The leap of faith , in its most commonly used sense, is the act of trusting or accepting something beyond the limits of reason. In the case of religious belief, it is to believe in subjective truths about the meaning of life, to believe in something that can not be objectively confirmed in this world. Many religions regard faith as an essential element of piety.
Video Leap of faith
Ikhtisar
This phrase is commonly associated with SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard; However, he never used the term, because he referred to a qualitative jump. The leap of faith according to Kierkegaard involves a circle along as far as a leap is done by faith. In his Conclusion Postscript Not Certified , he describes the core part of the leap of faith: leap. "Thinking can turn to herself to think about herself and skepticism can arise, but the thought of herself never achieves anything." Kierkegaard says thinking must serve by thinking of something. Kierkegaard wanted to stop "self-reflection" and it was a movement that was a leap. He is against people who think about religion all day without ever doing anything; but he also opposes external performances and opinions about religion. In contrast, Kierkegaard supports the internal faith movement. He said, "Where Christians want to be backward, the Christian world wants backwardness, and where Christianity wants backwardness, the Christian world wants inward." However, on the other hand, he also said: "The less an externality, the deeper if it really exists, but also the less case of externality, the more likely that the complete disability will fail to come, the externality is the sleep-wake-up guard, an attentive mother who calls one, an externality is a call that brings the warrior to his feet, an externality is a reveille that helps one to make a great effort, but the absence of externalities can mean that into itself an inner call to a person - unfortunately - but it can also mean that openness will fail to come. "" The most terrifying thing of all is the personal existence that can not converge in a conclusion, "according to Kierkegaard. He asked his colleagues if any of them had reached any conclusions about anything or if each new premise changed their beliefs.
David F. Swenson describes the leap in his article in 1916, Kierkegaard's Anti-Intellectualism uses some of Kierkegaard's ideas.
H2 plus O becomes water, and water becomes ice, with a leap. The change from motion to rest, or vice versa, is a transition that can not be logically interpreted; this is the basic principle of Zeno's dialectics, and is also expressed in Newton's laws of motion, because the external forces by which such changes are made are not legal consequences, but are based on external to the system we begin. It is therefore transcendent and non-rational, and its existence can only be understood as a leap. In the same way, any causal system requires an external environment as a condition of change. Any shift from the details of the empirical induction to the ideality and universality of the law, is a leap. In the actual process of thinking, we have a leap that we use to understand an idea or a writer. Anti-Intellectualism Kierkegaard, by David F. Swenson, The Philosophical Review V. XXV 1916 p. 577-578
This is how the leap was explained in 1950 and later in 1960.
Kierkegaard agrees with Lessing, an expert on German dynamics, that truth lies in the search for objects, not on the objects sought. This is another case of "the act of attaining itself." If God holds the truth in one hand and eternal pursuit on the other, He will choose second hand according to Lessing. Religious truth concerns the individual and the individual itself, and that is the way of personal deprivation, the process of realization, the subjective dynamism that counts. From Lessing, Kierkegaard writes with approval. But if we are constantly occupied in the immanent struggle of our own subjectivity, how do we ascend to the knowledge of a transcendent God who, according to traditional thought, is known even to reason. Lessing and Kierkegaard state in the typical way that there is no bridge between history, limited knowledge and the existence and nature of God. This gap can only be passed by a "jump." Faith is a truly irrational experience, but paradoxically, the highest duty of a Christian. Although, as Thomte observes, it is not a spontaneous belief, faith remains blind, direct, and decisive. It has the character of "resignation." It is indirect and intellectual, as is Kant's proof for the existence of God. Nature does not make a leap, according to the Leibniz proverb. But faith, according to Kierkegaard must do so in a radical way. Idea-Men of Today by Vincent Edward Smith 1950 p. 254-255
Like Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, who plays an important role in the spiritual struggle for meaning in the modern writers, removes the shackles of logic and the tyranny of science. In the dialectical way of "leap," he seeks to go beyond the aesthetic and ethical stages. Completely alone, disconnected from his colleagues, the individual realizes his own absence as an initial condition for embracing God's truth. It is only when man becomes aware of his own non-entity - an experience purely subjective and incapable of speaking - whether he recovers his true self and stands in the presence of God. This is the mystique that the twentieth-century man has rediscovered, the leap from the outside inwardly, from rationalism to subjectivity, revelation, indescribable, from the Absolute reality. Literature and Religion: Studies in Conflict 1960 by Charles Irving Glicksberg p. 12
Maps Leap of faith
Leap into sin and into faith
Kierkegaard describes the "leap" using the famous story of Adam and Eve, especially Adam's qualitative leap [i] into sin. Adam's leap signifies a change from one quality to another, especially a quality that has no sin to quality has sin. Kierkegaard argues that the transition from one quality to another can only occur with a "leap" (Thomte 232). When a transition occurs, a person moves directly from one state to another, never having both qualities. "Currently it is related to transitions from one to many, from many to one, from similarities to inequality, and that it is a time when there is not one or more, either being defined or being combined." (Thomte Note 82-85 ). "By the time man becomes aware that he is born, because his predecessor state, which he may not hold, is one of the not.At this time man is also becoming aware of the new birth, because his predecessor state is one of none."
