These Cambridge Editions are a bit dry. I like them OK, but they're sort of difficult to finish. Very literal.
The entire idea of faith in this book isn't really carried out for the faith element, but for the discourse, which I respect. It is philosophy, after all.
There wasn't a great definition of esthetic vs ethical, etc. These terms need to be clearly defined for those who haven't taken the intro to philosophy course.
I thought I would get more about faith in this book, but it's sort of just a guy dealing with the fact that he doesn't want to love a woman, which is weird.
As far as the fear and trembling aspect, it makes me hope people don't imprison themselves by their faith. That sounds like the worst sin one could commit. To deny oneself the pleasures of life to please an ancient tome from around before Christ, or even worse after, seems like denying oneself the change to live.
Having read some portions of the bible, especially the new testament, some old testament, I don't really trust the people who started to say things AFTER Jesus, besides Peter. I enjoy their subjective accounts okay, but there thinking tends to follow tangents of man which I don't wholly agree with.
For instance, I know God or Jesus Christ wouldn't hate gay people. I don't feel like a wonderful person like Jesus would deny priests from marrying, and causing the sin of child abuse. Perhaps one should keep themselves clean, and it is important to have a clean soul to be a priest, but the temptation is far too much to bear.
These seem like dual opposites of the original goal. To align oneself with God eternal. The true goal is undermined by fundamental sins inherent in the church. These are incorrectnesses, indoctrination against common sense. There is religion and God, and there are basic, plain, ordinary men who were born with sexual genitalia. I feel like we're denying basic adaptation and evolution of man, like sin is this overwhelming doubt, this burden we must carry of our true natural selves.
Kierkegaard can only carry faith so far, as I feel like he is focusing on the discourse and indoctrinated in the theological discipline. His weakness as a man in personal life colors this book for me. Once you know the backstory of Regine, you can't help but the let the whole book fall apart like a house of cards.
I think Kierkegaard was a brilliant person. He does not seem to come to an obvious conclusion about faith.
What is faith? As the knight of faith, Abraham was a man who believed truly in God, even though he would make like he would kill his only son, after Abraham wished for one all his long life. To play like you will kill this old man's only son after such ordeals as he had been through, seems like a cruel joke, not faith.
Kierkegaard himself admits that he doesn't himself understand the knight of faith, that he is impossible to understand. While we can all understand the tragic hero.
The disclosure portion of the book is hard to get. Disclosure would be an abrogation of faith in Abraham's case, though.
I feel like I don't understand Abraham, or Kierkegaard any better. Faith seems to have the purpose of limiting oneself, which only your true self can decide. If anything, this book is an argument against faith. Kierkegaard proves the truth faith of Abraham or his condition. Kierkegaard does not prove faith in ourselves or himself. He points to true faith and says, it is unknowable.
I suppose I am impressed with Abraham, and also not. It seems like a personal choice. It is not a condition, it is inconsolable.
I suppose I would do well to round back and get to Schopenhauer, Hegel and Kant like everyone says. Maybe that would give me more answers.
I still wish this book had given a better idea of the esthetic. I think of it as this wishywashyness, this falseness. It's a hard subject to obtain understanding of.
I am glad that Kierkegaard and Abraham have faith, if we cannot understand the faith of others. His definition seems true, but impossible to obtain.
It would also be interesting to round back to more Kierkegaard in future, such as Either/Or. Descartes proved impossible to prove or disprove God and religion and faith. Kierkegaard made a thorny garden of it. I think of it as one of the ultimate questions of philosophy, theology. And I'm probably some similar distance in figuring out what I wanted from this text.
Overall the translation was decent, explained pretty well, thought a bit dry. Faith is one of those things you chase. It cannot be bought or sold, it is something like pure gold, which you work for, and may never truly attain all one's life.
I hope Kierkegaard found happiness, at least.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
More like Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy)
Page 1 of 1Start overPage 1 of 1
Loading...
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from other countries
Neil A. Abramson
Great edition; unfortunate limitation on downloading for multiple readers.
Reviewed in Canada on March 21, 2019
a sweet machine
"No generation learns the human genuinely from the previous one."
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 8, 2007
