Gotcha. The story has a lot to teach us about ourselves. But the fact remains that it is found in a book written for religious instruction rather than a different book. Abraham was held up as an example of a godly man in the NT. While most of us are smart enough not to show such "faith" even if we pay lip service to it, there still exist people (such as the woman you mentioned who drowned her children) who draw a horrible lesson from it. I could enjoy it from a secular source, but not the bible.
@AQGOAT24 It depends how familiar you are with philosophy in general. If you think you can tackle original material, Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" and "Sickness Unto Death" are very good, as is Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and "Ecce Homo." Sartre's "No Exit" and "Existentialism is a Humanism" are probably his best, IMO. There's a great course by the Teaching Company on Existentialism, which I highly recommend.
Kierkegaard is probably my favorite philosopher. A lot of other Christians who are bent on objectively defining their faith would be very liberated by his Concluding Unscientific Postscript, IMHO.
@2010ksaul Yeah, Nietzsche had syphilis, which made the last 10 years of his work VERY interesting indeed. And yeah, he was famous for saying "God is Dead", but there's a lot more to him than just that.
@2010ksaul First off, and I'm sorry to be so pedantic about this, but that's not what 'beg the question' means. That phrase refers to a logical fallacy. You mean to say 'it leads to the question.'
And to that question, it's a very good one. Thankfully, atheist thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre have given very good answers, far more thoroughly and articulately than I could. In short, we must find our own salvation.
I think I see what you're saying; in a sense, all of us must be like Abraham by acting according to our notions of morality, purpose, and a bright future, even though we may have doubts about those notions. The difference here is that we have much better reasons to have faith in these notions than in the one that God will bring goodness out of filicide.
I might be too cynical but even when I hear you talk about Abraham with the attempt to portray it as a non self serving act, you make him sound like the kind of smug religious ego maniac who'd jerk off over the suffering his god blesses him with. He's satisfies with the knowledge it makes him special and gives him the attention he craves. Yes sacrifice another child! Oh the suffering god puts me though, indeed I am blessed :P All hail me :)
@MrNevertime "He's satisfies with the knowledge..."
Actually, Kierkegaard's Abraham doesn't know. That's really what makes it so courageous--he could be wrong, maybe he's crazy, maybe there is no God. He acts in the face of uncertainty, he has his doubts, but his commitment empowers him to act anyway. It is a metaphor for all of our lives--we can't really know whether or not our lives matter in any cosmic sense, but we have to live them anyway. So I'd have to disagree with your reading.
A very good example of how just because you don't like the intended message of a story, a song, a book, a poem, a movie or a religious tenant doesn't necessarily mean that it is worthless to you intellectually.
Hmmm..... not sure I agree... but definitely an interesting interpretation.... I'll definitely think about this some more. I'm almost completely certain (whatever that means) that this was not remotely what the authors of the story intended, but that shouldn't prevent us from finding meaning for ourselves in it. ;) Anywho, thanks for pointing me toward Kierkegaard! Also..... loved the Opeth at the end. =^)
I never felt like my life ought to be important to anybody or anything except for myself and the people around me. I don't really want to commit to anything 'higher' than myself to be honest.
Why must something require courage to be viewed as something good or valuable. I don't think you require faith to get that commitment. You can love completely knowing that you may, probably, will be disappointed. I don't think the knowledge should deter just like the knowledge that I will die someday doesn't deter.
There is absolutely no text in Genesis to give any support to the idea or concept that it is a metaphor for anything and I would prefer their to be citations to such bold claims. The idea that the individuals who put together the Bible put this story in it as such is ludicrous. I applaud your erudite construction of your argument but I reject your conclusions completely.
Sorry, but I just reread Genesis 22 (KJV), and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Abraham is wracked with doubt, or that he is horrified by the prospect of killing his son, or that he loves him very much. Abraham is about as emotive as the Terminator.
Adding to the text to make it say something which it doesn't, and then kind of criticizing others for missing this is kind of silly.
@TheCrappyPhilosopher I didn't mean to criticize him. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't saying this is the 'right' interpretation, but rather an alternate interpretation. It's not in the text, but it is compatible with it.
@TheCrappyPhilosopher Problem with your argument is that the Bible doesn't say anything about his feelings. There is not enough detail to say what was the concrete attitude. However, based on how Father's feel toward Sons etc, Kierkegaard's interpretation is quite valid.
I could agree with the gist of your talk, but what makes you think the Abraham and Isaac story is 4 ky old? As far as I'm concerned, everything in the Bible is myth until the Omride dynasty, for which we do have evidence.
I may be biased in the favour of Kierkegaard, him being a countryman of mine, but I truly consider his take on Christianity to be that that of the honest religious mind. Christianity to him is not a communal, social enterprise. It's a deeply personal, existential axiom on which your existence is based, anything less is not being Christian.
That said, Kierkegaard essentially rewrites the tale of Abraham and Isaac to tell a completely different story but I appreciate his sentiment.
This is a very preachy video, but I agree with every word. What struck me when reading the story is that Abraham apparently knows he is doing something wrong - he lies to his fellows. Also, the long journey is emphasised so much that you can indeed feel the dread that Abraham must feel.
However, I disagree that Abraham's conflict follows from love for his son. I think it's more about the firstborn son symbolizing his own identity and survival.
I have the King James Version, and there is NO. NO mention of Abraham's inner life. That story is not at all long enough to have themes. God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, they leave the next day, Abraham does everything exactly as ordered. There is nothing about him struggling. Whether you imagine him to be wracked with doubt or blindly following, that's a reflection of your experience and nothing you got from the text. The text is psychologically barren.
No, I read Kierkegaard, but not the bible. Seriously?
"The text is psychologically barren."
Which leaves it open to interpretation. It's called hermeneutics. All texts are open to a variety of interpretation. Hence my point about NOT claiming Kierkegaard's interpretation is 'right' but rather just that it's a different way of reading the story.
@SisyphusRedeemed I'll be the first to admit that I'm absolutely no scholar, but I can't help finding Kierkegaard's (as I hear it from you, here) to be a vastly over-charitable reading. I really can't see where that interpretation finds standing room.
I know it's quite dramatic to ask if you've even read Genesis...I felt it expressed how thoroughly taken aback I am at your viewpoint on Chapter 22.
I will certainly have to read "Fear and Trembling." I definitely do appreciate this vid!
thou i have to disagree with you. we dont have to do leap of faith in order to comit our self. we only need to step foward without bias and without faith, and see if something happens. dont do jump of faith, wait and see. and then start jugging.
hmmm. intresting. the story of abraham is kinda of like my story. i was troubeld by doud and in the end i decided to not to do what was considerd a virtue. i wanted to know little more about the world, bechose it its not only my life in the line when i do jump of faith, its allso other people. i find that atheist have the most intreting interpitations about religius stories of all religions. aronras interpitation of the genesis was intresting.
Just wanted to add to my previous comment: Deciding to not kill Isaac was the right thing to do, as you admit. But my point is that even the decision to not kill Isaac involved a leap of faith. Abraham would have committed himself to the belief that the command could not have been morally justified, which, given his position, he could never be certain about. This would have entailed giving up any security that may have come from believing that he was communicating with a morally good deity.
Excellent analysis. However, your description of Abraham's alternative is unfair. He could not have been certain that he was in the right to not kill his son since even this belief involved a leap to faith. After all, Abraham did not know the source of the command. It may really have been God commanding him and He may have had good reasons to ask such a thing. Choosing to not fulfill the supernatural command was itself a leap: a leap to the faith that it could never be right to do such a thing.
@orionnamaste hmmm. true. but when we have no evidence to nither then let us demand a reason to do so. bechose he was about to do something, unreversible. so lets us not jump to conclusions and demand little more evidence. let us not have jump of faith. we dont have to commit our self to anything, we shuld only be loyal to something as long as it loyal to us. meaning, when something does not work, stop using it.
I'm about to get my Bachelors in Philosophy and Religious Studies. Although I enjoy most of your videos I'm definitely not with you on this one man.
The Story of Abraham is about absolute obedience. Even in the face of your own autonomy and convictions. I always thought Soren tortured the story to fit his preconception of a "knight of Faith"...regardless of whether he did it or not, Psychologically Abraham did murder his son, he raised up the knife, and he did it because God said so.
@CrapnellGates I don't understand the need to use this barbaric piece of shit written by sexist, egotistical, and primitive Nomads in the desert in order to solidify a good concept of Existential philosophy.
Nietzsche was influenced by Fear and Trembling, but never agreed that Faith was a good thing or that Slave morality as displayed by Abraham was anything but a monstrosity and a weakness of mankind.
And because of Soren's anti-cultural-Christian tendencies. Whatever that means.
My interepretation is different again. "God" to me, means truth and logic. And one requires faith in truth and logic, even though one is certain of their truth, since the ego hates truth and logic. So the "doubt" is the fight that goes on between the delusions of the ego, and the truth.
In "In God we doubt" by John Humphrys Andrew Sachs (the chief Rabbi in the UK) argues that the story of Abraham and Isaac has a fundamentally different meaning. God commands the sacrifice of Abraham's son not as a test but a lesson. Child sacrifice was commonplace at the time and so it was something Abraham would find unsurprising. When he reaches the appointed place he is stopped by God who shows him that "he isn't that kind of god". I'd be interested in others view on that persepctive.
I would say that this is as close to the consensus view amongst Biblical scholars and Theological exegetes as one might hope to find. It is refreshing to find a comment that reflects a synthesis of a religious perspective and modern cultural commentator.
@Origen305 Thanks! I was definitely not taught that view at school (about twenty years ago). Are you able to say how long this interpretation has been around? It may be an unfair question. If so sorry.
I cannot, you would need to ask a Jewish scholar, however the earliest X Exegetes developed a similar interpretation from the beginnings of the early Church. I'm unclear of Islam's stance, though its celebration is the reason one of the two central holy holidays in Islam, Eid Al-Adha, though I'm not qualified to discuss the finer points of Islamic understanding of this event.
I would say that this is as close to the consensus view amongst Biblical scholars and Theological exegetes as one might hope to find. It is refreshing to find a comment that reflects a synthesis of a religious perspective and modern cultural commentator.
@jamesrands Well, that's one legitimate way to read the story. Its not the only one. If you wanted to argue that this was the purpose the story was used for at the time it was created, you would want to double check on the dating of the Jepthah story. Jepthah ritually murders his daughter and burns her corpse as a blood sacrifice to the Old Testament God. If that was written before the Jacob story was written, it could at least correlate Sachs' theory. Has anyone tried researching this?
@Cadfan17 Interesting! I'm not trying to argue that the Rabbi is right or wrong. I have no idea which story would have been in circulation first. I'm sure lots of Christians and Jews will claim that the books were written in the order they are currently found but that would be naive. I don't know if anyone can give a reasonably definitive answer to which came first. Does anyone out there?