Kierkegaard felt that a leap of faith was essential in accepting Christianity because of the paradox that existed in Christianity. In his books, Philosophical Fragments and Concluding Non-Scientific Postscript , Kierkegaard delves deeply into the paradoxes given by Christianity. Moses Mendelssohn did the same thing when Johann Kaspar Lavater demanded he discuss why he did not want to be a Christian. Both Kierkegaard and Mendelssohn know the difficulties that exist when discussing religious topics:
"As I laboriously avoided explanations in my own apartment in the midst of a small number of worthy ones, whose goodwill I have many reasons to be convinced, it may well be concluded that the public will be very disgusting to me, disposition, and that I must become more embarrassed when the voice demands it to be entitled to an answer at any rate. "Moses Mendelssohn, Letter to JC Lavater, December 12, 1769
The use of the term "leap" by Kierkegaard in response to "Lessing's Ditch" discussed by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781) in his theological writings. Kierkegaard is indebted to Lessing's writings in many ways. Lessing tries to combat rational Christianity directly and, when it fails, he struggles indirectly through, what Kierkegaard calls, "imaginary construction". Both may be indebted to Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Rousseau used this idea in his book in 1762 Emile like this:
If I tell a simple and simple story about their innocent love, you will accuse me of carelessness, but you will be wrong. Adequate attention is not given to the effect that the first relationship between man and woman is bound to produce in the future life of both. One does not see that such a lively first impression as love, or a love that replaces love, produces a lasting effect whose influence continues until death. Educational work is overwhelmed with exaggerated and unnecessary stories of imaginary tasks of children; but there is not a word about the most important and most difficult part of their education, the crisis that forms the bridge between boy and boy. If any part of this work is really useful, it is because I have been struggling in this, very important in itself and so ignored by other writers, and because I do not allow myself to be discouraged by false delights or by the difficulties of expression. The story of human nature is a fair romance. Should I be blamed if not found elsewhere? I am trying to write the history of mankind. If my book is romantic, the fault lies in those who damage humans.
This is supported by other reasons; we do not deal with a young man who is given from childhood to fear, greed, jealousy, pride, and all the passions which are the common tools of the principal; which we must do with a young man who not only loves for the first time, but with a man who also experiences his first desire in any form; it is very likely that it will be the only powerful passion he will ever know, and on it depends on the final formation of his character. The way he thinks, his feelings, his tastes, is determined by lasting desires, will be so certain that they will not be able to make any further changes. Emile by Jean Jacques Rousseau, Foxley's translation
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) used the term in his essay in 1784, Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment? Kant writes:
Dogmas and formulas, mechanical devices designed for sensible use - or rather misuse - of their natural gifts, are fetters that never die. The person who drives them will make an uncertain leap above the narrow ditch, because he is not used to such free movements. That is why there are only a few people who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by developing their own thoughts. However, it is almost impossible, for the public to enlighten himself; indeed, if only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. There will always be some independent thinkers, even among the self-chosen guardians of the crowd. As soon as such people are thrown from the nonage yoke, they will spread a reasonable spirit of appreciation of human values ​​and their duty to think for themselves.
