Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling

Short introduction to SK's best work!

[@kylejacobson9587]

It is such a tragedy that your videos have such a low viewpoint. This greatly helped me in understanding Fear and Trembling

[@calebchan5704]

thank you!

[@jomamma4729]

Wow. I'm about halfway through FAT (I wish I had a paper copy, but I've been listening to the audiobook), and it has been very difficult to understand. This concise summary and background was extremely refreshing to my brain as it is trying to work through Kierkegaard's material here. Thank you for the video, and I look forward to watching more of your content!

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Thank you! Glad to help. I just wish I had more Kierkegaard in here! (I hope you like Augustine, William James, or Alvin Plantinga. I got lots of them!)

[@jomamma4729]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy Haven't read as much Augustine, but "The Varieties of Religious Experience" has been on my reading list for a while, so hopefully I'll be able to get around to that soon. I'm 19, I grew up in a Christian, homeschooling, politically conservative community, and all of my closest friends are from that upbringing. I committed apostasy around the age of 12, and have since then struggled with belief and unbelief. I started reading the Bible more frequently again a few months ago, and my friends and I recently started doing a Bible study working through Galatians. Reading through the story of Abraham in Genesis, doing the study of Galatians with my friends, and reading FAT all at the same time has been a very interesting and confusing mix in my mind as of late, and that's one reason why I appreciated your video.

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Galatians! Good. Just don't neglect the Psalms, Genesis, Exodus, and the Gospels. Gee. I wonder if my Intro to Christianity playlist would be more useful (kzbin.info/aero/PL0gapVBX3Jr9Ma-Me5mFlboLHQT6DiQSZ). The _Varieties_ is good, but for now my channel mostly covers other stuff by James!.

[@jomamma4729]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy Cool. Maybe I'll check that stuff out.

[@kirkaur]

Thank you for this video!💜

[@stefan-rarescrisan5116]

wow wow wow super interesting. On my way on reading Kierkegaard

[@linuxforpunks]

This was brilliant thank you. I've watched three undergraduate-level introductory lectures on youtube on this topic, that all seemed to be saying Kierkegaard believes faith is "by virtue of the absurd", or that faith involves or is even validated by there being a departure from Hegelian rationality, without remarking on the pseudonymity. What gets me about his treatment of Abraham is that he doesn't mention Ishmael. Isn't the point that Abraham doesn't have faith when he should (Ishmael), and only has faith when he shouldn't (Isaac). After the fall, we are hard-wired to do wrong.

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Thanks! Your second paragraph is an interesting direction for interpreting Genesis. Not sure I agree, but not sure I want to take it up here; seems a bit off-topic. At any rate, I think I agree with what I think is the main point: that de Silentio does not carefully interpret all the important aspects of the Genesis narrative!

[@christopherlin4706]

i would instead argue that hegelian rationality points to a hegelian operation of the spirit that would commit one to have faith in the absurd in the sense that any action that is committed in such faith will manifest itself in a hegelian way by resolving the dialectic in the most logical way.

[@TheChosenJuan.]

Thanks

[@musicstewart9744]

What would John the silent make of Don the loudmouth Tangerine Tornado?

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Probably not much. But he's a clever guy, this John. He might have a nuanced analysis including some positive elements.

[@swiggsoclock]

This was really helpful. How then does a lay-person read Fear and Trembling without getting the wrong end of the stick? Would it be better for such a person to read some other work by SK?

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

But this one is such lovely literature! Really, I don't know. Maybe watch this video and then read it. Or read something else by SK. Or both.

[@swiggsoclock]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy SK might say "If you read it, you will regret it; if you do not read it, you will regret it... [etc]"

[@_VISION.]

How in the angst do you know Kierkegaard is a Lutheran?

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

From C. Stephen Evans.

[@rory8687]

This was an interesting video thank you. When reading Fear and Trembling I interpreted the absurdity of faith as slightly different and I’m wondering if you disagree with that interpretation. I will preface this by saying that I know very little about Hegel and I’m sure a lot of the book went over my head. My disagreement or misunderstanding is centred around the “absurd”. That is you argued that from a Hegelian stand point faith is absurd so one or the other must be wrong. However, it seemed to me that De Silentio admired faith in the sense that it took the leap beyond reason, not that it necessarily contradicted Hegelianism but that it was beyond it. To me the paradox of faith was an acknowledgment of the absurdity of constantly forging a relationship with the divine or infinite whilst being a finite being in a world of finitude where the divine is silent or seemingly indifferent, and then also the paradox of being able to embrace the infinite then return to the finitude and still fully care and appreciate it in comparison, i.e the knight of faith not wobbling when landing. That faith involves the process of infinite resignation of ones hopes, through the process of reason and the calculating of the probabilities of say that nerd getting the girlfriend, but then simultaneously fully believing in this idea of the girlfriend through, somewhat paradoxically ones understanding that one cannot possibly understand and know and thus that through the absurd that all is possible. So not that faith is itself absurd but rather the belief in the absurd and the knowledge that it is beyond knowledge. Hope that made sense and wasn’t too rambly, I hope to hear your thoughts