@jamesrands It's interesting that K. re-writes the story 5 times with different psychological results to the characters involved, including: Issa'cs faith being reinforced by the debacle, Isaac losing his faith, Abraham losing all faith and descending into depression, and Abraham having the actual motivation for the act.
He concludes with some serious doubts as to how Abraham could be conceived to be any kind of a hero, whether tragically or aesthetically.
Actually, it was the angel who stopped him, not god. That is one one of several reasons I see the point made by those who suggest that the story originally had him sacrifice the ram in place of his son, without the intervention. Try rereading it but skip vs 11-12 and 15-18 and see if it doesn't make much more sense. (Especially when we're talking about the guy who just debated god over destroying Sodom for sake of the righteous just a few pages prior.)
@PraktikoolSinik Yep. Unless he supposed to have learned some not quite explained lesson from the destruction of Sodom, he's failure to argue with God on this occassion doesn't really make any sense at all. It is curious that it is God himself who tells Abraham to kill his son but an angel who tells him to stop. An angelic rebellion against his unreasonable demands perhaps?
I have just reread the story of Abraham and Isaac and I can't see any reference to doubt at all. Given his prior relationship with god doubt of god's authority seems ridiculous. Doubt of God's moral judgement is viable (as when Abraham argues with God against the destruction of Sodom a little earlier) but there is nothing in the story to support Abraham doubting God's command in this instance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You come across as pompous and egotistical. Your holier-than-thou attitude is irritating. To me, someone who uses big words when smaller words are more appropriate is just trying to appear as an intellectual.
@killercraigaaaw To me, someone who thinks smaller words are more appropriate when big words are more evocative, descriptive and poetic is a simple minded, logophobic anti-intellectual.
@SisyphusRedeemed But I think his point is reasonable. For instance, there is a profound irony in the phenomenon of so many people calling Kierkegaard "the father of existentialism", like the bringer of a revolutionary system of thinking for others to ape. Anyone who had really understood him, would have seen he wanted to destroy all such secondhand mimicry, and academic obtuseness.
Oh my god you sound like an ass. First, none of that crap is in the story, its been read in. Second, its not "dogmatic" or "blind" or "judgmental" to read a story in the way that its presented to you. Many readings, including that one, are valid. Third, AT BEST you can criticize C for seeming to assume that authorial intent is intrinsic to the text... but in spite of your early disclaimers you present your reading as intrinsic to the text so you don't get to talk.
I have every book I could buy of Kierkegaard from every Borders and Barnes and Noble. He was my first foray into existentialism, and by reading him I discovered how ancient hermeneutics work, and finally got baptized and am a very peaceful, happy Christian. Faith now feels mature, understandable, existential. Nietzche and Camus all helped me respect atheism, Kierkegaard (and Wittgenstein) gave me certainty to be Christian. I could never feel so peaceful. :)
@Audiofalcon7 "If Christianity is to proclaimed as it essentially is in the gospels, proclaimed as and being: imitation, sheer suffering, misery and wailing, sharpened by a background of judgment where every word must be accounted for — then it is fearful suffering, anxiety, quaking, and trembling. Quite right. But where in the gospels does it actually say that God intends this earthly life to be anything else? What human nature constantly seeks, however, is — tranquillity —
Thanks for another awesome video, Sisyphus. I especially enjoyed the message about doubt--as a utilitarian, I've often wondered if my very existence actually has a negative affect on overall utility. I guess I need to respond to that doubt with the commitment to make a positive difference in the world.
...Abraham was "wracked with doubt", was "horrified by the thought of killing..." his son, spent three days "wrestling with that fear, the uncertainty, the horrible painful doubt deep in his heart", and did "not simply accepted blindly, thoughtlessly, without question god's command".
This is a *huge* embellishment not at all supported by the text. The point wasn't to show courage, overcome fear, or take a leap of faith either. He passed the test and was rewarded for proving his *fear* of god.
You state that this interpretation is a huge embellishment of the text. Have you thought that yours might be a 'huge' simplification of the text? Have you studied the text as Sisyphus has? Have you brought to bear the tools of alllegorical interpretation, contextualisation, philology and the multiple authorship? And that the text was not written for a post-modern audience? Have you considered the exegetical history or hermeneutics involved?
Have you considered the various interpretations within Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The pentateuch is not a historical account. Its authors span the centuries, it is heavily redacted, added to and comes down to the modern versions of the Bible from a mixture of Greek, Latin, and European languages from its Semitic Hebrew originally written with no vowels.
You are of course free to render any interpretation you want, but it is divergent from Academic Theological consensus.
@PraktikoolSinik Why do you tacitly assume Abraham was not human? The thing is, and this is the problem of many Christians and atheists - ancient Jewish culture and ancient Christianity never saw texts in grammatical-historical hermeneutic. They saw their holy writings with theological hermeneutic - how can we look at this text for it to matter TODAY, RIGHT NOW, in MY life. Who cares about the historical-grammatical interpretation? Reflect on it on eyes pertaining to your existence - it matters.
@PraktikoolSinik i agree. but i find that this guy puts little human feeling in this storie. i think it might gives us insight to the mind of beliver. how the people are not just drones. they are really strugeling with this irational system of belive that demands them to obey even when it is the wrong thing to do.
"The story of Abraham is a metaphor for that existential decision." But is that how the story was intended to be taken? I think not. I agree that the story makes for great allegory, but I think you (and Kierkegaard are reading more into the story than was originally intended. Ironically, Christianity warns specifically against doing this, so it might be mostly atheists that can appreciate the story on this level. Thought provoking as usual Sisyphus!
It seems to me that there might be certain ecclesiastical objections to personal exegesis which are more problematic if attributing to the multifarious denominations of Christianity qua Christian scholarship.
I am sorry but I can only repeat what I commented under C0ns video
Abraham failed the challenge, if somebody, even a god, if I would believe in him, would come to me and tell me "Sacrifice your child" I would tell him "No, fuck you. You can have my life but you won't touch my child"
If you still believe that the god of the bible is good you can add "The god I worship would never ask such a thing"
@RazielKain What if ... You yourself decided to sacrifice your own child? For instance, there are many cases where this would be regarded as ethical.
E.g. you are a teacher looking after several children on a three-day mountaineering expedition. Your child becomes ill, in a sudden blizzard, so you leave the group in the hands of the ablest child, while you carry your kid to civilisation. But conditions worsen, you're hypothermic, so you must abandon your child. Ethical?
@RazielKain It's clear to me that any rational definition of God cannot be of a being with finite forms or character, like "personality", "mercy", "wrathful judgment", "omnipotence" or other predicates. Therefore, what most Christians foolishly represent God as, can't be considered in the story of Abraham's faith.
Kierkegaard didn't swallow the Bible whole, like a credulous idiot. He criticised and rejected aspects of it, like anything he turned his thought to. Don't take the thing literally.
@KellyJones00 That .... what? How is that relevant? Okay let's say god is not omnipotent, how is that relevant? There still is no reason for sacrificing his child
@RazielKain Sorry, I'll break it down. Kierkegaard's meaning of God is not the same one most Christians believe in. It's at the other extreme: not human, not finite, not having any psychological attributes, not even "cold and remote like the starry sky".
That conception of God is literally: Reality.
To be a knight of faith is to stop constructing things to worship, renounce loves, and "see" formlessness in all things. Abraham's greatest love is his firstborn son.
It is apparent that you have not the experience to make any such conclusion. Not because you have reached that conclusion, but because you didn't seek any evidence, do any first-hand research, think about your assumptions, etc. This may not be a problem if you're dealing with an idiot. But when you're dealing with decidedly one of the most profound thinkers in the history of humanity, then it makes for a rather comical effect.
@KellyJones00 I have read the story what more "first-hand research" can be done?
If you say "He looks at god as 'reality'" he is not talking about the god of the bible
Just because his god and this god share a name doesn't mean you can make assumptions by the other and if he uses his god to interpret a story about another god is like saying "Michael Moore isn't a filmmaker because my barber is called Michael Moore" -.-
@RazielKain Again, we're not talking about a story in one of the multitude of Bibles (remember, each Bible has its own group of editors, with their own interpretations and translating abilities). Your firsthand research needs to be of who Kierkegaard is, and what he is offering.
@RazielKain They're not non sequitors, but rather you're not quite getting my drift. Try to see that any bible or scripture is made by a person (or more than one). Therefore, the author's own purpose, his own Weltanschauung, greatly informs the meaning of what he writes.
Just as the legend of Jesus draws on a plenitude of myths, and creates a new story, so has Kierkegaard drawn on the story of Abraham and created a completely new story.
@KellyJones00 Here is the thing: Their own 'Weltanschauung' don't change 'die Realität'
Even if he writes his own 'Geschichte' that doesn't change the story in 'der Bibel'
and since, at least you claim, he writes about 'Die Geschichte von Abraham und Isaak' and he actually DOESN'T means, if this were 'Schule' he would get a big fat F for failing to complete his assignment
If you still can't understand it you are simply a worshipping fanboy
@RazielKain Just because some people are literalists, doesn't mean everyone must be.
There is a parallel between the way scriptures are invented, and the way Kierkegaard invented. Don't get all resentful on me for pointing it out, mate.
@KellyJones00 Okay I have just read the story again and suggest you do the same.
There is not a single mention of doubt in Abraham, actually it appears the reason (why Abraham would do it) is that he was blessed by god before and is afraid to lose the blessing.
This is no "leap of/in faith", this is fear of punishment
Read the story again there is no way anybody could defend Abraham oO
@RazielKain We're talking of Kierkegaard's presentation of the story of Abraham's sacrifice, not what is presented in so many other books. (There are many bibles and interpretations and translations, as you may know.)
Perhaps you have not much acquaintance with Kierkegaard's manner of exploring ideas. He is often stimulated to explore his own ideas by stories, songs, music, novels, philosophical treatises, sermons, even conversations. Whatever the original event was, he completely transforms.
I think you like what is most horrible about the story. It would be easy for followers to dismiss a story of a one dimensional Abraham. By giving him "doubt", the perpetrators of the religion were able to convince their followers that overcoming doubt is a virtue. That aspect only reinforces the message of obedience. Its not literature, its purposeful human subjugation.
so basically you are justifying that someone who contemplates a murder and attempts to murder someone to be held in higher regard that someone who just murders without a thought. Maybe it is the act that is of importance not how we struggle over it. Remember that Abraham still attempted to go through with it. Cast aside his rational thought for faith and that is what is horrible about it.
Pondering over whether or not a life is worth living if the possibility of it being pointless in an terms is a rigged game in my opinion. People have become enthralled with the concept of eternal consequences. The same could be asked of why an artist would bother making art, if he knows full well the art will eventually be lost and forgotten. Local purpose is far more satisfying, and reasonable, as opposed to wanting something as ridiculous as a finite act having infinite effects.