Lessing said, "The unintentional historical truth can never be a proof of the truth of the truth necessary." Kierkegaard points out that he also said, "the truth of the contingent of history can never be a demonstration of the truth of the necessary truth." Kierkegaard liked Lessing because he "had the most unusual talent to explain what he himself had understood, so he stopped, in our day people went a step further and explained more than they themselves understood."
We all believe that Alexander lived in a short time conquered almost all of Asia. But who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of permanent value, irreparable loss? Who, as a consequence of this belief, will erase all knowledge that is contrary to this belief? Of course not. Now I do not mind against Alexander and his victory: but it may still be possible that the story was founded only in Choerilus's poetry just as the Troy siege of the 20th century does not rely on better authority than Homer's poetry. If by historical reason I do not object to the assertion that Christ raised the lives of the dead; should I accept it as true that God has a Son who is the same essence as himself? About the Proof of Spirit and Strength , Lessing Theological Writings, Chadwick p. 51-56
Lessing against what I call measuring itself into a qualitative decision; he opposes a direct transition from historical reliability to a decision about eternal happiness. He does not deny that what the Scriptures say about miracles and prophecies is as reliable as other historical reports, in fact, as reliable as the history reports in general. But now, if they are just as reliable as this why they are treated as if they are much more reliable-precisely because one wants to base them on the acceptance of a doctrine which is the condition for eternal happiness, that is, to base their eternal happiness on them. Like others, Lessing is willing to believe that Alexander who subjected all of Asia to life once, but who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of great value, permanence, irreparable loss? SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard Concluding Not Certified Notcript Scripts , Hong p. 96, 130-131
Kierkegaard has Don Juan at Either/Or escorting young girls "all at age that is dangerous because of immature or children" to "the other side of the trenches of life" as he, himself, "dances on the chasm "just for" goes straight down to the depth. "He has Don Juan" preach the gospel of pleasure "to Elvira and seduces him from the monastery and wonders if there is a priest who can" preach the gospel of repentance and regret "with the same powers as Don Juan preached his gospel. Both Lessing and Kierkegaard are discussing an agency that may be used to base one's faith. Does history provide all the necessary evidence to cross that "ugly and broad ditch"? Or is there "no direct and immediate transition to Christianity". Whether a person becomes a Christian "in the fulness of time" as Kierkegaard says or "there is only one proof of the spirit and that is the proof of the spirit within a person." Whoever demands something else may find evidence in overwhelming, characterized by a lack of excitement. "
He also writes about this in the Closure of Uncertified Manuscripts :
If the naked dialectical deliberation shows that there is no estimate, that the desire to measure oneself into faith along this path is a misunderstanding, a delusion, that the desire to pay attention to oneself with such considerations is a temptation to the believer, the temptation that he, the spirit of faith, must fight with all its strength, lest it end with its success of converting belief into something else, another certainty, in place of probability and assurance, which is rejected when it begins its own making it qualitative. the transition from a leap from an unbeliever to a believer - if so, then everyone who, not entirely foreign to an educated science and not losing his willingness to learn, has understood it in this way must also feel his pressed position when he in awe learns to think cruelly about his own insignificance in the face of those who are distinguished by learning and sharpness and deserve to be known, thus, seeking faul In himself, he repeatedly returns to them, and when desperate he must admit that he himself is on the right..... When one has to jump, he must definitely do it himself and also be alone with the correct understanding that it is impossible.... leap is his decision..... I charge the person concerned by not wanting to stop the infinity of the reflection. Do I need anything from her, then? But on the other hand, in a truly speculative way, I assume that reflection stops of its own accord. Then why am I asking anything from him? And what do I need from him? I need a resolution. And in that case I am right, because only in that way reflection can be stopped. But, on the other hand, it is never appropriate for a philosopher to make a sport of people and at one point have a reflection of his own volition at the beginning of the absolute, and at the next taunt someone who has only one flaw, that he is strong enough to trust the first , taunting him to help him in this mode to an absolute start, which then happens two ways. But if resolution is required, presuppositionlessness is abandoned. Beginning can occur only when the reflection is stopped, and reflection can be stopped only by something else, and this other thing is something entirely different from the logical, because it is a resolution. Ending Unscientific PostScript to Philosophical Fragments , Hong p. 11-12, 102, 113
The implications of taking a leap of faith can, depending on the context, bring about positive or negative connotations, as some feel it is a virtue to be able to believe in something without proof while others feel it is folly. This is a debated theological and philosophical concept. For example, the relationship between "blind faith" and religion is debated by them with deistic principles that argue that reason and logic, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of the belief "that God exists in human form, born and raised." Jesus is a "paradox", "absolute paradox". When Christianity became a scientific enterprise that tended to "reflect itself into Christianity" but Kierkegaard said, one must "reflect on something else and become, more and more simply, a Christian."
