Analysis Of Søren Kierkegaard's Fear And Trembling

In Fear and Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard discusses the subject of faith. He offers a fascinating interpretation of this subject. He tries to answer an age-old question, what is faith. What makes his work stand out is the fact that he places his understanding in direct opposition to dominant philosophical believes of his day. But, he also places his discussion in the context of the Abraham and Isaac Bible story.

Søren Kierkegaard’s is noted for attaching his personality to his work. This is important when it comes to his discussion on faith. He contrasts to the Hegelian tradition that faith is just a part of geist and can be understood in the same way. For Kierkegaard this is ridiculous, he believed that philosophy simply cannot account for

He believed that Christ was an immense figure. It was the simple truths of the Gospels that appealed to him. He ponders the concept that religion is nothing more than a regulated human function, full of conformity. Religious belief and in that sense faith lies in the difference between being a Christian versus Christendom. Kierkegaard warns us not to fall into a trap. To understand faith, one must abandon rationality. This is not a negative, he is not asking for blind, unquestioning acceptance. Instead he is asking for a ‘leap of faith’. Doing this and having faith is the truest faith. “To have faith is to lose your mind and to win God”. This abandonment of rationality is possible because there are no objective truths in religion. All truth is subjective, but we need to see religion as something different. Kierkegaard asks us to base our understanding of religion on how we experience it. The truth of Christianity is not what objective truth neither is it denial. He believed that faith is neither objective nor

Isaac’s sacrifice would presume that the universal is greater than the individual. But, the struggle of Abraham is beyond systematic philosophical reasoning. Kierkegaard is critical of the commitment and lack of ethical comprehension of Abraham’s faith. He believes that it is a paradox that cannot be thought. The Abraham story is not really about ethics and reason. It is beyond that. Kierkegaard asks what does the story mean for us. Understanding Christianity through a philosophical machine would destroy it. The genuine inquiries of the story are significantly more profound. Would duty be able to God be outright? For the sake of a higher religious reason would you be able to rise above moral standards? There is a sure franticness that he needs us to consider. Immanuel Kant wrote in The Contest of Faculties about this very subject. He believed that we can never make sure that God addresses us. Regardless of the possibility that if we figured he did we can't make sure that God would not charge something immoral. Kant trusted that Abraham ought to have tested God. Kierkegaard needs us to rise above from moral idea. Kant trusted that a Divine being who can't be rationally tended to must be dreaded and never cherished. Hegel wrote that the story showed the characteristics of enthusiast almost fanatical