The story needs to be left in. It is valuable in showing the kind of foul and extreme behavior to which the Abrahamic religions can lead in the mentally unstable. Convincing yourself that you need to kill your children because the voices in your head tell you so is an occasion for psychiatric evaluation, not philosophy.
@0609jean What if your children are deformed and helpless, e.g. you were exposed to dioxin-contaminated defoliants in Vietnam before conceiving them, and you're a very poor farmer widower who can't afford therapists or doctors or childcarers? How will you survive? Third-world parents faced with such a situation would probably decide to euthanise their helpless children. Similarly, in the animal world, sick tribe members are often killed to avoid the spread of disease.
@KellyJones00 that is not what the story is about. The story is about a nutcase with religious delusions who spends 3 days arguing with the "god" voices in his head about killing his own healthy child - and then decides to do it. Isn't this the same nutcase who actually did supposedly drive his mistress and another healthy son out into the desert to die because his wife was nagging him and his "god" voice told him it was OK?
@0609jean Kierkegaard's approach is to see the "god" voice as a person's own relationship with Ultimate Reality, i.e. their conscience.
Your own adamant defense of human rights is your own god voice. It tells you to put the defense of a child's life higher than anything else, including rationality.
In my view, rationality is more valuable than a child's life (see above scenarios).
@KellyJones00 The words in the story say what they say. You can try to read more into them then they say, but it's not really there. The words say that a rather unpleasant man (see whole biography) started hearing voices in his head that made him think he needed to kill his own perfectly healthy child. After "wrestling" with his delusion a few days, he decided to do it. At the last minute, the voices in his head told him not to do it. That's an example of mental illness, not a morality tale.
@0609jean In fact, what "is really there" in a story is what the observer projects. Your interpretation happens to be one that is politically correct nowadays, and customarily held in a society where people say human life must be protected at all costs (but not all life). In another society, such as a very strenuous desert culture with very strict survival-based codes (e.g. Code of Hammurabi), obedience would be extremely important. See what I'm getting at?
@KellyJones00 No, I do not see that what you are getting at has anything to do with the actual story. You keep reading things into that vile little tale things that are not there - disabled children, chemical exposures, deformities. There is nothing rational about killing ones own healthy child. Some people do it, today, because voices tell them to. We don't praise these people for being obedient and make folk heros out of them. We recognize them as being mentally ill.
@0609jean Your dread (and the dread people generally have) of killing one's own child is exactly the reason this story is such a drastic example of what faith requires. Its moral is about challenging that which is most precious to you, doing what is most abhorrent to you at any particular time. It's not about killing children per se.
In other words, it's about challening purely human desires and values, and looking at something deeper than these biochemical impulses.
@KellyJones00 "drastic example of faith" You see faith, I see mental illness. I have no respect for faith, anyway. It leads people to do or to try to excuse things like this.
"dread of killing ones own child" Yes. Like most other mammals, like other apes, this dread is normal and proper for our species. We are not guppies.
"biochemical impulses" mental illness has many causes.
You see some deep value, I see a crazy person. We can't agree on this. We don't see the same thing.
@0609jean Are you open to the definition of faith as conviction in something reason tells you is true? If so, this is what I see in Kierkegaard's presentation of the story of Abraham.
What I see there is the conflict between purely human values (protect the species, social acceptance, etc.) vs. rationality.
And yes, there is a conflict. Most people value happiness and social acceptance far more than rationality, but they subject their premises to the former, thus hiding that conflict.
@KellyJones00 Faith as I understand it is belief without any concrete evidence. If there is credible evidence, one does not need faith. If no evidence, why believe it? I see nothing rational or reasonable about Abe's willingness to kill his own healthy child. I see an insane person with voices in his head and apologetics trying to read things that aren't there. There is nothing wrong with the human value of wishing to nurture our young. We are human - nothing more, but nothing less, either.
@0609jean I'm talking more about philosophical truths, from reasoning over definitions. Not the a posteriori method of reasoning (i.e. the empirical method). So, for instance, if one reasoned from the truth that there are no intrinsic boundaries in nature, to the conclusion that things don't inherently exist (since there are no boundaries) including oneself, then there would be a great *emotional* reluctance to be convinced by that reasoning. Hence a specific kind of faith.
For those of SisphysRedeemed's subscribers, who'd like to explore Kierkegaard's own private thoughts about Abraham (who he indeed regarded as an extraordinary being in regards to faith in the absurd), you can check out his autobiographical writings online. I have typed uploaded them to:
naturalthinker. net
(see "The Book of the Judge" link). Type "Abraham" in the search box.
(cont'd) By knight of faith, Kierkegaard meant someone who accepted that the Infinite (aka God, not a finite entity but literally the predicateless Totality of all things) could not be encapsulated in a finite form, be that a belief system, treatise, idea, physicality, whatever. To be a knight of faith was/is therefore: to live as a finite being, whilst knowing oneself to be actually not-finite (hence: Absurd).
(cont'd) Abraham's faith was in obeying God's command, rather than speculating about interpretations (finitising the nature of the Infinite). Specifically, God promised him limitless descendents, so the speculative interpretation would be: Isaac is the only way to fulfil that promise; killing Isaac destroys the first born son, his lineage, and therefore disobey God's command. Hence the absurdity of the faith.
Faith doesn't mean stop thinking, but stop finitising Reality.
I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the bible story or of Keirkegaard, but I'm not well-versed enough in Kierkegaard's work to argue that point, so instead I'd like to express my relief at seeing a person post an argument on youtube without being rude or unkind to one's opponent. It's a trait we see far too infrequently on any side of any debate on the internet.
In sum: I see a universe which is indifferent, but in spite of this indifference, defy it in ways that ultimately neglect this indifference. Indifference is what you get as an outcome of the pretense to certainty, and this leads to prejudice and suffering via habitation. So faith is a form of indifference, doubt a way of asserting difference, and thus care. Very strange, huh?
I always enjoyed K's writings, although I've always felt that he was under the influence of a peculiar madness when he attacks reason, under the spell I think of his aesthetic powers. My favorite comparison of his is when the despairing believer thinks of himself as kind of "clerical error" who says "No, I will not be erased, I will stand as a witness against Thee, that thou art a very poor writer."
@threeofwands Kierkegaard never attacked reason, but speculative philosophy, where one attempts to argue without personal experience. The speculators try to create a philosophical treatise as if that completes the matter, without indicating that Reality cannot and does not "finish" with the treatise. Similarly, he attacked the scientists for their belief that "some day" they will amass enough knowledge to present a complete model of Reality.
@KellyJones00 That was K's specific objection to Hegel, yep.
But when a thinker speaks of the "God-man" as a categorical mistake that requires a thinker to perform a "crucifixion of the intellect" in order to accept it, then you are advocating something anti-rational, lol. And when that thinker emphasizes that you will become "contemporary" with Christ in his abjection and poverty after that sacrifice, the same.
@threeofwands The God-man isn't a categorical mistake, nor requires a crucifixion of the intellect to understand or accept. It's a very clear and simple idea.
Basically, all finite things, including a human being, are part of the totality of all things. The Totality is necessarily not-finite because it includes all finite things. Therefore, the true nature of every finite thing, is the Infinite.
Or, in Kierkegaard's terminology, a man's true nature is God.
@KellyJones00 I'm not going to waste more of SR's comment space after this, but I will point out that you are giving a Hegelian account of a finite-infinite dialectic that K. explicitly criticized.
I was trying to come up with a pithy primer of K's writings that you could peruse and decided upon "The Living Thoughts Of Kierkegaard" compiled by the poet W.H. Auden in the 1940's. You could get it from an academic library.
Skip to the chapters Sin And Dread, and Christ The Offense before quiting.
@threeofwands I've been studying Kierkegaard's private journals for the past three years, intensively. There's no way he disagreed with what I wrote there. He definitely meant that God was the Infinite - not God as infinite, but God as The Infinite.
Nevertheless, the appeal to authority is not a sound form of reasoning, so the best summation of my point is: no wise man would ever reject the validity of reason in uncovering the nature of Reality (the Infinite).
A refreshingly different take on the story from what one ordinarily hears. Because of the persistent influence of Christianity and its emphasis on Abraham's faith and certainty in the story (see, Hebrews 11:17-19), it's easy to minimize or even miss that the story has God *testing* Abraham (Genesis 22:1), which, it seems, must entail struggle, doubt, and even fear. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a test. Nice job emphasizing this neglected aspect of the tale.
"If faith does not make it a holy act to be willing to murder one’s son, then let the same condemnation be pronounced upon Abraham as upon every other man. "
"...for he who loves God without faith reflects upon himself he who loves God believingly reflects upon God."
I have to admit I come away from my excerpts with a different view of what Keirkegaard is saying. It seems I will have to acquire a copy of the full work and give it further study.
@C0nc0rdance The works of Kierkegaard, like the bible, are certainly open to alternate interpretations. I'm not a Kierkegaard scholar, and I don't claim to have the authoritative understanding of his ideas. But I do hope you check out the book and even if you disagree with my reading you see where I got it from (I should note I was also drawing in my mind on his other writings, too). Thanks for watching my reply, and for commenting.
@SisyphusRedeemed Kierkegaard was a man who wrote TO have alternate interpretations. The first half of his writing was meant for the writer to interpret things and find the truth pertaining to their own existence. Nietzche wrote the same way, I'm sure.
I had not read "Fear and Trembling". I found excerpts online, and it's a fascinating read.
"If Abraham when he stood upon Mount Moriah had doubted.... For his retreat would have been a flight, his salvation an accident, his reward dishonor, his future perhaps perdition. Then he would have borne witness neither to his faith nor to God’s grace, but would have testified only how dreadful it is to march out to Mount Moriah."
the same way you feel of concordance, I feel about you (among others here as well). So I tried to reexamine my view, forget it, and adopt yours in this instance, but I can't feel confident with it. Meaning goes beyond what is written, I understand this, but from what is written, I can't fit that meaning even between the lines.If the author set up Abraham in a way where it was obvious I was supposed to fill in the blanks with my own desires then yes, I can imagine he was torn. however... (cont)
(cont) however I just don't see it that implied, I don't see how I am supposed to view the story as anything other than being about fear and obedience. He would not have attempted to kill his son without raising any objections if he had any morals or anything to break. If Abraham said something to the effect of "I am sorry son, but I must..." I would understand adopting your interpretation, but I don't see anything resembling conflict or doubt about what he was about to do to his only son.
You are adressing a sophisticated interpretation of the story of Abraham. Concordance was talking about the interpretation that most christians actually have for the story of Abraham. Neither of you are wrong.
You will probably find a good point in any story if you try hard enough, and it seems you have tried hard enough here, always interesting to hear your perspective.