Kierkegaard is concerned that people will spend their entire lives trying to define Christianity, love, God, Trinity, sin, and others, and never get to the "real" business of making the decision in time to become a Christian who can then act. on the basis of the decision. He discusses the inner and outer relationships that exist in the beliefs. "Compared to Hegel's notion that the outermost is the inner and outer inner, it is certainly very original, but it would be more original if the Hegelian axiom is not only admired today but also retroactively to eradicate, historically retarded, the difference between the Church visible and invisible.The invisible church is not a historical phenomenon, therefore it can not be observed objectively at all, because only in subjectivity. "There must be a balance between objective and subjective knowledge. Hegel went to the extreme side of the goal so Kierkegaard decided to go to the extreme side of the subjective.
The decision is on the subject; appropriation is a paradoxical instinct that is specifically distinct from all other opennesses. Being a Christian is not determined by "what" of Christianity but by the "how" of Christians. "How" this can only match one thing, the absolute paradox. There is therefore no vague conversation that being a Christian means receiving and receiving, and accepting a whole different, worthy, to have faith, to deserve in a totally different faith (nothing but a rhetorical and false definition); but to have faith is specifically qualified differently from all other appropriations and propriety. Faith is objective uncertainty with absurd rejection, held firmly in the passions of discipline, which is the relationship of increasing incitement to the highest level. This formula is only suitable for people who have confidence, no one else, not even a lover, or an enthusiast, or a thinker, but only and only people who have confidence, which connects themselves with the absolute paradox. SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard, Concluding Not Certified Not , Vol I Hong p. 610-611
Even some theistic theories disagree with the implications this phrase brings. For example, C. S. Lewis opposes the idea that Christianity requires a "leap of faith" (this term is most commonly understood). One of Lewis's arguments is that supernaturalism, the basic principle of Christianity, can be logically inferred on the basis of teleological arguments about the source of human reason. Nevertheless, some Christians are less critical of the term and accept that religion requires a "leap of faith".
What is often overlooked is that Kierkegaard himself was an orthodox, Scandinavian Lutheran in conflict with the liberal theological formation of his day. His works are built on each other and culminated with the orthodox Lutheran concept of God's unconditional acceptance of man, faith itself is a gift from God, and that the highest moral position is achieved when one realizes this and is no longer dependent on him or alone, take a leap of faith into God's loving embrace. In the Lutheran context, the leap of faith becomes clearer.
