A Debate on Soren by Soren and Ozy

[Tom Paine]

Yep, this is probably the only place where this would happen but I asked, last night, Soren why he had chosen as his namesake, the author of that philosophical faith-justification tract, tripe, Fear & Trembling... so, clearly, an argument (in the proper meaning of the term) began. This is slightly edited to cut some preliminary rambling leading into this, and at the end the permission to post this and exchanged goodnights have been cut, but other than that it is intact... thoughts on the matter?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ozymandias says:
I'm currently reading Fear and Trembling - finding little if anything to agree with!
Soren says:
I can imagine - although it does rather assume belief.
Soren says:
Although there is of course some semi-unrelated psychological material
Ozymandias says:
Yeah. The whole Abraham thing is interesting, and the Problemata a little wierd
Soren says:
The Abraham thing is weird too. But it is an interesting way (or rather, ways) of looking at a hypothetical god.
Ozymandias says:
Or more rather a hypothetical faith. I disagree with him about the idea of the man of faith being greater than the tragic hero most certainly
Soren says:
Certianly a tragic hero is more romantic. Any judgement on superiority is quite aribtary though, really, without having ascertained whether the faith os justified.
Soren says:
But yeah
Ozymandias says:
I disagree - whether or not the faith is justified he raises the individual as higher than the universal!
Soren says:
Or rather sets a general hierarchy of two universals
Soren says:
(unless you are reffering specifically to Abraham)
Ozymandias says:
Abraham, but since he is the model man of faith and since Kierkegaard states that all men of faith (of whom he says none but Abraham have existed, but that's another matter) we can generalise from Abraham to all - K does, consistently
Soren says:
It is essentially a generalisation, faith over romantic tragedy. Quite a valid point, although not one I take to personally
Ozymandias says:
Faith over romantic tragedy is individual over individual, though - faith over the life of his son and the generations promised him, is not. Individual over society.
Soren says:
We tend to consider potential life as not figuring much - which is why we have abortion e.t.c. So the society is arguably non-existant, and at best only hypothetical. Also, if the judaic god did, indeed, exist, then Abraham would probably have been right to follow his instructions.
Soren says:
Certianly, displeasing/disobeying such a god would not have been good for future society, either.
Ozymandias says:
Ah, but surely such actions would have been restricted, only to 4 generations, whereas Abraham is snuiffing out 40, or 400, or more!
Soren says:
Again, potential life is irrelevent, IMO. Under the same concept we would copulate constantly, and refrain from all contraception.
Ozymandias says:
Then let us consider alone Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is elevating his faith above and beyond the good of Isaac (continued existence being good), his wife Sarah (their child being a blessing to them), and himself (see Sarah)
Soren says:
Abraham is continuing to have faith in his god - the god that has so far brought them out of Ur, rewarded them, and indeed, given them Isaac. Abraham obviously percieves that he will provide the best outcome for them, and chooses to trust him. Again, it is this trust that has done so well for his family in the past.
Ozymandias says:
Ah, but as Kierkegaard states, this faith is not based on reason - it is not perception, since God has promised no such thing, it is, to use K's phrase, "absurd faith"
Soren says:
Reason is a perception of the state of the world, it is not some ethereal (well it is in the strictest sense, but....) constant. Faith (or at least, Abraham's kind) is really a looser form of "reason", a development of reason. Of course, Abraham did not really just have "absurd faith", as it was not purely a "leap of faith", but rather based on his experience of god in the past - i.e. reason.
Ozymandias says:
Then K is himself inconsistent - Abraham either has absurd faith alone or he is not the father of faith and "either faith does not exist or always has"!
Soren says:
I am not championing SK here.
Soren says:
However, I would be cautious to call him inconsistent without studying it in detail (it was a while I ago I read it, so I can't quite recall fully)
Soren says:
He has a habit of saying things he doesn't mean, and meaning things different than the seem
Soren says:
they*
Ozymandias says:
I'm meaning that if you are correct, and Abraham's faith is "reasonable" (an interesting argument in itself - if it is reason, can it be faith? Not according to Kierkegaard at least!), the K's philosophy in F&T is defunct.
Soren says:
Kierkegaard viewed faith to be at a higher (the highest, in fact) "aesthetic level", but he did not think that it should be entirely divorced from the other aesthetic forms either, on which are, in practice, the foundations of the higher. I think that though he found Abraham's faith absurd, he only found it required a more of a jump over an obstacle, rather than the entire process being a jump.
Soren says:
So to speak
Ozymandias says:
He said it bore no relation to the aesthetic - the aesthetic, because we are dealing with an individual, takes a backseat role, and ethics alone is required, and even those are semi-suspended!
Soren says:
I'm reffering to "aesthetic" to describe the different types (or at least parts of existance) that K was so keen on. But again, my tendancy is to believe that his view of faith was incorrect. The only reason I am unwilling to judge this for certain, is because: a) I have not read all of his books/pamphlets b) Kierkegaard is horribly complex, and requires an awful lot of attention to fully
Soren says:
...understand - attention which I haven't had time to give
Ozymandias says:
Oh, I'm dealing purely with the viewpoint expressed in Fear & Trembling - he put forward different philosophies at different times and in different works.