@tielec01 People who usually call themselves Christians are completely misguided, and arrogant to boot. To be a Christian means to be "like Christ", that is, one who has sacrificed everything for the truth. That means, any kind of social acceptance (thus, to be a priest, or part of a congregation is not to be Christian), understanding by other people (thus, to have friends and family ties of belonging is not to be a Christian), security (thus, to have a home, money, material possessions....) etc
I usually think you nail things. However, I cannot get behind this posting. I cannot think of an acceptable context for killing one's child for the reward of land, and royal progeny....
@stefanlittle Who said it was acceptable? I tried to be as clear as I could that I think it's unacceptable. But King Creon condemning his sister to die is also unacceptable. That doesn't mean it's a bad story. To the contrary: if all stories had happy endings, they would all suck.
I can agree with that. I guess I don't understand your reaction to Concordance being against this as a tale used the way he discussed. 2bsirius has a related vid response to Jesusfreek about this bible story, where freek said that he would kill his child if god asked him to. This is the context that I think he was concerned about. I much prefer your "leap to faith" alternatives ;)
I'm glad that you talk 'bout ol Kirky, I think he is under read and underdiscussed!
@stefanlittle Yeah, I was hoping to elevate the discussion a little. Making it about Jezuzfreak and the 'YouTube drama' seemed to take an interesting philosophical/theological issue and making it silly and childish. I liked how c0nc0rdance took a step in that direction and offered me a chance to do the same.
After hearing this I just went and re-read the story.... I saw none of the doubt and questioning you suggest is there.... IF the story had the questioning, the struggle and the journey of thought and faith you suggest then it wouldn't be so reviled.
I'm 100% with c0nc0rdance on this, and I think your (Kierkegaard's) reading is just putting meaning and human rational/morals into the story that simply isn't there.
@SisyphusRedeemed "You say this as if there is any other way to read the bible."
I would expect religious apologists to force this non-written meaning into this story, but I see no reason why a non-believer would have too force such moral justifications into it.
I get your point that everyone interprets stories via their own views and morals, but I stand by my point that you are asserting a moral struggle that isn't even hinted about in the actual text.
@KylieTasticUK "I would expect religious apologists to force this non-written meaning into this story, but I see no reason why a non-believer would have too force such moral justifications into it."
In my experience it's usually the fundamentalist who insists on taking the bible 'literally.' But I certainly agree that we can't just read absolutely anything at all into the text. But I don't think 'Abraham loved his son, so it was a hard decision to kill him' is implausible, given the text.
@SisyphusRedeemed "I don't think 'Abraham loved his son, so it was a hard decision to kill him' is implausible, given the text."
I would agree its very plausible that Abraham loved his son, but more importantly it matters nothing because he feared (or loved!) God much much more...
I dont see this as a story about Abraham's struggle or about faith.... but a story of God's dominion and ultimate power - so absolute that believers would follow any evil mandate to avoid retribution.
@KylieTasticUK Since Abraham did not live in an era with Bible Societies, sweaty evangelical preachers, tongueing congregations, endless dominations, etc. but only the direct and personal relationship to Reality - and trying to understand the nature of Reality in a first-hand, primitive way - it is easy to see that "God" then would not have been to him the American phantom of materialistic vindication and greed-based domination over your fellow man.
I strongly disagree. Putting oneself in a dangerous situation may be deemed an act of courage but we all know that a stupid person would be more likely to commit to it than an intelligent one. Does that mean that being stupid is a virtue?
@D20018200 The point is that the situation is unavoidable. You have to make decisions about your life: what to do with it, what to live for, etc. You can't avoid these decisions no matter how smart you are.
Agreed, but I do not require blind faith to make my decisions. I'd rather rely on evidence, no matter the outcome. It's the only way I can be honest with myself, which is what matters most.
@D20018200 Evidence can't really answer existential questions. 'What am I doing with my life?' isn't really an empirical question. Data and evidence are relevant, and helpful, but they don't answer these questions the way they answer questions of fact.
Subject's info and qualifications, subject's position on the topic to be debated, debaters reason for disagreeing with the subject, presentation and defense of debaters position, conclusions. Regardless of what I think about what you said, I certainly do appreciate someone who knows HOW to it. Well done.
A leap is not necessarily an act of courage. It might be an act of fear. Like jumping off a burning building because the flames are hurting you more than the floor 20 stories below.
@n3rdm4n Fair point. But it seems to me that's more panic, not a decision in the sense of making a deliberative choice, but rather just making a snap call. Subtle difference, perhaps, but I think the kind of life decisions that Kierkegaaard is talking about are more often the deliberative kinds.
“(Keirkegaard) looks at this 4000 year old story and sees it in a way that no one else before him had ever seen it.”
That says it all. Even the authors would be baffled how anyone could take this story and twist it into a glorification of doubt. Doubt is the chief adversary of faith, and the bigger and stronger the enemy, the more glorious the victor. How impressive would be the victory if David was the giant and Goliath a mere boy without even a sword?
@Blackmark52 The strong-minded individual, like a Kierkegaard, doesn't assume anything written has only one interpretation. He sees infinitude in everything. He doesn't superimpose a finite structure onto God, or Reality. Therefore, he is free to create meaning out of anything.
The story is not a glorification of doubt, as if to make the endurance of doubt more of an accomplishment than it really is. It's far more profound than that.
@KellyJones00 "doesn't assume anything written has only one interpretation."
And what logic is there behind assuming authors have no right to their own intent? Logic such as that leads to believing whatever you wish of anything you wish. It's vapid.
Your 2nd para is half what I say and half what I object to, but you seem to have it turned around. SisyphusRedeemed talks of the story praising doubt, not I. Human nature is such that it is possible to gaze profoundly at a rock. That is profound.
@Blackmark52 "what logic is there behind assuming authors have no right to their own intent?"
You had the right to interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend. That's your affair - you're free to do that. Evidently, my intention had nought to do with that interpretation, so I can't explain the logic behind it ...
What I meant: a strong-minded individual's freedom of thought tends to explore many angles and perspectives. That's just the way their brain works.
@KellyJones00 “You had the right to interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend.”
Yet you assume to reserve the rights to the correct interpretation, otherwise you wouldn’t attempt to correct me. But perhaps I’m not misinterpreting what you say. Perhaps I am just exploring different angles and perspectives. After all, according to your own reasoning, there is no reason to assume anything written has only one interpretation.
@Blackmark52 I believe my view on this particular topic, namely, that there are infinite ways to interpret ideas with the freedom that Reality offers, is worth presenting clearly. That is what I am defending.
You clearly agree with that basic idea.
However, yes, you're right - the point of Kierkegaard's actual interpretation is not just about creating one's own view, or understanding. It's about sacrificing what hinders one's relationship with truth.
@KellyJones00 "You clearly agree with that basic idea."
Not exactly. I believe that what I write has only one valid interpretation: mine. Therefore I extend that courtesy to other authors. That is not the same as either being correct, or even logically consistent, however.
I say that if K.'s interpretation is at odds with all other interpretations, he is most likely at odds with the intent of any author writing to be generally understood. You can't find virtue where none exists.
@Blackmark52 Any idea can be transformed, reconstructed, merged, and related to other ideas to make new ones. I'm pretty sure you can relate to this process.
If someone's ideas are at odds with the majority's, that doesn't mean the loner is crazy. For instance, Galileo was at odds with the view of the cosmos generally understood at the time. That didn't make his view lacking in reason (intellectual virtue).
@KellyJones00 "Any idea can be transformed..., (etc.) to make new ones."
How is that relevant to the original idea? If I have an idea and you transform, reconstruct, merge, or relate it to other ideas, it is no longer my idea. It is a new idea, and it is your idea. Your idea can't change mine because my idea is already in the past. (Please don't confuse this with me being unable to change my mind.) If an idea has no virtue, reinterpreting it doesn't make the original idea any more virtuous.
@Blackmark52 There's a saying goes: a genius sees in the seed, something others cannot see. A good idea may be stimulated by a poor one, clarifying something it only sketchily explores.
As a Christian, this was rather an intriguing video. Good one.
xchampx 2 weeks ago
Gotcha. The story has a lot to teach us about ourselves. But the fact remains that it is found in a book written for religious instruction rather than a different book. Abraham was held up as an example of a godly man in the NT. While most of us are smart enough not to show such "faith" even if we pay lip service to it, there still exist people (such as the woman you mentioned who drowned her children) who draw a horrible lesson from it. I could enjoy it from a secular source, but not the bible.
Starcrash6984 3 weeks ago
Interesting take on it. I am interested in reading more about existentialism, what books can you recommend to start out with?
AQGOAT24 2 months ago
@AQGOAT24 It depends how familiar you are with philosophy in general. If you think you can tackle original material, Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" and "Sickness Unto Death" are very good, as is Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and "Ecce Homo." Sartre's "No Exit" and "Existentialism is a Humanism" are probably his best, IMO. There's a great course by the Teaching Company on Existentialism, which I highly recommend.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Don't forget Heidegger's Being and Time.
Stitchman3875 1 month ago
Having watched the video I must say it's my least favourite of your talks, I still really don't understand what you were trying to say.
Ch4osW4rrior 2 months ago
Kierkegaard is probably my favorite philosopher. A lot of other Christians who are bent on objectively defining their faith would be very liberated by his Concluding Unscientific Postscript, IMHO.
Great video, my friend.
AgApE010 2 months ago
-begs the question- doesn't mean -leads to the question? duly noted. Didn't Nietzsche go crazy before he died? hes the "God is dead" guy right?
2010ksaul 3 months ago
@2010ksaul Yeah, Nietzsche had syphilis, which made the last 10 years of his work VERY interesting indeed. And yeah, he was famous for saying "God is Dead", but there's a lot more to him than just that.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
Very well said, bravo:)
But it begs the question.. how does an atheist reconcile those very important, valid, and reasonable questions of existence/faith/purpose???
2010ksaul 3 months ago
@2010ksaul First off, and I'm sorry to be so pedantic about this, but that's not what 'beg the question' means. That phrase refers to a logical fallacy. You mean to say 'it leads to the question.'
And to that question, it's a very good one. Thankfully, atheist thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre have given very good answers, far more thoroughly and articulately than I could. In short, we must find our own salvation.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
Thanks for the post. Helped me to understand "Fear and Trembling" a little bit better.
JakeCMullen 4 months ago
The meaning of life is what meaning you give it.
SineFractal 4 months ago in playlist More videos from SisyphusRedeemed
I think I see what you're saying; in a sense, all of us must be like Abraham by acting according to our notions of morality, purpose, and a bright future, even though we may have doubts about those notions. The difference here is that we have much better reasons to have faith in these notions than in the one that God will bring goodness out of filicide.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 5 months ago
I might be too cynical but even when I hear you talk about Abraham with the attempt to portray it as a non self serving act, you make him sound like the kind of smug religious ego maniac who'd jerk off over the suffering his god blesses him with. He's satisfies with the knowledge it makes him special and gives him the attention he craves. Yes sacrifice another child! Oh the suffering god puts me though, indeed I am blessed :P All hail me :)
MrNevertime 5 months ago
@MrNevertime "He's satisfies with the knowledge..."
