Fear and Trembling - by Soren Kierkegaard

 

    A book about the Biblical story of Abraham and his intended sacrifice of his son Isaac, Kierkegaard reflects on how faith relates to ethics and how it ultimately transcends ethical standards.

    Throughout the book Kierkegaard establishes the classically existential idea of the absurd in relation to Abraham’s plight and reflects on how an absurd situation such as this cannot have a rational reaction. Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac because it is what Abraham values most in the world. Kierkegaard expounds on how deliberate and terrifying this must have been for Abraham while he made the trip to the top of the mountain with his son and asks the obvious question of “Could any of us make the same choices?”

    From what I understand, Kierkegaard viewed the story of Abraham as a blueprint for his relationship with God. He makes the point that God, forever loving and magnanimous, would reward anyone who would show their faith in him in sacrificing their most valuable possessions with not only his blessing but the blessing of allowing them to keep what was most precious to them and Kierkegaard applied this seriously to his own life, theoretically sacrificing what he valued most – the love he had for his one time fiance – in the hope that God would reward him with his blessing as well as the love he would sacrifice. Knowing this really changed the way I would have looked at a book like this, especially the section outlining Kierkegaard’s concept of the “Knight of Faith” who has absolute faith that God would reward for it.

    Overall, I really liked this book. I think Kierkegaard makes a very brief but valid argument against Kant’s whole Moral Imperative (more on that later) where he makes the point that, if, as Kant describes, an ethical maxim is held to the same standard of duty that a law would be, but only to ones self, that is not a genuine law for which you can hold yourself accountable for because its merely based on personal whim, rather than an authority that will hold you accountable for breaking it. He argues that only a being such as God, who is perfect and above and beyond any human being, can truly be the litmus test of an ethical maxim.

    His whole idea of sacrificing his love to God doesn’t add up though. If God is love, how can you sacrifice what is God to himself?

    If I have one gripe with the book – and Kierkegaard in general – its that I think he relies on God’s authority a bit too heavily. If the arguments made are really the Truth then they should be able to stand alone objectively, regardless of the authority behind them. Christs teachings are true regardless of who spouts them.