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Very good! Hard to say for sure, and let's not pretend that _I_ know Hegel particularly well. I would say, tentatively, just this: --De Silentio's idea of the absurdity of faith probably is better interpreted as focusing on what faith accepts rather than on the acceptance itself. I.e., it might be a rational move (rather than an absurd one) to believe something absurd. --In Hegel, nothing is allowed to be _beyond_ Hegelian reason. If faith believes in anything beyond it, then either Hegel or faith must be wrong.

[@profpaulrocklherisson109]

i LOVE THIS SESSION! Would you happen to have an instagram by any chance? Would love to speak to you even further on there.

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Thanks! No, never used Instagram; probably not going to. We could probably talk on Zoom, Skype, or WhatsApp. If you're interested in looking into that, or just conversing by email, you can reach me at PlatoAndAugustine [AT] gmail.com.

[@TheJus8402]

Is there an argument to be made that many who claim to moniker "Christian", especially in the United States today are "Christian Hegelianists", centering this idea on John the Silent's explanation of what true faith looks like?

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Yes. (Probably not the same sort of Hegelianism as Denmark in a different century. But overall--yes.)

[@HalTuberman]

I might be wrong, but I think a Hegelian can be a Christian and have Christian faith. And I think Matthew 20:1-16 explains exactly how. The parable explains that a servant of God needn't *only* serve God through some arrangement from the outset. Sure, God collects a core of followers this way. But then God goes around looking for other servants after gathering who he can for the first group. The first group of workers served God by agreement. A covenant, if you will. The second group agreed to any arrangement "so long as it is just." And the third group agreed to work for "whatever is offered"... because they hadn't been offered any work all day. A hegelian might not fit into group 1. But three kinds of people end up serving Christ, and I think group 2 and group 3 might contain a few Hegelians. Why not?

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

I don't know. But isn't that parable about the Jews and the Gentiles?

[@HalTuberman]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy I don't know either. Maybe it *is* about the Jews and Gentiles. If that's the case, I guess I have seriously misinterpreted it. But maybe it isn't?

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Isn't that the parable where you have to have the right wedding clothes to get in? What do you think are those wedding clothes?

[@HalTuberman]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy It's up to God to decide what wedding attire he permits, ins't it? I don't think any cosmic matter boils down to human (or Biblical) opinion. God is the final judge of things.

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Of course God is the final judge. Now what did God say He requires?

[@brianwilson2284]

Others seem to say the opposite - I'm thinking of Merold Westphal, who suggeststhat Kierkegaard is saying "yes, Abraham's faith was absurd! The wisdom of this world is foolishness (1Cor3:19)" and that Kierkegaard and John the Silent are of the same mind. Surely you both can't be correct? Either he is a Hegelian or he wasn't...?

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Kierkegaard a Hegelian? Perish the thought. Which source from Westphal do you have in mind? I tend to follow C. Stephen Evans who, as I recall, does disagree with Westphal on some things Kierkegaard. But in Evans' account (in his book _Faith Beyond Reason_ ), SK would say that Abraham's faith _is_ absurd _from the perspective of Hegelian reason_ . But reason can easily begin from a humbler perspective, and should.

[@brianwilson2284]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy Mainly going by this talk given by Westphal at Steubenville: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGTTgHZ4h5qirrs. I prefer yours and Evans' reading!

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Thanks on both points! I will open that video and _maybe_ find time to watch it. (Let's hope I'm following Evans properly!)

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Oh, one more thing before I forget again. Gee, if SK thinks Abraham is absurd and he agrees with Johannes, then shouldn't SK also think Abraham is a murderer? That doesn't seem right. EDIT: No, I wrote this too quickly last night. That may be a bad inference. I'd have to review Johannes before making a claim like that. Sorry!

[@brianwilson2284]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy If you have any thoughts on it, I'd love to hear them. Don't worry though, I know there's a thousand videos on my to-watch list...

[@Pepestock]

Would it be correct to say that Hegel's ideas were blasphemy? If God is the end point of all human reason and intellectual knowledge then couldn't God be shaped into damn near anything the human race wants, essentially making him, and therefore ethics, malleable for ones own political gain? Just want to clarify.

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Blasphemy? Sure, that sounds ok. But I don't think God's development is left up to our decisions in Hegel. (Maybe in William James.) There's too much inevitability in the emergence of Spirit.

[@Pepestock]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy Just when I think I understand something, philosophy kicks my ass again