Actually, Kierkegaard's Abraham doesn't know. That's really what makes it so courageous--he could be wrong, maybe he's crazy, maybe there is no God. He acts in the face of uncertainty, he has his doubts, but his commitment empowers him to act anyway. It is a metaphor for all of our lives--we can't really know whether or not our lives matter in any cosmic sense, but we have to live them anyway. So I'd have to disagree with your reading.
SisyphusRedeemed 5 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "It is a metaphor for all of our lives" I bet you say that about all the stories :P
MrNevertime 5 months ago
A very good example of how just because you don't like the intended message of a story, a song, a book, a poem, a movie or a religious tenant doesn't necessarily mean that it is worthless to you intellectually.
zippythewildone 6 months ago
i fail to see how commitment or courage gives intrinsic value to any action at all. Same about how a superior cause give intrinsic meaning to a life.
canardu 6 months ago
Hmmm..... not sure I agree... but definitely an interesting interpretation.... I'll definitely think about this some more. I'm almost completely certain (whatever that means) that this was not remotely what the authors of the story intended, but that shouldn't prevent us from finding meaning for ourselves in it. ;) Anywho, thanks for pointing me toward Kierkegaard! Also..... loved the Opeth at the end. =^)
LeonhardEuler1 6 months ago
I never felt like my life ought to be important to anybody or anything except for myself and the people around me. I don't really want to commit to anything 'higher' than myself to be honest.
Evilanious 9 months ago
Why must something require courage to be viewed as something good or valuable. I don't think you require faith to get that commitment. You can love completely knowing that you may, probably, will be disappointed. I don't think the knowledge should deter just like the knowledge that I will die someday doesn't deter.
Shalek 10 months ago
There is absolutely no text in Genesis to give any support to the idea or concept that it is a metaphor for anything and I would prefer their to be citations to such bold claims. The idea that the individuals who put together the Bible put this story in it as such is ludicrous. I applaud your erudite construction of your argument but I reject your conclusions completely.
aquilianranger 10 months ago
Sorry, but I just reread Genesis 22 (KJV), and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Abraham is wracked with doubt, or that he is horrified by the prospect of killing his son, or that he loves him very much. Abraham is about as emotive as the Terminator.
Adding to the text to make it say something which it doesn't, and then kind of criticizing others for missing this is kind of silly.
TheCrappyPhilosopher 11 months ago 5
@TheCrappyPhilosopher I didn't mean to criticize him. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't saying this is the 'right' interpretation, but rather an alternate interpretation. It's not in the text, but it is compatible with it.
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago 5
@TheCrappyPhilosopher Problem with your argument is that the Bible doesn't say anything about his feelings. There is not enough detail to say what was the concrete attitude. However, based on how Father's feel toward Sons etc, Kierkegaard's interpretation is quite valid.
Stitchman3875 7 months ago
I could agree with the gist of your talk, but what makes you think the Abraham and Isaac story is 4 ky old? As far as I'm concerned, everything in the Bible is myth until the Omride dynasty, for which we do have evidence.
deemzje 11 months ago
This is a long and intellectual response.
turdwithau 11 months ago
I may be biased in the favour of Kierkegaard, him being a countryman of mine, but I truly consider his take on Christianity to be that that of the honest religious mind. Christianity to him is not a communal, social enterprise. It's a deeply personal, existential axiom on which your existence is based, anything less is not being Christian.
That said, Kierkegaard essentially rewrites the tale of Abraham and Isaac to tell a completely different story but I appreciate his sentiment.
FlakMeister 11 months ago
And yet again Kierkegaard is recommended to me.
This is a very preachy video, but I agree with every word. What struck me when reading the story is that Abraham apparently knows he is doing something wrong - he lies to his fellows. Also, the long journey is emphasised so much that you can indeed feel the dread that Abraham must feel.
However, I disagree that Abraham's conflict follows from love for his son. I think it's more about the firstborn son symbolizing his own identity and survival.
Lingula77 11 months ago
Did you even read that story?
I have the King James Version, and there is NO. NO mention of Abraham's inner life. That story is not at all long enough to have themes. God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, they leave the next day, Abraham does everything exactly as ordered. There is nothing about him struggling. Whether you imagine him to be wracked with doubt or blindly following, that's a reflection of your experience and nothing you got from the text. The text is psychologically barren.
cecinestpasunename 11 months ago
@cecinestpasunename "Did you even read that story?"
No, I read Kierkegaard, but not the bible. Seriously?
"The text is psychologically barren."
Which leaves it open to interpretation. It's called hermeneutics. All texts are open to a variety of interpretation. Hence my point about NOT claiming Kierkegaard's interpretation is 'right' but rather just that it's a different way of reading the story.
SisyphusRedeemed 11 months ago 3
@SisyphusRedeemed I'll be the first to admit that I'm absolutely no scholar, but I can't help finding Kierkegaard's (as I hear it from you, here) to be a vastly over-charitable reading. I really can't see where that interpretation finds standing room.
I know it's quite dramatic to ask if you've even read Genesis...I felt it expressed how thoroughly taken aback I am at your viewpoint on Chapter 22.
I will certainly have to read "Fear and Trembling." I definitely do appreciate this vid!
cecinestpasunename 11 months ago
while i have to disagree with your conclusion, i find your interetation intresting.
gooddarkjedi 11 months ago
one thing i allso want to say, there is diffrence betwene faith and trust.
gooddarkjedi 11 months ago
thou i have to disagree with you. we dont have to do leap of faith in order to comit our self. we only need to step foward without bias and without faith, and see if something happens. dont do jump of faith, wait and see. and then start jugging.
gooddarkjedi 11 months ago
hmmm. intresting. the story of abraham is kinda of like my story. i was troubeld by doud and in the end i decided to not to do what was considerd a virtue. i wanted to know little more about the world, bechose it its not only my life in the line when i do jump of faith, its allso other people. i find that atheist have the most intreting interpitations about religius stories of all religions. aronras interpitation of the genesis was intresting.
gooddarkjedi 11 months ago
Just wanted to add to my previous comment: Deciding to not kill Isaac was the right thing to do, as you admit. But my point is that even the decision to not kill Isaac involved a leap of faith. Abraham would have committed himself to the belief that the command could not have been morally justified, which, given his position, he could never be certain about. This would have entailed giving up any security that may have come from believing that he was communicating with a morally good deity.
orionnamaste 1 year ago
Excellent analysis. However, your description of Abraham's alternative is unfair. He could not have been certain that he was in the right to not kill his son since even this belief involved a leap to faith. After all, Abraham did not know the source of the command. It may really have been God commanding him and He may have had good reasons to ask such a thing. Choosing to not fulfill the supernatural command was itself a leap: a leap to the faith that it could never be right to do such a thing.
orionnamaste 1 year ago
@orionnamaste hmmm. true. but when we have no evidence to nither then let us demand a reason to do so. bechose he was about to do something, unreversible. so lets us not jump to conclusions and demand little more evidence. let us not have jump of faith. we dont have to commit our self to anything, we shuld only be loyal to something as long as it loyal to us. meaning, when something does not work, stop using it.
gooddarkjedi 11 months ago
I'm about to get my Bachelors in Philosophy and Religious Studies. Although I enjoy most of your videos I'm definitely not with you on this one man.
The Story of Abraham is about absolute obedience. Even in the face of your own autonomy and convictions. I always thought Soren tortured the story to fit his preconception of a "knight of Faith"...regardless of whether he did it or not, Psychologically Abraham did murder his son, he raised up the knife, and he did it because God said so.
CrapnellGates 1 year ago
@CrapnellGates I don't understand the need to use this barbaric piece of shit written by sexist, egotistical, and primitive Nomads in the desert in order to solidify a good concept of Existential philosophy.
Nietzsche was influenced by Fear and Trembling, but never agreed that Faith was a good thing or that Slave morality as displayed by Abraham was anything but a monstrosity and a weakness of mankind.
And because of Soren's anti-cultural-Christian tendencies. Whatever that means.
CrapnellGates 1 year ago
My interepretation is different again. "God" to me, means truth and logic. And one requires faith in truth and logic, even though one is certain of their truth, since the ego hates truth and logic. So the "doubt" is the fight that goes on between the delusions of the ego, and the truth.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway yes, one needs to believe in God's judgment to avoid being tempted by the devil(emotions.)
jupta00 1 year ago
In "In God we doubt" by John Humphrys Andrew Sachs (the chief Rabbi in the UK) argues that the story of Abraham and Isaac has a fundamentally different meaning. God commands the sacrifice of Abraham's son not as a test but a lesson. Child sacrifice was commonplace at the time and so it was something Abraham would find unsurprising. When he reaches the appointed place he is stopped by God who shows him that "he isn't that kind of god". I'd be interested in others view on that persepctive.
jamesrands 1 year ago
@jamesrands
I would say that this is as close to the consensus view amongst Biblical scholars and Theological exegetes as one might hope to find. It is refreshing to find a comment that reflects a synthesis of a religious perspective and modern cultural commentator.
Origen305 1 year ago
@Origen305 Thanks! I was definitely not taught that view at school (about twenty years ago). Are you able to say how long this interpretation has been around? It may be an unfair question. If so sorry.
jamesrands 1 year ago
@jamesrands
I cannot, you would need to ask a Jewish scholar, however the earliest X Exegetes developed a similar interpretation from the beginnings of the early Church. I'm unclear of Islam's stance, though its celebration is the reason one of the two central holy holidays in Islam, Eid Al-Adha, though I'm not qualified to discuss the finer points of Islamic understanding of this event.
Hope that helps.
Origen305 11 months ago
@jamesrands
I would say that this is as close to the consensus view amongst Biblical scholars and Theological exegetes as one might hope to find. It is refreshing to find a comment that reflects a synthesis of a religious perspective and modern cultural commentator.
Origen305 1 year ago
@jamesrands Well, that's one legitimate way to read the story. Its not the only one. If you wanted to argue that this was the purpose the story was used for at the time it was created, you would want to double check on the dating of the Jepthah story. Jepthah ritually murders his daughter and burns her corpse as a blood sacrifice to the Old Testament God. If that was written before the Jacob story was written, it could at least correlate Sachs' theory. Has anyone tried researching this?
Cadfan17 1 year ago
@Cadfan17 Interesting! I'm not trying to argue that the Rabbi is right or wrong. I have no idea which story would have been in circulation first. I'm sure lots of Christians and Jews will claim that the books were written in the order they are currently found but that would be naive. I don't know if anyone can give a reasonably definitive answer to which came first. Does anyone out there?
jamesrands 1 year ago
@jamesrands It's interesting that K. re-writes the story 5 times with different psychological results to the characters involved, including: Issa'cs faith being reinforced by the debacle, Isaac losing his faith, Abraham losing all faith and descending into depression, and Abraham having the actual motivation for the act.
