KIERKEGAARD: The Knight of Faith

[@Eternalised]

*The knight of faith delights in everything finite even while knowing the bliss of infinity.* Become a Patron (exclusive content): www.patreon.com/eternalised KZbin Member (exclusive content): kzbin.info/door/qos1tl0RntucGGtPXNxkkAjoin Official Merch: eternalised.creator-spring.com Donate a Coffee: ko-fi.com/eternalised Access transcript and artwork gallery eternalisedofficial.com/2021/10/08/kierkegaard-the-knight-of-faith Thanks to my Patrons: Anthony, Sofaking Dilly, Jeanette, Arthur, Mina, Spirit Gun, Hiraeth, john cochran, Unknown Unknown, Jay B, Reuben Markham, Evangelos Barakos, Wes, Paul Smart, satnamo, Mr X

[@tonibael]

I'm actually a scholar of Kierkegaard and this is the best representation of the knight of faith I have ever seen on KZbin. Well done. Keep up the good work

[@ThePsychic24]

Does the Knight of Faith remain open to the possibility that anything is possible? And in so receiving, he begets the impossible.

[@simeonkaser8302]

For me the part about the individual is very important. I remember that one quote got stuck in my head after reading him and I kept it till this day. I would translate it from German as following: "He who knows that being the 'only one' is the most terrifying, should not hesitate to call it also the greatest." - In his context being alone before god. Good Video, Kierkegaard is hard to read but worth it.

[@yakamen]

Fear and Trembling kicked my ass. GREAT READ. Head splitting, however. I'm very very limited in how much I can fit in the brain.

[@TSG_1997]

I can comfortably describe myself as a knight of faith, because without faith, I find myself unable to accept moving forward. Faith leads one to places unexpected and situations undesired, but brings forth opportunities with which to grow from, ultimately bringing one back to humility and forgiveness. This risk has great reward and often leaves one to think for himself and, with it, the freedom to make his own choices.

[@trippy6183]

He looks just like a tax collector.

[@seano6859]

Wait so you’re argument is “faith means a hell of a lot to me” so you must be a ‘knight of faith’? Isn’t the concept of a knight of faith, like inherently bashing that line of thinking? I thought the term referred to someone so selfless and divested of an ego that they literally only had room for god. Like your entire comment/thought is a pat on the back- isn’t tht like the opposite of someone divested of ego? If the emphasis is “i am this thing, because I believe this concept” haven’t you already completely given yourself over to ego and the “self”?

[@allshades7991]

Don’t think so much , just do what you want to, by taking risk.

[@Cash-Chris-]

@@seano6859 right, like if one says he's enlighten, then he's not enlighten

[@idiramara1]

​@@seano6859 Dont read too much KZbin comments, its always clueless people that seek to comfort themselves

[@MG-bc1ng]

11:14 “If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?”

[@Soothsayer937]

And I posit that in an increasingly secular world, empty of ethicity and responsibility to others, we find ourselves mired in growing despair and apathy. A world in which the majority feigns ignorance of the root of the despair in order to justify selfishness.

[@normanclatcher]

...so, welcome back to _Danganronpa._

[@Deveritasmagia]

Kierkegaard is no easy read. But he is a master at expressing the human condition. The paradox of faith is being insignificant finite beings in a relation with the infinite figure of God (the Absurd). The particularly crucial point in the video is 8:25 the knight of faith moves from finitude to infinite and back again to finitude. I.e., faith is really about loving this life and appreciating it with one's relationship with God, through movements of infinity that are invisible to the human eye. Marvelous analogy of the ballet dancer, it is my favourite part of the book.

[@satnamo]

De knight of faith is a dancer with high elevation.

[@ChrisBazemore-b2g]

The joy of knowing that we have in our midst fear and trembling to assist us in our liberation and greater understanding of Faith gives hope to the universe, big blessings and return upon all who listen to this reading.

[@bigbosssauce7]

Kierkegaard is changing my life. Thank you so much for the video

[@pushkarratnaparkhi2205]

I hope this channel grows more and more !!!

[@satnamo]

Me too

[@huyenvo1827]

Kierkegaard is my knight of faith!!

[@Davlavi]

This channel deserves way more views. Keep up the great videos.🙏

[@satnamo]

Without faith Love cannot survive. Without love There is no joy. Without joy There is no creation. Without creation There is nothing. Therefore, faith is the original force that creates das universe; That is to say: Without faith There is no big bang.