Suppose Jacobi himself had made the leap; assume that with the help of eloquence he succeeds in persuading a learner to want to do it. Then the learner has a direct relationship with Jacobi and consequently he himself does not make the leap. The direct connection between one human being and another is naturally much easier and satisfying one's own sympathy and needs much faster and as if more reliable. This is understood directly, and there is no unlimited dialectical need to keep yourself indefinitely resigned and enthusiastic in unlimited sympathy, whose secret is the rejection of pleasure that in God-the relation of one man is not the same as the other, which making teachers who are regarded as students who attend to themselves and make all teach divine jokes, because every human is basically taught only by God. SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard, Concluding Not Certified Not , Vol I Hong p. 610-611
Jacobi, Hegel, and C.S. Lewis wrote about Christianity in accordance with their understanding but Kierkegaard did not want to do that. He feels that it is too dangerous to write what is most sacred to himself. He said, "Even what I write here is my deepest meaning.I can not entrust myself on paper that way, even though I see it in what is written.Think what could happen! The paper may disappear; fire where I live and I can live in uncertainty about whether it is burned or still there, I can die and leave it behind me, I can lose my mind and my innermost being can be in the hands of strangers, I can be blind and can not find it myself, do not know if I stood with it in my hands without asking others, not knowing if he was lying, did he read what was written there or something else to get me out. "Kierkegaard argues that faith is something different than other things: unexplained and unexplained. The more a person tries to explain his or her personal beliefs to others, the more entangled the person is in language and semantics, but "recollection" is "dug Zugleich , the versatile," which always brings him back to himself.
The world may always have what deficiencies can be called authentic individuality, decisive subjectivity, people artistically impregnated with reflection, independent thinkers different from the bellower and didactic. The more objective the world and the individual subjectivity becomes more difficult with the category of religion, which is within the scope of subjectivity. That is why it is hardly an exaggeration of religion to want to be a world history, scientific scientific, and objectively related to religion. But I have not called Lessing to ask someone to appeal, because even wanting to be subjective enough to attract another subjectivity is already an attempt to be objective, is the first step to get a majority vote on the part of someone and God someone-relationships turn into a speculative company on the ground probabilities and partnerships and shareholders is the first step towards becoming objective. Uncertified Notice Closing p. 66
Confidence allocation
Kierkegaard remained adhering to his concept of Christianity as an inner struggle in which a single individual stands before God rather than in the presence of others. Being standing before God is the place of the decisive struggle for every individual. Every individual who has an "interest" to become a Christian has a different God relationship from other individuals. The more we seek "others" for our Lord's relationship, the more we have simulations, relations mediated by an idea. Idea, or ideal, not the highest. But getting ideas from paper or drawing board and using it in life is absolutely for Christians. In Works of Love (1847) he writes, "Love for neighbors does not want to be sung, it wants to be achieved." Christ does not say one should think about loving others, he says, "You must love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:39) He says it like this in the Three Sermons on the Imagined Event (1845) in the Closing of Uncertified Script Notes (1846) in Sickness to Death i> (1849) and again at Works of Love (1847).
Ah, it's much easier to look to the right and to the left than to look at yourself, easier to bargain and bargain just as much easier to be burdened than silence - but the harder one still needs. Even in everyday life each person experiences that it is more difficult to stand directly in front of different people, just before the majesty of his kingdom, rather than moving to the crowds; to stand alone and to live in silence before a sharpened expert is more difficult than to speak in an equally equal harmony â € "not to say alone in the presence of the Holy and silent. SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard, Three Sermons on Incarnished Events p. 31
Where is the limit for one individual in his concrete existence between what is lacking and what is lacking ability; what are worldly curiosities and selfishness and what are the limitations of limitations? For an existing person, when the preparation period ends, when this question will no longer appear in all of its original severity, the problematic one; when is the time available? Let all dialectists sit-they will not be able to decide this for a particular individual in concreto . SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard Concluding Not Certified Notcript Scripts , Hong p. 490
The lowest form of the most innocent, innocent humanity is to abandon all the unresolved issues of Christ, to state as a result: 'I dare not judge the matter; I do not believe, but I do not judge. "..... The next form of offense is a negative, but passive form.Of course he feels that it can not help but notice Christ, leaving this affair of Christ in disobedience and bringing on a busy life is something that can not afford, but believing is something which can not be done, so keep staring at the same point, in the paradox.... The final stage of transgression is a positive form, proclaiming Christianity as a lie and lie, denying Christ (that he has existed and that he is what he claims) both docetically and rationally, so either Christ does not become a particular human being, but merely appears to be so, or he becomes only a certain human.