He concludes with some serious doubts as to how Abraham could be conceived to be any kind of a hero, whether tragically or aesthetically.
threeofwands 1 year ago
@threeofwands Thanks. I don't think that really comes out in this video.
jamesrands 1 year ago
@jamesrands,
Re: "he is stopped by God"
Actually, it was the angel who stopped him, not god. That is one one of several reasons I see the point made by those who suggest that the story originally had him sacrifice the ram in place of his son, without the intervention. Try rereading it but skip vs 11-12 and 15-18 and see if it doesn't make much more sense. (Especially when we're talking about the guy who just debated god over destroying Sodom for sake of the righteous just a few pages prior.)
PraktikoolSinik 1 year ago
@PraktikoolSinik Yep. Unless he supposed to have learned some not quite explained lesson from the destruction of Sodom, he's failure to argue with God on this occassion doesn't really make any sense at all. It is curious that it is God himself who tells Abraham to kill his son but an angel who tells him to stop. An angelic rebellion against his unreasonable demands perhaps?
jamesrands 1 year ago
I have just reread the story of Abraham and Isaac and I can't see any reference to doubt at all. Given his prior relationship with god doubt of god's authority seems ridiculous. Doubt of God's moral judgement is viable (as when Abraham argues with God against the destruction of Sodom a little earlier) but there is nothing in the story to support Abraham doubting God's command in this instance.
jamesrands 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You come across as pompous and egotistical. Your holier-than-thou attitude is irritating. To me, someone who uses big words when smaller words are more appropriate is just trying to appear as an intellectual.
killercraigaaaw 1 year ago
@killercraigaaaw Okay, but what about his basic idea, if you cut out all the waffle?
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@killercraigaaaw To me, someone who thinks smaller words are more appropriate when big words are more evocative, descriptive and poetic is a simple minded, logophobic anti-intellectual.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 38
@SisyphusRedeemed But I think his point is reasonable. For instance, there is a profound irony in the phenomenon of so many people calling Kierkegaard "the father of existentialism", like the bringer of a revolutionary system of thinking for others to ape. Anyone who had really understood him, would have seen he wanted to destroy all such secondhand mimicry, and academic obtuseness.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
Oh my god you sound like an ass. First, none of that crap is in the story, its been read in. Second, its not "dogmatic" or "blind" or "judgmental" to read a story in the way that its presented to you. Many readings, including that one, are valid. Third, AT BEST you can criticize C for seeming to assume that authorial intent is intrinsic to the text... but in spite of your early disclaimers you present your reading as intrinsic to the text so you don't get to talk.
Cadfan17 1 year ago
@Cadfan17 Take it up with c0nc0rdance; he seems to have appreciated the response.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I'm not here as his fanboy, I've never watched him. The impression you give stands on its own.
Cadfan17 1 year ago
I have every book I could buy of Kierkegaard from every Borders and Barnes and Noble. He was my first foray into existentialism, and by reading him I discovered how ancient hermeneutics work, and finally got baptized and am a very peaceful, happy Christian. Faith now feels mature, understandable, existential. Nietzche and Camus all helped me respect atheism, Kierkegaard (and Wittgenstein) gave me certainty to be Christian. I could never feel so peaceful. :)
Audiofalcon7 1 year ago
@Audiofalcon7 "If Christianity is to proclaimed as it essentially is in the gospels, proclaimed as and being: imitation, sheer suffering, misery and wailing, sharpened by a background of judgment where every word must be accounted for — then it is fearful suffering, anxiety, quaking, and trembling. Quite right. But where in the gospels does it actually say that God intends this earthly life to be anything else? What human nature constantly seeks, however, is — tranquillity —
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 — nil beatum nisi quietum — tranquillity, tranquillity in order to be occupied with this finite life, to enjoy life here and now."
— Kierkegaard
KellyJones00 1 year ago
Thanks for another awesome video, Sisyphus. I especially enjoyed the message about doubt--as a utilitarian, I've often wondered if my very existence actually has a negative affect on overall utility. I guess I need to respond to that doubt with the commitment to make a positive difference in the world.
biznor3 1 year ago
...Abraham was "wracked with doubt", was "horrified by the thought of killing..." his son, spent three days "wrestling with that fear, the uncertainty, the horrible painful doubt deep in his heart", and did "not simply accepted blindly, thoughtlessly, without question god's command".
This is a *huge* embellishment not at all supported by the text. The point wasn't to show courage, overcome fear, or take a leap of faith either. He passed the test and was rewarded for proving his *fear* of god.
PraktikoolSinik 1 year ago 20
@PraktikoolSinik
You state that this interpretation is a huge embellishment of the text. Have you thought that yours might be a 'huge' simplification of the text? Have you studied the text as Sisyphus has? Have you brought to bear the tools of alllegorical interpretation, contextualisation, philology and the multiple authorship? And that the text was not written for a post-modern audience? Have you considered the exegetical history or hermeneutics involved?
Origen305 1 year ago
@Origen305
cont.
Have you considered the various interpretations within Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The pentateuch is not a historical account. Its authors span the centuries, it is heavily redacted, added to and comes down to the modern versions of the Bible from a mixture of Greek, Latin, and European languages from its Semitic Hebrew originally written with no vowels.
You are of course free to render any interpretation you want, but it is divergent from Academic Theological consensus.
Origen305 1 year ago
@PraktikoolSinik Why do you tacitly assume Abraham was not human? The thing is, and this is the problem of many Christians and atheists - ancient Jewish culture and ancient Christianity never saw texts in grammatical-historical hermeneutic. They saw their holy writings with theological hermeneutic - how can we look at this text for it to matter TODAY, RIGHT NOW, in MY life. Who cares about the historical-grammatical interpretation? Reflect on it on eyes pertaining to your existence - it matters.
Audiofalcon7 1 year ago
@PraktikoolSinik i agree. but i find that this guy puts little human feeling in this storie. i think it might gives us insight to the mind of beliver. how the people are not just drones. they are really strugeling with this irational system of belive that demands them to obey even when it is the wrong thing to do.
gooddarkjedi 11 months ago
I think I am Kierkegaard.
theowarner 1 year ago
"The story of Abraham is a metaphor for that existential decision." But is that how the story was intended to be taken? I think not. I agree that the story makes for great allegory, but I think you (and Kierkegaard are reading more into the story than was originally intended. Ironically, Christianity warns specifically against doing this, so it might be mostly atheists that can appreciate the story on this level. Thought provoking as usual Sisyphus!
cyxgun 1 year ago 3
@cyxgun
It seems to me that there might be certain ecclesiastical objections to personal exegesis which are more problematic if attributing to the multifarious denominations of Christianity qua Christian scholarship.
Origen305 1 year ago
I am sorry but I can only repeat what I commented under C0ns video
Abraham failed the challenge, if somebody, even a god, if I would believe in him, would come to me and tell me "Sacrifice your child" I would tell him "No, fuck you. You can have my life but you won't touch my child"
If you still believe that the god of the bible is good you can add "The god I worship would never ask such a thing"
Doubts or not Abraham failed in my eyes
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain What if ... You yourself decided to sacrifice your own child? For instance, there are many cases where this would be regarded as ethical.
E.g. you are a teacher looking after several children on a three-day mountaineering expedition. Your child becomes ill, in a sudden blizzard, so you leave the group in the hands of the ablest child, while you carry your kid to civilisation. But conditions worsen, you're hypothermic, so you must abandon your child. Ethical?
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 Nice try but...
What did god tell Abraham would happen if he doesn't sacrifice his son?
Plus you can't compare these situations as long as god is omnipotent there is no possible case in which he actually needs a sacrifice
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain It's clear to me that any rational definition of God cannot be of a being with finite forms or character, like "personality", "mercy", "wrathful judgment", "omnipotence" or other predicates. Therefore, what most Christians foolishly represent God as, can't be considered in the story of Abraham's faith.
Kierkegaard didn't swallow the Bible whole, like a credulous idiot. He criticised and rejected aspects of it, like anything he turned his thought to. Don't take the thing literally.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 That .... what? How is that relevant? Okay let's say god is not omnipotent, how is that relevant? There still is no reason for sacrificing his child
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain Sorry, I'll break it down. Kierkegaard's meaning of God is not the same one most Christians believe in. It's at the other extreme: not human, not finite, not having any psychological attributes, not even "cold and remote like the starry sky".
That conception of God is literally: Reality.
To be a knight of faith is to stop constructing things to worship, renounce loves, and "see" formlessness in all things. Abraham's greatest love is his firstborn son.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 Well than, and I am sorry to say it, Kierkegaard is a moron oO
Have you actually ever read the bible? The god character has many MANY human characteristics (probably since humans were created in his image)
I have no idea what god Kierkegaard talks about but it's not the god of the bible and it is not the god in the story of Abraham
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain You wrote "Kierkegaard is a moron"
It is apparent that you have not the experience to make any such conclusion. Not because you have reached that conclusion, but because you didn't seek any evidence, do any first-hand research, think about your assumptions, etc. This may not be a problem if you're dealing with an idiot. But when you're dealing with decidedly one of the most profound thinkers in the history of humanity, then it makes for a rather comical effect.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 I have read the story what more "first-hand research" can be done?
If you say "He looks at god as 'reality'" he is not talking about the god of the bible
Just because his god and this god share a name doesn't mean you can make assumptions by the other and if he uses his god to interpret a story about another god is like saying "Michael Moore isn't a filmmaker because my barber is called Michael Moore" -.-
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain Again, we're not talking about a story in one of the multitude of Bibles (remember, each Bible has its own group of editors, with their own interpretations and translating abilities). Your firsthand research needs to be of who Kierkegaard is, and what he is offering.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 Why would "Who Kierkegaard is" change anything? oO
Why would "There is more than one bible" change anything?
Unless you can actually show me a bible version where Abraham shows doubt these are just non sequiturs
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain They're not non sequitors, but rather you're not quite getting my drift. Try to see that any bible or scripture is made by a person (or more than one). Therefore, the author's own purpose, his own Weltanschauung, greatly informs the meaning of what he writes.
Just as the legend of Jesus draws on a plenitude of myths, and creates a new story, so has Kierkegaard drawn on the story of Abraham and created a completely new story.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 Here is the thing: Their own 'Weltanschauung' don't change 'die Realität'
Even if he writes his own 'Geschichte' that doesn't change the story in 'der Bibel'
and since, at least you claim, he writes about 'Die Geschichte von Abraham und Isaak' and he actually DOESN'T means, if this were 'Schule' he would get a big fat F for failing to complete his assignment
If you still can't understand it you are simply a worshipping fanboy
Don't even bother to 'antworten'
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain Just because some people are literalists, doesn't mean everyone must be.