[@adinesh7989]

Hi. Thanks for regular uploads. I very much like your content.

[@satnamo]

Me too

[@DefaultDerrick]

This man was inspired.

[@Iei.a]

How fascinating and coincidental. I was reading Clare Carlisle's biography of Kierkegaard earlier today when the Knight of Faith was introduced to me. painfully ascending Mount Moriah to endure suffering, but later returning to the world, knowing he was true to his faith, to live in the bliss of finitude and everyday preoccupations

[@WilliamDoyle-rb6lt]

It is interesting that one of the comments mentions Dante and Beatrice. I am fascinated by Dantes eternal true love of Beatrice. It is the most beautiful theme in Western thought.

[@theromanceofmetaphysics]

~Intent, Sword, Shield, Faith, Shield, Sword, Intent~ The Knight of Faith~

[@edmonddantes563]

Excellent video 🙏

[@Sid_Streams]

The part where he talkshows about sacrificing your son for the state, is literally Manlius Torquatus. Also the moment from finitude to infinity and back again is also a mystic concept as a journey through God and back. Just as the knight of resignation transposes all his desires into one finite being, just so Dante puts everything into Beatrice.

[@satnamo]

The knight of faith is easily recognized for his gate is dancing and bold.

[@Soothsayer937]

Gait.

[@TheCyberianWonder]

When Abraham offered up his son, Isaac was in agreement. He could have faught his father off, but instead he, knowing he a child of providence, had full faith in the contradiction of being of a father of a great nation that is dead before he could have any children. Like father, like son, Isaac was a knight of faith equal to his father Abraham.

[@ravidre]

Good work sir!

[@satnamo]

De knight of faith is a dancer with high elevation. 5555+feet beyond man and time, I live and grow against das world And harvest what they cannot take from me with sword and fire. 1 must have chaos in himself to give birth to a dancing star. What is a star ? What is love ? What is longing ? Das last man blinks And then touches a button. De essence of technology is to make anything and everything ready-to-order @1touch(button)

[@TheDoctor1225]

It's worth nothing (and I don't think was expressed here) that since God had promised that Abraham would be the father of a nation and that the nation would come specifically through Isaac, it is believed (and logically so) that Abraham knew God would have to somehow fulfill that promise, most likely either (a) saving Isaac divinely or (b) bringing him back from the dead. The point of the story is not that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (I don't agree with the continual use of the word "murder" as a contrast, but hey, it's his story that he's telling) but that Abraham's faith was strong enough that he believed God's promises to him and knew that somehow they would fulfilled and so had the strength of faith to do what God commanded, even though it would be almost inconceivable to us. It also foreshadowed God's willingness to sacrifice His only begotten Son on the cross as the payment for all of mankind's sin and to open the way of salvation. While I understand where Kierkegaard was coming from, I would also submit that it comes from an incomplete or cherry picked reading of and understanding of Scripture as a whole. It was precisely Abraham's faith that was the point of the story, as well as God's faithfulness in His promises. (Romans 4:9 speaks of Abraham's faith)

[@isso09]

Great Stuff❤

[@angelus_solus]

I find it utterly hilarious that he was unable to define faith, since the very definition is contained in scripture. "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." Hebrews 11: 1 By the way, Abraham was not required to kill his son, or he wouldn't have been prevented from carrying it out. It was a test of loyalty and a foreshadowing of what God himself would face with the sacrificial death of his own firstborn, no matter how cruel it seems to have been in human terms.

[@pepijnstreng4643]

Abraham was not required to sacrifice Isaac indeed, and Kierkegaard even imagines various scenarios in which he doesn't (such as one where at the last moment he decides to sacrifice himself instead). However, Kierkegaard's thesis in fear and trembling is exactly the kind of faith that made Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac, so if Abraham hadn't sacrificed Isaac, Kierkegaard just wouldn't have written the book.

[@angelus_solus]

@@pepijnstreng4643 I was expecting ridicule, not actual logic. I'm both impressed and relieved. One thing I do have to say is Isaac was never actually sacrificed. He came close though.

[@jameswilson9349]

Mastema the fallen angel tried to trick Abraham into sacrificing Issac (see the passage regarding Abraham chasing away the unclean birds from the carcass, this is what remains of the originally story). God intervened to provide the ram in the thicket, He did not set the attempted human sacrifice in motion. The “it’s a foreshadowing of God’s sacrifice of Christ later on” is incorrect. The Jewish God doesn’t want human sacrifice. The Christian God doesn’t want human sacrifice. Please see The Book of Jubilees for more information. God bless.

