Fear And Trembling Kierkegaard

1188 Words5 Pages

Soren Kierkegaard, a German philosopher, throughout the 1800’s developed concepts defending the sovereignty of the individual (Basic Writings of Existentialism: Gordon Marino, p. 4). Gordon continues by explaining that, much of Kierkegaard’s work contains a primary focus on what it means to have faith. Published in 1843, “Fear and Trembling”, written by S. Kierkegaard is often described as an analysis of the oversimplification of Christianity. Within the text which is divided into three parts Problema I. presents examples from Genesis 22, an excerpt from Christian scripture to explain what Kierkegaard believes is a paradox that an individual through faith can rise beyond the universal. At the opening of the text we find the question “Is there …show more content…

By common understanding and through the sharing of moral values we can conclude what it means to be an ethical individual. In the scripture of Abraham, he was said to have risen above the ethical and into the universal, however, it does not appear possible for an individual to have reach a level of life when one as exceeded all that it required of the ethical to then transcend into a state of the universal. The idea which Kierkegaard presents at first seems well reasoned but through varies examples it is evident that such a conclusion is a misrepresentation of what it truly means to be faithful. Time and time again, we challenge ourselves to look beyond what is considered to be ethical and live as people of faith, but it is rare that one fully analyzes what it means to be faithful. In many interpretations of the concept of faith, ethical acts are in part what the definitions imply. It is understood that Kierkegaard believed that one must rise above the ethical by performing a spiritual task, but contrary to how it may seem the act or will of sacrificing ones’ son is in fact not a selfless act of faith, because it is ultimately the son whom which would have suffered. It is not only morally wrong to focus solely on the father’s hardship and strength, without considering the life of the child who would have been