There is a parallel between the way scriptures are invented, and the way Kierkegaard invented. Don't get all resentful on me for pointing it out, mate.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 Okay I have just read the story again and suggest you do the same.
There is not a single mention of doubt in Abraham, actually it appears the reason (why Abraham would do it) is that he was blessed by god before and is afraid to lose the blessing.
This is no "leap of/in faith", this is fear of punishment
Read the story again there is no way anybody could defend Abraham oO
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain We're talking of Kierkegaard's presentation of the story of Abraham's sacrifice, not what is presented in so many other books. (There are many bibles and interpretations and translations, as you may know.)
Perhaps you have not much acquaintance with Kierkegaard's manner of exploring ideas. He is often stimulated to explore his own ideas by stories, songs, music, novels, philosophical treatises, sermons, even conversations. Whatever the original event was, he completely transforms.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
I think you like what is most horrible about the story. It would be easy for followers to dismiss a story of a one dimensional Abraham. By giving him "doubt", the perpetrators of the religion were able to convince their followers that overcoming doubt is a virtue. That aspect only reinforces the message of obedience. Its not literature, its purposeful human subjugation.
rubberbaby00 1 year ago
so basically you are justifying that someone who contemplates a murder and attempts to murder someone to be held in higher regard that someone who just murders without a thought. Maybe it is the act that is of importance not how we struggle over it. Remember that Abraham still attempted to go through with it. Cast aside his rational thought for faith and that is what is horrible about it.
AndrzejWLipski 1 year ago
Pondering over whether or not a life is worth living if the possibility of it being pointless in an terms is a rigged game in my opinion. People have become enthralled with the concept of eternal consequences. The same could be asked of why an artist would bother making art, if he knows full well the art will eventually be lost and forgotten. Local purpose is far more satisfying, and reasonable, as opposed to wanting something as ridiculous as a finite act having infinite effects.
VapidZero 1 year ago
The story needs to be left in. It is valuable in showing the kind of foul and extreme behavior to which the Abrahamic religions can lead in the mentally unstable. Convincing yourself that you need to kill your children because the voices in your head tell you so is an occasion for psychiatric evaluation, not philosophy.
0609jean 1 year ago
@0609jean What if your children are deformed and helpless, e.g. you were exposed to dioxin-contaminated defoliants in Vietnam before conceiving them, and you're a very poor farmer widower who can't afford therapists or doctors or childcarers? How will you survive? Third-world parents faced with such a situation would probably decide to euthanise their helpless children. Similarly, in the animal world, sick tribe members are often killed to avoid the spread of disease.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 that is not what the story is about. The story is about a nutcase with religious delusions who spends 3 days arguing with the "god" voices in his head about killing his own healthy child - and then decides to do it. Isn't this the same nutcase who actually did supposedly drive his mistress and another healthy son out into the desert to die because his wife was nagging him and his "god" voice told him it was OK?
0609jean 1 year ago
@0609jean Kierkegaard's approach is to see the "god" voice as a person's own relationship with Ultimate Reality, i.e. their conscience.
Your own adamant defense of human rights is your own god voice. It tells you to put the defense of a child's life higher than anything else, including rationality.
In my view, rationality is more valuable than a child's life (see above scenarios).
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 The words in the story say what they say. You can try to read more into them then they say, but it's not really there. The words say that a rather unpleasant man (see whole biography) started hearing voices in his head that made him think he needed to kill his own perfectly healthy child. After "wrestling" with his delusion a few days, he decided to do it. At the last minute, the voices in his head told him not to do it. That's an example of mental illness, not a morality tale.
0609jean 1 year ago
@0609jean In fact, what "is really there" in a story is what the observer projects. Your interpretation happens to be one that is politically correct nowadays, and customarily held in a society where people say human life must be protected at all costs (but not all life). In another society, such as a very strenuous desert culture with very strict survival-based codes (e.g. Code of Hammurabi), obedience would be extremely important. See what I'm getting at?
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 No, I do not see that what you are getting at has anything to do with the actual story. You keep reading things into that vile little tale things that are not there - disabled children, chemical exposures, deformities. There is nothing rational about killing ones own healthy child. Some people do it, today, because voices tell them to. We don't praise these people for being obedient and make folk heros out of them. We recognize them as being mentally ill.
0609jean 1 year ago
@0609jean Your dread (and the dread people generally have) of killing one's own child is exactly the reason this story is such a drastic example of what faith requires. Its moral is about challenging that which is most precious to you, doing what is most abhorrent to you at any particular time. It's not about killing children per se.
In other words, it's about challening purely human desires and values, and looking at something deeper than these biochemical impulses.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 "drastic example of faith" You see faith, I see mental illness. I have no respect for faith, anyway. It leads people to do or to try to excuse things like this.
"dread of killing ones own child" Yes. Like most other mammals, like other apes, this dread is normal and proper for our species. We are not guppies.
"biochemical impulses" mental illness has many causes.
You see some deep value, I see a crazy person. We can't agree on this. We don't see the same thing.
0609jean 1 year ago
@0609jean Are you open to the definition of faith as conviction in something reason tells you is true? If so, this is what I see in Kierkegaard's presentation of the story of Abraham.
What I see there is the conflict between purely human values (protect the species, social acceptance, etc.) vs. rationality.
And yes, there is a conflict. Most people value happiness and social acceptance far more than rationality, but they subject their premises to the former, thus hiding that conflict.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 Faith as I understand it is belief without any concrete evidence. If there is credible evidence, one does not need faith. If no evidence, why believe it? I see nothing rational or reasonable about Abe's willingness to kill his own healthy child. I see an insane person with voices in his head and apologetics trying to read things that aren't there. There is nothing wrong with the human value of wishing to nurture our young. We are human - nothing more, but nothing less, either.
0609jean 1 year ago
@0609jean I'm talking more about philosophical truths, from reasoning over definitions. Not the a posteriori method of reasoning (i.e. the empirical method). So, for instance, if one reasoned from the truth that there are no intrinsic boundaries in nature, to the conclusion that things don't inherently exist (since there are no boundaries) including oneself, then there would be a great *emotional* reluctance to be convinced by that reasoning. Hence a specific kind of faith.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
For those of SisphysRedeemed's subscribers, who'd like to explore Kierkegaard's own private thoughts about Abraham (who he indeed regarded as an extraordinary being in regards to faith in the absurd), you can check out his autobiographical writings online. I have typed uploaded them to:
naturalthinker. net
(see "The Book of the Judge" link). Type "Abraham" in the search box.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
(cont'd) By knight of faith, Kierkegaard meant someone who accepted that the Infinite (aka God, not a finite entity but literally the predicateless Totality of all things) could not be encapsulated in a finite form, be that a belief system, treatise, idea, physicality, whatever. To be a knight of faith was/is therefore: to live as a finite being, whilst knowing oneself to be actually not-finite (hence: Absurd).
KellyJones00 1 year ago
(cont'd) Abraham's faith was in obeying God's command, rather than speculating about interpretations (finitising the nature of the Infinite). Specifically, God promised him limitless descendents, so the speculative interpretation would be: Isaac is the only way to fulfil that promise; killing Isaac destroys the first born son, his lineage, and therefore disobey God's command. Hence the absurdity of the faith.
Faith doesn't mean stop thinking, but stop finitising Reality.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
You are criminally under-subscribed sir. Nice vid
k1dpresentable 1 year ago
I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the bible story or of Keirkegaard, but I'm not well-versed enough in Kierkegaard's work to argue that point, so instead I'd like to express my relief at seeing a person post an argument on youtube without being rude or unkind to one's opponent. It's a trait we see far too infrequently on any side of any debate on the internet.
colossus999 1 year ago
Excellent points - well presented.
OnionTrollsAlliance 1 year ago
In sum: I see a universe which is indifferent, but in spite of this indifference, defy it in ways that ultimately neglect this indifference. Indifference is what you get as an outcome of the pretense to certainty, and this leads to prejudice and suffering via habitation. So faith is a form of indifference, doubt a way of asserting difference, and thus care. Very strange, huh?
CathySander 1 year ago
I always enjoyed K's writings, although I've always felt that he was under the influence of a peculiar madness when he attacks reason, under the spell I think of his aesthetic powers. My favorite comparison of his is when the despairing believer thinks of himself as kind of "clerical error" who says "No, I will not be erased, I will stand as a witness against Thee, that thou art a very poor writer."
threeofwands 1 year ago
@threeofwands Kierkegaard never attacked reason, but speculative philosophy, where one attempts to argue without personal experience. The speculators try to create a philosophical treatise as if that completes the matter, without indicating that Reality cannot and does not "finish" with the treatise. Similarly, he attacked the scientists for their belief that "some day" they will amass enough knowledge to present a complete model of Reality.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 That was K's specific objection to Hegel, yep.
But when a thinker speaks of the "God-man" as a categorical mistake that requires a thinker to perform a "crucifixion of the intellect" in order to accept it, then you are advocating something anti-rational, lol. And when that thinker emphasizes that you will become "contemporary" with Christ in his abjection and poverty after that sacrifice, the same.
threeofwands 1 year ago
@threeofwands The God-man isn't a categorical mistake, nor requires a crucifixion of the intellect to understand or accept. It's a very clear and simple idea.
Basically, all finite things, including a human being, are part of the totality of all things. The Totality is necessarily not-finite because it includes all finite things. Therefore, the true nature of every finite thing, is the Infinite.
Or, in Kierkegaard's terminology, a man's true nature is God.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 I'm not going to waste more of SR's comment space after this, but I will point out that you are giving a Hegelian account of a finite-infinite dialectic that K. explicitly criticized.
I was trying to come up with a pithy primer of K's writings that you could peruse and decided upon "The Living Thoughts Of Kierkegaard" compiled by the poet W.H. Auden in the 1940's. You could get it from an academic library.
Skip to the chapters Sin And Dread, and Christ The Offense before quiting.
threeofwands 1 year ago
@threeofwands I've been studying Kierkegaard's private journals for the past three years, intensively. There's no way he disagreed with what I wrote there. He definitely meant that God was the Infinite - not God as infinite, but God as The Infinite.
Nevertheless, the appeal to authority is not a sound form of reasoning, so the best summation of my point is: no wise man would ever reject the validity of reason in uncovering the nature of Reality (the Infinite).
KellyJones00 1 year ago
A refreshingly different take on the story from what one ordinarily hears. Because of the persistent influence of Christianity and its emphasis on Abraham's faith and certainty in the story (see, Hebrews 11:17-19), it's easy to minimize or even miss that the story has God *testing* Abraham (Genesis 22:1), which, it seems, must entail struggle, doubt, and even fear. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a test. Nice job emphasizing this neglected aspect of the tale.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"If faith does not make it a holy act to be willing to murder one’s son, then let the same condemnation be pronounced upon Abraham as upon every other man. "
"...for he who loves God without faith reflects upon himself he who loves God believingly reflects upon God."