[@angelus_solus]

@@jameswilson9349 Oh, then I guess Moses deliberately lied then, and Jehovah had such a lie included in his Word? "Now after this the true God put Abraham to the test..." (Genesis 22: 1) It was no demon, as this uninspired piece of apocrypha says, and there were no birds involved in this account at all. That was in an event that took place *long* before Isaac was even *conceived* . You can't even get your own story straight! You don't even know anything about the Bible in general with this lunacy of saying there was a Hebrew god AND a Christian god. They worshipped the same god! That right there discredits anything you have to say, on top of the fact that you're trying to use apocrypha as your source material. If a demon had wanted to get Abraham to sacrifice his son, it would have been to sever the line leading up to Jesus, who did sacrifice his life by the way, and Jehovah would have never allowed that demon to even *speak* such a thing to Abraham. If he was following the voice of some demon, then it would have never been counted to Abraham as an act of faith. "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac-the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son-" (Hebrews 11: 17) Again, Abraham was being tested, *by Jehovah no less* . Besides all of that, what was Abraham told after the angel stopped him? "And Jehovah’s angel called to Abraham a second time from the heavens, 16 saying: “‘By myself I swear,’ declares Jehovah, ‘that because you have done this and you have not withheld your son, your only one, 17 I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand on the seashore, and your offspring will take possession of the gate of his enemies. 18 And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’” (Genesis 22: 15-18) That "offspring", by the way, was Christ himself. This only reinforces the fact that it was no demon that told Abraham to sacrifice his son. In fact, the marginal reference for this "offspring" in verse 17 points directly to Daniel 2: 44 where it says "“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever," That is how the enthroned Jesus will fulfill prophecy and "take possession of the gate of his enemies." Yes, Abraham's metaphorical sacrifice of Isaac indeed foreshadowed Jehovah sacrificing his own son, as a ransom to cancel out the sin of Adam and provide human kind with an opportunity for eternal life later on...as was the original plan before Adam and Eve decided to follow Satan as their ruler. After all it is written: "And God loved the world so much that he sent his only begotten son..." (John 3: 16) Why? "...to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10: 45) Jehovah sent his son to be sacrificed, which is exactly what all the animal sacrifices were taking the place of. "For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works so that we may render sacred service to the living God?" (Hebrews 9: 13,14) Jeus was sent "in order to offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people," as said in Hebrews 2: 17. You are wrong. Your misguided ignorance amuses me greatly. That is all I have to say to you. (edited formatting)

[@maninthecosmos5379]

@@angelus_solus Can you explain me what was the necessity exactly of the God of Abraham to test his loyalty ? And is this the kind of faith he demands of his followers ?

[@reniaesaddler8632]

Abraham knew God truly and was known by God, so he was willing to sacrifice his only son because he believed Isaac would be returned to him eventually, that life really is eternal and death is not the end but the beginning of new life. This is the promise of God, and getting to know God will assure you that he is good, only good, and what is good is eternal and does not take but gives.

[@Galvvy]

Sending that message does not require murder. Any faith founded by murder is a lie and more grounded in the work of a devil than any idea of a God. Just look at all the Abrahamic religions kill counts, it's the same as their "heathen" counterparts in terms of violence and evil.

[@oofydoom]

Amen.

[@ayda2876]

10:53 why would he do that ? LOL

[@alexgregory7851]

Isn't it obvious?

[@theman4426]

did anyone get that

[@rgaleny]

WE NEED THE UNIVERSAL. THERE IS A NEED FOR STANDARDS AND PRACTICES. GOD IS THE UNIVERSAL MIND AND THE GREAT SOUL OF WHICH WE ARE ALL A PART SYMBOLIZED BY THE HEART. ALSO, WE NEED THE INDIVIDUAL. THE MIND IS THE SYMBOL OF THE INDIVIDUAL. WE DIFFER BY HABITS AND BY OUR ETHOS. AND AS SPECIALISMS WE CONTRIBUTE TO THE GREATER GOOD. THRE CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH DOCTORS. AND THERE CAN NEVER BE EOUGH PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. YET, BOTH SIDES HAVE GOOD AND BAD ASPECTS THE UNIVERSAL CREATED MEANING IN UNITY BUY POISONS IN TOTALTARIANISM, THE WAY OF THE ONE CREATES LIBERTY AND SELF RELIANCE, BUT ALSO SELFISHNESS AND AGAIN TOTALITARIANSIM. HITLER WANTED A UNIVERSAL WITH HIMSELF AS THE GOD HEAD. STALIN WANTED POWER FOR HIMSELF AND KILLED EVVERYONE IN HIS WAY. WE MUST LEAN TOWARDS THE GOOD. AND ACCEPT THE PARADOX THAT BOTH ARE TRUE