But when it is a duty to love, then no test is required and no derogatory folly is to be tested, then love is higher than any test; it is more than a test in the same sense as faith "is more than conquering." Testing is always associated with possibilities; it is always possible that what is being tested will not stand the test. Therefore, if one wants to test whether he has faith, or try to gain faith, this really means he will prevent himself from obtaining faith; he will bring himself into an anxiety of desire where faith is never won, for "You will believe." Love Works , p. 33
Suppose there are two people: a double-minded man, who believes that he has gained a belief in a loving Beloved, for he himself has experienced help, even though he loudly sends a sufferer to whom he can help; and another man whose life, with a devoted love, is an instrument in the hands of the Savior, so that he helps many suffering people, despite the help he himself hopes to continue to reject from year to year. Which of them is truly convinced that there is a loving Beloved who cares about the suffering? Is not this a just and convincing conclusion: He who plants the ears, will not hear it (Psalms 94: 9). But turning around, and the conclusion is not equally fair and convincing: He whose life sacrifices love will not he believe that God is love? But in the busyness there is no time or tranquility for the quiet transparency that teaches equality, which teaches the willingness to draw the same yoke with others, the noble simplicity, which is in the inner understanding with every human being. There is no time or calm to win such beliefs. Therefore, in the pressures of busyness even faith, hope, and love and good wishes become only loose words and double thoughts. Or is it not a double-mindedness to live without any conviction, or rather, to live in the constant and ever-changing fantasies that a person possesses and that one has no faith!
In this mode the feeling of deceiving busy people becomes double-minded. Perhaps after the advent of opposition to repentance, if this turns into emptiness, he has faith, at least so he believes, that there is mercy forgiving sins. But even in his forgiveness he strongly denies the implication that he has been guilty of anything. Therefore he, he argues, believes in the belief that such grace exists, but in practice he denies his existence; in practice, his attitude seems to be designed to prove that it does not exist. Suppose there are two people, who are two minded, and then another man who will gladly forgive his debtor, if he himself may only find mercy. Which of the two really believe that such a grace exists? The latter has evidence that this exists, that he himself practices it, the former has no proof at all for himself, and merely fulfills the opposite proof he himself presents. Or a double-minded person may have right and wrong feelings. It is very blazing in him, especially if one describes in a poetic way the excited men, who by self-sacrifice in the service of righteousness, maintain truth and justice. Then some mistakes happen to this man himself. And then for him it seems as if there should be a sign in heaven and on earth because the world order can not sleep longer than he until this error is overcome again. And this is not the self-love that inflames it, but it is a feeling of justice, she thought. And when he gets his right, no matter how wrong it hurts the people around him, then once again he praises the perfection of the world. Feeling really has taken him away, but also so fascinated him that he has forgotten the most important of all: to support truth and justice with self-sacrifice in the service of righteousness. Which of the two really believes that justice exists in the world: who suffered wrongly for doing right, or wrong to get his right? SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard, (1846) Purity of Heart is Will One Thing , Steere p. 111-113
Kierkegaard, Goethe, Marx, and Tolstoy
Kierkegaard questioned how a person changed. Some, such as Hegel and Goethe, believe that the external events necessary for the new age begin. Kierkegaard disagrees because something may never happen in an external way that will cause a person to change and the possibilities for a better life may be lost. Marx follows after Hegel and Goethe but Tolstoy agrees more with Kierkegaard in his "outlook on life".
Goethe may have mocked the idea that the birth of Christ is what made him important or he may have thought seriously that his birth, Goethe, alone made him important. Kierkegaard does not believe that Christ has "a backward pullback that wants to reap before sowing or the kind of cowardice that wants to have certainty before it begins." Goethe started his autobiography with the certainty that his life would be very influential on the world stage.