I have to admit I come away from my excerpts with a different view of what Keirkegaard is saying. It seems I will have to acquire a copy of the full work and give it further study.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance The works of Kierkegaard, like the bible, are certainly open to alternate interpretations. I'm not a Kierkegaard scholar, and I don't claim to have the authoritative understanding of his ideas. But I do hope you check out the book and even if you disagree with my reading you see where I got it from (I should note I was also drawing in my mind on his other writings, too). Thanks for watching my reply, and for commenting.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Always a pleasure, SR! Your comments are always intellectually challenging and well thought out.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Kierkegaard was a man who wrote TO have alternate interpretations. The first half of his writing was meant for the writer to interpret things and find the truth pertaining to their own existence. Nietzche wrote the same way, I'm sure.
Pull honey from the weed, guys. :)
Audiofalcon7 1 year ago
I had not read "Fear and Trembling". I found excerpts online, and it's a fascinating read.
"If Abraham when he stood upon Mount Moriah had doubted.... For his retreat would have been a flight, his salvation an accident, his reward dishonor, his future perhaps perdition. Then he would have borne witness neither to his faith nor to God’s grace, but would have testified only how dreadful it is to march out to Mount Moriah."
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
the same way you feel of concordance, I feel about you (among others here as well). So I tried to reexamine my view, forget it, and adopt yours in this instance, but I can't feel confident with it. Meaning goes beyond what is written, I understand this, but from what is written, I can't fit that meaning even between the lines.If the author set up Abraham in a way where it was obvious I was supposed to fill in the blanks with my own desires then yes, I can imagine he was torn. however... (cont)
sluggdiddyyddidgguls 1 year ago
(cont) however I just don't see it that implied, I don't see how I am supposed to view the story as anything other than being about fear and obedience. He would not have attempted to kill his son without raising any objections if he had any morals or anything to break. If Abraham said something to the effect of "I am sorry son, but I must..." I would understand adopting your interpretation, but I don't see anything resembling conflict or doubt about what he was about to do to his only son.
sluggdiddyyddidgguls 1 year ago
You are adressing a sophisticated interpretation of the story of Abraham. Concordance was talking about the interpretation that most christians actually have for the story of Abraham. Neither of you are wrong.
You will probably find a good point in any story if you try hard enough, and it seems you have tried hard enough here, always interesting to hear your perspective.
tielec01 1 year ago
@tielec01 People who usually call themselves Christians are completely misguided, and arrogant to boot. To be a Christian means to be "like Christ", that is, one who has sacrificed everything for the truth. That means, any kind of social acceptance (thus, to be a priest, or part of a congregation is not to be Christian), understanding by other people (thus, to have friends and family ties of belonging is not to be a Christian), security (thus, to have a home, money, material possessions....) etc
KellyJones00 1 year ago
I usually think you nail things. However, I cannot get behind this posting. I cannot think of an acceptable context for killing one's child for the reward of land, and royal progeny....
stefanlittle 1 year ago
@stefanlittle Who said it was acceptable? I tried to be as clear as I could that I think it's unacceptable. But King Creon condemning his sister to die is also unacceptable. That doesn't mean it's a bad story. To the contrary: if all stories had happy endings, they would all suck.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 3
@SisyphusRedeemed
I can agree with that. I guess I don't understand your reaction to Concordance being against this as a tale used the way he discussed. 2bsirius has a related vid response to Jesusfreek about this bible story, where freek said that he would kill his child if god asked him to. This is the context that I think he was concerned about. I much prefer your "leap to faith" alternatives ;)
I'm glad that you talk 'bout ol Kirky, I think he is under read and underdiscussed!
stefanlittle 1 year ago
@stefanlittle Yeah, I was hoping to elevate the discussion a little. Making it about Jezuzfreak and the 'YouTube drama' seemed to take an interesting philosophical/theological issue and making it silly and childish. I liked how c0nc0rdance took a step in that direction and offered me a chance to do the same.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
After hearing this I just went and re-read the story.... I saw none of the doubt and questioning you suggest is there.... IF the story had the questioning, the struggle and the journey of thought and faith you suggest then it wouldn't be so reviled.
I'm 100% with c0nc0rdance on this, and I think your (Kierkegaard's) reading is just putting meaning and human rational/morals into the story that simply isn't there.
KylieTasticUK 1 year ago
@KylieTasticUK "I think your (Kierkegaard's) reading is just putting meaning and human rational/morals into the story that simply isn't there."
You say this as if there is any other way to read the bible.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "You say this as if there is any other way to read the bible."
I would expect religious apologists to force this non-written meaning into this story, but I see no reason why a non-believer would have too force such moral justifications into it.
I get your point that everyone interprets stories via their own views and morals, but I stand by my point that you are asserting a moral struggle that isn't even hinted about in the actual text.
KylieTasticUK 1 year ago 3
@KylieTasticUK "I would expect religious apologists to force this non-written meaning into this story, but I see no reason why a non-believer would have too force such moral justifications into it."
In my experience it's usually the fundamentalist who insists on taking the bible 'literally.' But I certainly agree that we can't just read absolutely anything at all into the text. But I don't think 'Abraham loved his son, so it was a hard decision to kill him' is implausible, given the text.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "I don't think 'Abraham loved his son, so it was a hard decision to kill him' is implausible, given the text."
I would agree its very plausible that Abraham loved his son, but more importantly it matters nothing because he feared (or loved!) God much much more...
I dont see this as a story about Abraham's struggle or about faith.... but a story of God's dominion and ultimate power - so absolute that believers would follow any evil mandate to avoid retribution.
KylieTasticUK 1 year ago
@KylieTasticUK Since Abraham did not live in an era with Bible Societies, sweaty evangelical preachers, tongueing congregations, endless dominations, etc. but only the direct and personal relationship to Reality - and trying to understand the nature of Reality in a first-hand, primitive way - it is easy to see that "God" then would not have been to him the American phantom of materialistic vindication and greed-based domination over your fellow man.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
I strongly disagree. Putting oneself in a dangerous situation may be deemed an act of courage but we all know that a stupid person would be more likely to commit to it than an intelligent one. Does that mean that being stupid is a virtue?
D20018200 1 year ago
@D20018200 The point is that the situation is unavoidable. You have to make decisions about your life: what to do with it, what to live for, etc. You can't avoid these decisions no matter how smart you are.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 2
@SisyphusRedeemed
Agreed, but I do not require blind faith to make my decisions. I'd rather rely on evidence, no matter the outcome. It's the only way I can be honest with myself, which is what matters most.
D20018200 1 year ago
@D20018200 Evidence can't really answer existential questions. 'What am I doing with my life?' isn't really an empirical question. Data and evidence are relevant, and helpful, but they don't answer these questions the way they answer questions of fact.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Excellent response (for what it's worth).
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Agreed.
D20018200 1 year ago
Subject's info and qualifications, subject's position on the topic to be debated, debaters reason for disagreeing with the subject, presentation and defense of debaters position, conclusions. Regardless of what I think about what you said, I certainly do appreciate someone who knows HOW to it. Well done.
castroherman 1 year ago
A leap is not necessarily an act of courage. It might be an act of fear. Like jumping off a burning building because the flames are hurting you more than the floor 20 stories below.
n3rdm4n 1 year ago
@n3rdm4n Fair point. But it seems to me that's more panic, not a decision in the sense of making a deliberative choice, but rather just making a snap call. Subtle difference, perhaps, but I think the kind of life decisions that Kierkegaaard is talking about are more often the deliberative kinds.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
“(Keirkegaard) looks at this 4000 year old story and sees it in a way that no one else before him had ever seen it.”
That says it all. Even the authors would be baffled how anyone could take this story and twist it into a glorification of doubt. Doubt is the chief adversary of faith, and the bigger and stronger the enemy, the more glorious the victor. How impressive would be the victory if David was the giant and Goliath a mere boy without even a sword?
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 The strong-minded individual, like a Kierkegaard, doesn't assume anything written has only one interpretation. He sees infinitude in everything. He doesn't superimpose a finite structure onto God, or Reality. Therefore, he is free to create meaning out of anything.
The story is not a glorification of doubt, as if to make the endurance of doubt more of an accomplishment than it really is. It's far more profound than that.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 "doesn't assume anything written has only one interpretation."
And what logic is there behind assuming authors have no right to their own intent? Logic such as that leads to believing whatever you wish of anything you wish. It's vapid.
Your 2nd para is half what I say and half what I object to, but you seem to have it turned around. SisyphusRedeemed talks of the story praising doubt, not I. Human nature is such that it is possible to gaze profoundly at a rock. That is profound.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 "what logic is there behind assuming authors have no right to their own intent?"
You had the right to interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend. That's your affair - you're free to do that. Evidently, my intention had nought to do with that interpretation, so I can't explain the logic behind it ...
What I meant: a strong-minded individual's freedom of thought tends to explore many angles and perspectives. That's just the way their brain works.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 “You had the right to interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend.”
Yet you assume to reserve the rights to the correct interpretation, otherwise you wouldn’t attempt to correct me. But perhaps I’m not misinterpreting what you say. Perhaps I am just exploring different angles and perspectives. After all, according to your own reasoning, there is no reason to assume anything written has only one interpretation.
Personally, I just think you missed the point.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I believe my view on this particular topic, namely, that there are infinite ways to interpret ideas with the freedom that Reality offers, is worth presenting clearly. That is what I am defending.
You clearly agree with that basic idea.
However, yes, you're right - the point of Kierkegaard's actual interpretation is not just about creating one's own view, or understanding. It's about sacrificing what hinders one's relationship with truth.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 "You clearly agree with that basic idea."
Not exactly. I believe that what I write has only one valid interpretation: mine. Therefore I extend that courtesy to other authors. That is not the same as either being correct, or even logically consistent, however.
I say that if K.'s interpretation is at odds with all other interpretations, he is most likely at odds with the intent of any author writing to be generally understood. You can't find virtue where none exists.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 Any idea can be transformed, reconstructed, merged, and related to other ideas to make new ones. I'm pretty sure you can relate to this process.
If someone's ideas are at odds with the majority's, that doesn't mean the loner is crazy. For instance, Galileo was at odds with the view of the cosmos generally understood at the time. That didn't make his view lacking in reason (intellectual virtue).
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00 "Any idea can be transformed..., (etc.) to make new ones."
How is that relevant to the original idea? If I have an idea and you transform, reconstruct, merge, or relate it to other ideas, it is no longer my idea. It is a new idea, and it is your idea. Your idea can't change mine because my idea is already in the past. (Please don't confuse this with me being unable to change my mind.) If an idea has no virtue, reinterpreting it doesn't make the original idea any more virtuous.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
Comment removed
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 There's a saying goes: a genius sees in the seed, something others cannot see. A good idea may be stimulated by a poor one, clarifying something it only sketchily explores.
KellyJones00 1 year ago