[@randomarchive1671]

We need the universal, and you need to turn caps off

[@karvn1148]

gore, gard, or gart? (Pronunciation)

[@ephemera5714]

It's gore

[@MJ-do8fg]

gård

[@Ubermensch9240]

Why is the Ubermensch so much easier to understand than this?

[@saintguiltyofcalifornia2386]

this is impossible for me to understand

[@alexgregory7851]

Faith is subjectivity in relation to God, where Reason looks for knowledge by what is. Faith goes beyond knowledge and trusts in what is unseen, what one couldn't possibly understand. This is why Abraham could go beyond reason by reasoning that God could do the impossible, which reason cannot explain. Faith explains the unseen and reason explains the observable. This is why it is impossible to distinguish the knight of faith from other people. Faith is related to inwardness and is paradoxical and absurd. To believe that something that has never happened will happen takes a huge leap of faith to believe fully and the belief isn't derived by what is observed but by what one can't describe. "11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1. Kierkegaard isn't just writing a philosophy based off his personal beliefs but by what the bible describes humans experiencing. He's showing the bible describes the human experience best where philosophy tends to make the human experience too abstract or conceptual. Personal faith then seems to go beyond human reasoning

[@navis5284]

this was presented without the heart of Kierkegaard, that's for sure.

[@jamesrella763]

Issac not eye sac

[@Kleiner83]

But Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his son Ishmael and not Isac.

[@johannbogason1662]

Is there a maiden of faith? Or a farmer of faith? What does "knight" stand for? A fighter? Sheesh

[@mjolninja9358]

The knight of sheesh

[@Deveritasmagia]

I believe he refers to the chivalry, "the medieval knight with its religious, moral and social code". He specifies in the chapter that it is not exclusive to man, there are female knights (knightess), but historically it has been man that was concerned with knighthood. He uses it metaphorically not as a fighter in the common sense, but perhaps as wrestling with God, with the spiritual, with the inner realm.

[@johannbogason1662]

@@Deveritasmagia Maybe it is some leap of faith in shiny armor...

[@Soothsayer937]

Knights leave home to go on quests or adventures. They don't have the duties yet of a king.

[@yakamen]

This is wrong. I know you have to squeeze it into a 12 minute video. But it can be done in 1 paragraph. And could have been done correctly. Here goes: Abraham BEGAN as the knight of faith. Because what he is asked to do is absurd and seems to violate the modern ethics. Kierk. is establishing the teleological obligation to ethics. But Abraham in FAITHFULLY obeying an absurd command from God (sacrifice his only son whom was a miracle Isaac) established the one-to-one correspondence with the Divine (the Covenant). Hence, Abraham's faith in the absurd established man's covenant to the divine --- and man's obligation to live ethically. Because taken by itself, Abraham's conviction would be taken as insane in any criminal court, such that he would murder a child. But Abraham's faith by the time he begot Isaac made him obey God, from Whom the Commandments originated (and subsequently the Law). So Abraham was NEVER a knight of resignation. The knight of resignation is one who would murder Isaac, but did not trust in God. Abraham showed he WOULD obey the order BECAUSE he trusted in God. Hence, Faith is the belief in the Absurd. Hence, the LEAP of faith is required: you need this to believe in Miracle for instance. Or you'd explain everything with Science. The absurdity is a lynch-pin of Kierkegaard's definition of faith AND it's biggest weakness -- after all, there's a limit to how much bullshit someone should swallow in pursuing religion.

[@raskolnikovman936]

I think Kierkegaard (or Johannes) would heavily disagree. I mean, the whole point of the book is to see that faith is not a beginning but an end. It is a critique of Hegel's System and Absolute Mind, which was the norm back then, that faith is just part of the system and needs to be overcome, Kierkegaard says that you can't go further than Faith. Starting as a knight of faith is impossible without resignation. Abraham starts just as any religious person. He asks God for a son and his wish is granted. God later tests him and tells him to sacrifice his son. He accepts and becomes a knight of infinite resignation (first movement). As he's about to sacrifice Isaac, God points him to a ram - here is where the movement of faith is made, here is where he becomes a knight of faith. The movement of faith is the byproduct of him obeying God to the end, which is why he's known as the father of faith. He becomes a knight of faith only then. Unlike the knight of infinite resignation, he receives everything he lost back in full.

