposite by having us look deeply at Abraham's choice. No matter how you slice it, there was nothing rational about God's conflicting commandments, and nothing rational about Abraham doing what he was told to do! This is in direct conflict with the general population in Kierkegaard's day. Many professed to be Christian, and also Hegelian. So this book was Kierkegaard's gotcha moment. If you think Hegel's philosophy is correct, then Christianity shouldn't be valid for you. So if you claim to be a Christian while ascribing to Hegel's theories about God, then you don't know what the hell you are doing. You can't be both.
"But Warren, you knight of infinite resignation," I hear you say, "why should we care today? It's not like there's a bunch of Hegelians running around the 21st Century!"
Well, not by name, anyway. But there still are plenty of people who claim to be Christian who don't know what that even means. To choose the moral life is not rational. It is purely the choice of the individual, is not based on what is rational or in the best interests of the individual or society, and is ultimately the responsibility of the individual. This idea gave birth to what we call existentialism. But how then does someone choose the religious life? Kierkegaard says that it takes thinking like a child.
I have superpowers. Or at least my kids still think that I do. Abraham must have been thinking that God did too. Because if God was not a lying, false god, then God's irrational contradicting command to kill Isaac after promising that from Isaac would come the descendants of Abraham must only work OUTSIDE of our finite understanding. In other words, Abraham had faith that God could do anything, just as your children think of you!
And from here, Kierkegaard paints a portrait of what a person who has truly chosen the religious life looks like. And a truly religious person likely won't look like what the reader might expect. This is where I'll stop, because you really should read the rest for yourself. Let's just say that I've never considered myself overly religious, but I have usually thought my morals are in the right place and that I had a modicum of faith. But this book certainly made me stop and think about whether I would ever have the courage, the sheer cajones, or the foolishness to look into the infinite and pass such a test as Abraham. What would you do?
At the very least, we should follow Kierkegaard's example so that next time we go through a nasty bit of heartbreak, we should spend some time in self reflection rather than getting sloshed at the nearest bar. His breakup resulted in a masterpiece of Christian philosophy, and I'm glad I was encouraged to read it, even if it did cause me fear and trembling.
SCORE: 5 Knights of Faith out of 5
You see, Kierkegaard was kind of a weirdo, at least in the eyes of his generation. First of all, he criticized Hegel. Blasphemer! But also, here was this handsome, intelligent Nordic paladin who in his thirties was still single. He almost was married, but he ended his engagement in one of the most famed break-ups in the literary world. What was his problem? Well, he seems to have been an indecisive and melancholic emo, who talked himself out of marrying the woman he loved because he was afraid of being shackled to the old ball-and-chain, lacking faith in his own ability to be faithful or to be a devoted husband. Like an alcoholic newly sober who is overwhelmed with the idea of never having a drink again, when he played forward the rest of his life married, the idea sent him into a panic. He wanted to be free.
Over time, he saw his self-imposed bachelorhood as a kind of sacrifice. He gave up the one thing he truly wanted. In his mind, he began to formulate the idea that he was perhaps not so weird as people thought him to be, and his writing tried to reconcile his choice with the popular literary and philosophical themes of his day.
"Fear and Trembling" is part of his working through of his inner turmoil. He wasn't really writing for anyone else but himself. He even admits as much in his preface. He says that he was financially comfortable (which he was, after his wealthy parents left him a nice inheritance in his twenties), so he didn't need anyone to buy his books. But as he was writing "Fear and Trembling," he got the sense that here was something that, if he were to be remembered at all, would guarantee his immortality.
As we know, he was right. But what makes this book so memorable? And why did it cause me so much anxiety?
I think the main reason is his ingenious analysis of the Biblical story of "The Binding of Isaac." Abraham was God's chosen who, in his old age, was blessed with a son. And then what does God do? After raising and loving the child, God demands Abraham to murder his only son as a sacrifice. Wha-what?! Kierkegaard tries to put himself, and his readers, in Abraham's shoes. What would YOU do in such a situation? Tell God to go bugger off? Kill yourself instead? Would you believe that God had lied to you, was playing some practical joke on you, was a sadistic torturer who gleefully took away the same blessings that He bestowed?
Kierkegaard imagines all kinds of scenarios about what Abraham may have been thinking as he takes the four day journey with his son to the mountain where Isaac is to be sacrificed. Did he dare tell Isaac what he planned to do with him? Should he have conviently forgotten to bring a knife so that he could tell God, "Oops, my bad!" He must have been sweating bullets for those entire four days, wondering how he could go through with it, or whether he even should. And what was he thinking when he arranged the wood upon which he would burn his own son? Or when he bound Isaac and raised the knife? Did his son plead for his life, and if so, how did Abraham block out the image of his baby boy's face as he looked into a monster?
As a father, I was absolutely absorbed in this idea, and terrified. I had never thought about the story of Abraham and Isaac like this before. Kierkegaard's point was that few people do think about what they read in these Biblical stories. They just accept the story at face value, that Abraham was so faithful that he was willing to sacrifice his "best." But we're not talking about donating wealth, or relinquishing material pleasures, or giving up meat on Fridays for God. No, if people really thought about Abraham's story, they'd see far greater implications to what it truly means to be exalted as the father of faith rather than be prosecuted for attempted murder.
Though the Bible never goes into detail as to what Abraham was thinking, we do know that Abraham was put in a state of terrible conflict. God had promised that his descendants would come through Isaac. So why was God demanding Isaac to be sacrificed? That makes no sense! At least not in Abraham's understanding, or that of any human, of a finite world. So Abraham had to have doubt. And true faith requires doubt. Blind faith just makes you a moron.
