Fear And Trembling

The rest of the book explores the three questions that might challenge the thesis he presented in the previous sections. As noted elsewhere, this style is in line with Hegel’s dialectic despite Kierkegaard’s earlier criticisms of the “System.” (To be fair, Hegel took the dialectic approach from classical philosophy, so Kierkegaard is not completely hypocritical, and, of course, he’s writing under a pseudonym so he might say things that he does not believe.) He even discusses the positives of Hegel early in “Problem I.” He notes that “Hegel is right” when “he characterizes man merely as the particular and regards this character as ‘a moral form of the evil’” that is eliminated when one joins in the ethical and universal (108). Faith and religion do not so much disprove all of Hegelian thought as they prove its limitations. Kierkegaard is attempting to prove his point by contradicting his earlier points. That is how the dialectic works.

All three problems follow the same pattern. First, Kierkegaard defines the ethical as the universal and then suggests that Hegel is right. Since Hegel is right, Abraham must be a murderer. Then he goes about proving the limits of Hegelian thought by suggesting the opposite is true. Each problem ends by stating that either the “System” is right and Abraham is lost or the “System” is flawed and Abraham demonstrates that faith exists beyond the Hegelian dialectic. The reader is left to make the decision, but Kierkegaard’s ironic and somewhat didactic tone suggests one conclusion. The fact that the reader is left to decide works well with Kierkegaard’s argument that the individual must choose how to act and what to believe.

The first question he asks concerns teleology. The term comes from Greek, with the telos being defined as the end of something. For Kierkegaard, the ethical represents the “telos.” In fact, the ethical is its “telos, but is itself telos for everything outside it” (107). In Hegelian thought, the ethical is the end stage. Kierkegaard’s first problem with faith is that it requires a suspension of the end stage of most philosophy. Put differently, Kierkegaard does not believe there can be an end to knowledge or at least certainly not an objective end to it. Instead, the highest form of knowledge exists on a purely personal and, therefore, subjective level. An individual can attain a higher existence than society, but since no one in the society can understand his existence or his relationship with the spiritual, the individual remains below society at worst or part of society at best. This is the paradox of faith: “the individual as the particular is higher than the universal” but has previously “been subordinated as the particular to the universal” (110). The individual is both above and below society. Kierkegaard argues that one must endure hardship and wrestle with the ethical before one can make the movement of faith.

As in other parts of the text, Kierkegaard uses very logical sentences to make a series of paradoxical declarations. He notes that “Abraham arouses [his] admiration, but at the same time appalls [him]” because he acts as a murderer when he “gives up the finite in order to grasp the infinite” (118). Kierkegaard is appalled because Kierkegaard himself cannot help but think of the duty Abraham has to the ethical. Abraham’s decision to kill Isaac is a selfish one that he does for his faith. And yet Abraham is to be admired for that faith. Kierkegaard argues that the paradox of Abraham “does not permit of mediation” (128). Mediation is the process in Hegelian thought by which truths are reached. It is the act of working out contradictions and synthesizing the thesis and the anthesis. Kierkegaard says faith cannot be worked out this way, and yet to prove that very point, he performs a mediation to reach the conclusion that Abraham’s actions require a suspension of the teleological.

In “Problem II,” Kierkegaard suggests the paradox that one cannot let God dictate one’s actions though one is supposed to have an ultimate and absolute duty to God. Humans are free agents who have a duty to act as such, and yet there are times (such as in the case of Abraham) when one must suspend the ethical and do as God says. They must, in other words, give in to the absurd and trust that God will protect them even as they perform heinous acts. Doing so will lead to the personal relationship with God that only the knight of faith can have. One wonders about the limits of such faith. In the story of Abraham, God intervenes or never really intended for Abraham to follow through on his orders. What might happen if one were to misinterpret God’s command? Kierkegaard would suggest that such a question is appropriate, for it would be an example of a struggle with faith, although he would also argue that faith would prevent God’s message from being misinterpreted.

The knight of faith is always being tested and tempted to join the land of aesthetics and the ethical again. Thus, “the false knight of faith” would betray himself because he would be too certain of his knowledge and too willing to guide others through the process of becoming knights of faith (150). They would similarly not doubt the messages they heard from God well enough to determine the meaning. To be a knight of faith is to live in fear and alone. “Partnership is unthinkable” even for two knights of faith, since faith is such a personal experience. The knight of faith has a duty to God above all else, though paradoxically he also has a duty to himself, a state that allows him to personally know God. The person who “has learned to exist as the individual” lives a “terrible” life because he knows the paradox of his duties (141). He must live in fear and trembling, knowing that he must live in society but apart from it, that he must go against the ethical at times even though retreating into the ethical is open to him and would be easier. The knight of faith is in a state of angst at all times, for he must exist in the outer society Hegel declares the end state of mankind while knowing truths that no one would believe or understand.