[@yakamen]

@@raskolnikovman936 All correct but for that Isaac was gifted to him in he and his wife's old age. It was a miracle in itself when Abe was already long into Faith. He was not resigned about the sacrifice. His belief was in fulfilling the absurd.

[@raskolnikovman936]

@@yakamen Well I see your point. But from my reading at least, Kierkegaard believes faith requires infinite resignation beforehand. Part of his extreme views on the spheres of existence, it's an either/or: ethical marriage or religious belief in God. Kierkegaard later held different views on faith. While he sacrificed his relation with Regina Olsen (which he later regretted), he did it to pursue his career of writing and becoming an author, in order to ultimately lead people into the religious sphere of existence with all of his pseudonyms. The goal, I think, is that he found meaning in life through God and wanted other individuals to do the same. I guess he could be a knight of infinite resignation (giving up Regine) rather than a knight of faith. He wasn't a particularly happy fellow and remained in great suffering until his death.

[@yakamen]

@@raskolnikovman936 No, you're absolutely right. He was VERY pro-faith. Something to consider is his pen-name in F&T Johannes de Silentio. I learned in one of my classes that this harkened to the old apologist days when the author wrote one thing with irony to indicate hidden meaning. He was in fact playing with the Logos/Ethos/Pathos of the classic form, i.e. "listen to me" vs "don't listen to me" poking at the Absurdity of faith. He isn't saying Faith is Absurd. He believes QUITE the opposite -- he thinks it's crucial. He's saying the capacity to be faithful to God is itself Absurd. Like, if you aren't willing to gamble in a Leap of Faith, you're gambling with whether Hell is real, anyway, like Pascal's wager. So he's poking at the Logos of the Knight of Resignation to outline the Ethos and Pathos of the Knight of Faith. He's saying the Knight of Faith is ABSURD -- but he is correct in being so, due to the nature of the Leap of Faith. It's been 10 years since I've read Fear & Trembling. I do believe - keyword BELIEVE - that he never meant for Abraham to have been resigned at *any point. This would have been counter to his thesis. He's setting up antithesis to knock down when he's pointing at any knight of resignation: it takes Intellect to be reserved. Like, PROBABLY God has a plan so I might as well kill Isaac, and see what he means. Vs. God is just, I know nothing, but I shall obey. HOW ABSURD! I love this book. It kicked my ass reading it. Anyway, I'm some random asshole on the internet. The hell do I know? I'm probably wrong. Don't trust me!!

[@zachd4693]

@@yakamen Abraham was resigned about the sacrifice (the first movement, becoming a knight of infinite resignation) but then he went further by making the second movement where he believed by virtue of the absurd that he would receive Isaac back: "Abraham makes two movements. He makes the infinite movement of resignation and gives up Isaac, which no one can understand because it is a private venture; but next, at every moment, he makes the movement of faith. This is his consolation. In other words, he is saying: But it [the sacrifice] will not happen, or if it does, the Lord will give me a new Isaac, that is, by virtue of the absurd" (FT 115, Hong translation).

[@Looneybin]

I didn't even listen to this whole thing for two reasons. First of all, the reason that Abraham was tested like this was it was a shattering of the death of Christ. Secondly, why is he holding a baby? Isaac would have been in his 30s!

[@ouch000u]

19:30 Holy Qur'an قَالَ إِنِّى عَبْدُ ٱللَّهِ ءَاتَىٰنِىَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَجَعَلَنِى نَبِيًّۭا ٣٠ [Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allāh. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.

[@Looneybin]

To call Christ a prophet ONLY is to ignore that He said that He was God incarnate. No other prophet did this, so either He was correct, or he was a heretic. His rising from the grave proves that He was correct. @@ouch000u

[@Looneybin]

(Also, Issac would have been an adult)@@ouch000u

[@sohu86x]

How anyone can listen to this gibberish is amazing to me. Abraham is a mythical person. Kierkegaard is writing about faith based on the experiences of a non-existent person. He may as well write about faith from Hamlet.

[@flyingscotsman6835]

Did you not listen to the video? When you approach it from the ethical of course it seems horrible but then you read it from the religious perspective and the knight of faith appears