This is why, after I read Hegel's "Philosophy of Right," one of my ŷ friends suggested I read Kierkegaard. Hegel believed that the moral life came from the working through of God's rational mind, therefore, for an individual to live morally was to be rational. Kierkegaard says the opposite by having us look deeply at Abraham's choice. No matter how you slice it, there was nothing rational about God's conflicting commandments, and nothing rational about Abraham doing what he was told to do! This is in direct conflict with the general population in Kierkegaard's day. Many professed to be Christian, and also Hegelian. So this book was Kierkegaard's gotcha moment. If you think Hegel's philosophy is correct, then Christianity shouldn't be valid for you. So if you claim to be a Christian while ascribing to Hegel's theories about God, then you don't know what the hell you are doing. You can't be both.
"But Warren, you knight of infinite resignation," I hear you say, "why should we care today? It's not like there's a bunch of Hegelians running around the 21st Century!"
Well, not by name, anyway. But there still are plenty of people who claim to be Christian who don't know what that even means. To choose the moral life is not rational. It is purely the choice of the individual, is not based on what is rational or in the best interests of the individual or society, and is ultimately the responsibility of the individual. This idea gave birth to what we call existentialism. But how then does someone choose the religious life? Kierkegaard says that it takes thinking like a child.
I have superpowers. Or at least my kids still think that I do. Abraham must have been thinking that God did too. Because if God was not a lying, false god, then God's irrational contradicting command to kill Isaac after promising that from Isaac would come the descendants of Abraham must only work OUTSIDE of our finite understanding. In other words, Abraham had faith that God could do anything, just as your children think of you!
And from here, Kierkegaard paints a portrait of what a person who has truly chosen the religious life looks like. And a truly religious person likely won't look like what the reader might expect. This is where I'll stop, because you really should read the rest for yourself. Let's just say that I've never considered myself overly religious, but I have usually thought my morals are in the right place and that I had a modicum of faith. But this book certainly made me stop and think about whether I would ever have the courage, the sheer cajones, or the foolishness to look into the infinite and pass such a test as Abraham. What would you do?
At the very least, we should follow Kierkegaard's example so that next time we go through a nasty bit of heartbreak, we should spend some time in self reflection rather than getting sloshed at the nearest bar. His breakup resulted in a masterpiece of Christian philosophy, and I'm glad I was encouraged to read it, even if it did cause me fear and trembling.
SCORE: 5 Knights of Faith out of 5
September 3, 2020
یکی از سختخوانتری� کتابهای� بود که تا حالا خوندم و متن بسیار ثقیل و پیچیدها� داشت. به عنوان نمونه به این متن دقت کنید:
«ایمان دقیقا همین پارداوکس است که فرد بهمثاب� جزئی بزرگت� از کلی است، ��ر مقابل آن موجه است، نه بهمثاب� تابع بلکه به مثابه متبوع، البته بدینگون� که فرد، پس از اینکه به مثابه جزیی تابع کلی بوده است، اکنون توسط کلی به فردی تبدیل میشو� که بهمثاب� جزیی برتر از کلی است، به گونها� که فرد بهمثاب� جزیی در رابطها� مطلق با مطلق قرار میگیر�.»
فهمیدن این کتاب کار سختی هست و برای درک کتاب ترس و لرز نیاز به مطالعات بسیار در زمینه عرفان است. من فقط همین نکته را از کتاب یاد گرفتم که ابراهیم خدای ایمان شد فقط به این دلیل که در برابر امر خدا نگفت «چرا؟» و در برابر خدا به مقام مسلمانی و تسلیم رسید. حقیقت امر هم این است که رسیدن به این مقام کاریست بسیار دشوار. کاری که حضرت موسی هم حتی نتوانست انجام بدهد.
بسیار پرسشه� و تحیلها� جالبی کیرگکور از واقعه فدا کردن حضرت اسماعیل به دست حضرت ابراهیم مطرح کرده که خواننده را به فکر وا میدار�.
«ایمان دقیقا همین پارداوکس است که فرد بهمثاب� جزئی بزرگت� از کلی است، ��ر مقابل آن موجه است، نه بهمثاب� تابع بلکه به مثابه متبوع، البته بدینگون� که فرد، پس از اینکه به مثابه جزیی تابع کلی بوده است، اکنون توسط کلی به فردی تبدیل میشو� که بهمثاب� جزیی برتر از کلی است، به گونها� که فرد بهمثاب� جزیی در رابطها� مطلق با مطلق قرار میگیر�.»
فهمیدن این کتاب کار سختی هست و برای درک کتاب ترس و لرز نیاز به مطالعات بسیار در زمینه عرفان است. من فقط همین نکته را از کتاب یاد گرفتم که ابراهیم خدای ایمان شد فقط به این دلیل که در برابر امر خدا نگفت «چرا؟» و در برابر خدا به مقام مسلمانی و تسلیم رسید. حقیقت امر هم این است که رسیدن به این مقام کاریست بسیار دشوار. کاری که حضرت موسی هم حتی نتوانست انجام بدهد.
بسیار پرسشه� و تحیلها� جالبی کیرگکور از واقعه فدا کردن حضرت اسماعیل به دست حضرت ابراهیم مطرح کرده که خواننده را به فکر وا میدار�.
August 28, 2017
عنوان دیگر و دقیق تری که برای این کتاب میتوان انتخاب کرد: دیالکتیک ایمان
در انتخاب مترجم برای خواندن این کتاب باید دقت بسیاری داشت!
از متن:
"ایمان دقیقا از همان جایی آغاز می شود که عقل پایان می یابد."
در انتخاب مترجم برای خواندن این کتاب باید دقت بسیاری داشت!
از متن:
"ایمان دقیقا از همان جایی آغاز می شود که عقل پایان می یابد."
Displaying 1 - 29 of 2,202 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.