[Siblesz]

To address Kierkergaard's logical inconsistencies, you have to understand that Kierkergaard analyzed the universalist/individualist train of thought from a Christian perspective - hardly the foundation for an error-proof philosophy. Anyhoo, great conversation. I am also a fan of SK. If you want to read a story that covers much of the same territory that Soren covered in Fear and Trembling, read "The Dream of a Ridiculous Man", by Dostoevsky. Truly an epic and mind-opening journey.

http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/lib...iculousman.txt

[Earl of Rochester]

Well I cannot comment on anything related to Kierkergaard as your conversation was the first I've ever even heard mention of him. I do a few things to add about Abraham though.

I would have say that Abraham did not have really have faith at all. People of faith always say that God doesn't give proof of his existence because that would defeat the purpose of faith. Faith is believing without seeing so to speak.

Now Abraham certainly saw. I mean God continually gave him proof of his existence. So for Abraham it was not a leap of faith at all, only a rational conclusion. Him not believing in God would be like me not believing in this computer in front of me.

[Tom Paine]

Abraham, is not quite the full story - the matter is Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac on God's orders; Abraham had faith based on no evidence and in fact directly against the evidence that he would have a son from whom would spring etc...; he had this faith even after God told him to kill Isaac.

[Garbarsardar]

Somehow I feel that you left the really interesting parts out...

[Earl of Rochester]

Abraham, is not quite the full story - the matter is Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac on God's orders; Abraham had faith based on no evidence and in fact directly against the evidence that he would have a son from whom would spring etc...; he had this faith even after God told him to kill Isaac.

But he had plenty of evidence. It was perfectly clear to him that God was real and all powerful etc. Disobeying God when you know he clearly exists would be rather foolish.

[Blau&Gruen]

Martin Buber said many years later: Kierkegaard's understanding of solitude was not sokratic, but abrahamish including the ability to relieve from the world of the father and the world of the son (Dialogical Princip, The question to the single one. The unique one and the single one). Not sokratic means for Kierkegaard in the interpretation of Buber, the admission of a relation (nicht das "richtige" Leben, sondern den Eintritt in eine Beziehung), "to be for" in a austere sense (Dialogical Princip, The question to the single one. The Single One and His Thou). The separation from the world of the son (Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac on God's orders) would, when Bubers interpretation is correct, concentrate the relationabilty in an isolated situation (Abraham gives up his future as father of a son in favor of the command), delimit it in the perspective of time. Buber thinks, that Kierkegaard's reflection on the relationability by the loss of its correlates in the world causes a contradiction in itself.

[Tom Paine]

Were I able to understand it, I might understand why my gut instinct is to disagree... mind explaining what you just said in simpler terms so even I can understand them, AS?

EDIT: Okay, re-reading that I think I agree with Buber, if he is saying what I think he is: That either Abraham is raising Isaac above the universal, and thus disobeying ethics, or Isaac is the universal, in which case K's philosophy falls apart.

[Blau&Gruen]

Buber's critic is, that Kierkeegard's term of relationability did not fully realize the to be for. Consider that Isaac is the product of the promise. He is the not fully realized future. Consider further that the universal is a relational claim and not a totality. Buber imputes that Kierkeegard abstracts, where he (Kierkeegard) does not want to abstract. That is close to what Soren says in your dialogue, potential life is irrelevent, but now related to the Abraham metaphor itself.