In the first twenty pages of his autobiography, Goethe has pointed to the Lisbon 1755 earthquake as another major life changing event in his life. The Goethe book is translated Truth and Poetry but is also translated Truth and Fiction. Both authors seem to be opposed to a fictitious existence. Goethe believes the existence of Christ is being fictioned while Kierkegaard believes Goethe's existence writing about his own autobiography is fictitious - and much of it.
On August 28, 1749, at noon, when it was twelve o'clock, I came to the world, in Frankfort-on-the-Maine. My horoscope is correct: the sun stands in the sign of the Virgin, and has reached its peak for the day; Jupiter and Venus looked at him with friendly eyes, and Mercury did no harm; while Saturn and Mars make themselves indifferent; The moon alone, full-blown, exerting the power of his shadow, the more he reaches his planet's clock. He is against himself, therefore, for my birth, which can not be completed until this hour has passed. These good aspects, which are then administered by astrologers, considered to be very beneficial to me, may be the cause of my preservation; because, through the helplessness of the midwife [sic], I came into the world as dead, and only after many attempts can I see the light. This event, which has made our households straight, turns to the benefit of fellow citizens, as far as my grandfather, Schultheiss, John Wolfgang Textor, took the opportunity of him to have an accoucheur established, and to introduce or revive the costs of midwives, who may have done good for those born after me.
Count Leo Tolstoy said he found "no God" in 1838 when he was 12 years old. He has to work through this idea for the next 38 years until he can come up with a method he can trust, not only in God but in Christ. Kierkegaard heard the same thing from the Hegelian philosophers and worked through his doubts about faith but he opposed the method. His thinking was to start with faith and move forward making positive steps rather than always retreating to restart after doubts had been won. He said, "Doubt is wrong to doubt everything but himself, with the help of faith, the doubts that save only the doubt itself."
Kierkegaard does not want to argue about his faith more than he wants to argue about why he may or may not marry or become a professor. She just wants to make a move from "the possibility of being an actuality" and know that she will only waste time if she tries to explain herself.
I think that, just as a Christian should be able to explain his faith, so also a married man should be able to explain his marriage, not only to anyone who is willing to ask, but to whomever he thinks fit for it, or even if, as in this case, unworthy, he feels the right to do so. Either/Or Part II , p. 88-89, Hong
Tolstoy tried to explain the method he used to overcome Christianity. He acts on his beliefs by freeing his slaves, writing books to help them learn to read and to give them the land to plant and live on. He does not argue and reason with his neighbors; he just did what he did.
Karl Marx complains about the Hegelian philosopher in Theses about Feuerbach in this way, "Philosophers only interpret the world, in various ways: the point, however, is to change it." Walter Kaufmann changed the quotation to reflect Kierkegaardian differences in his 1959 book, From Shakespeare to Existentialism :
[Kierkegaard's] relationship with his philosophy is best expressed by changing one small word in Marx's famous dictum: "Philosophers only interpret the world, in various ways: its core, however, is to change" -not "it," as Marx said, but ourselves own. "p. 202
Only in transforming themselves is one with another, according to Kierkegaard because, in Christianity, everything is equally before God. The world is too abstract to change; but a single individual, you own: it is something concrete. Kierkegaard said this in his book Upbuilding Discourses of 1843-1844 and in his book Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits of 1847:
The so often emphasized idea in Scripture for the purpose of raising the low and humble people, the idea that God does not respect the status of the people, the idea that the apostle wants to convey in the life of an individual to apply in his life.. [...] In holy places, in every building of life, the mind appears in the soul of a person who helps him fight a good fight with blood and flesh, with the government and the ruler, and in the struggle to free himself for the equality ahead Lord, is this battle more aggression war against the difference that wants to burden itself with worldly favoritism or a defensive war against the difference that wants to make him uneasy in worldly destruction. Only in this way is the divine law equation, only in this way is the struggle of truth, only in this way the victory has the validity - only when a single individual fights for himself within himself and does not necessarily suspect to help the whole world to gain external equality , very few benefits, especially since it never existed, if there is no other reason than that everyone will be grateful to him and become unequal before him, only in this way is the divine equality of the law.
Do you now live in a way that you realize as an individual, that in every relationship where you relate to yourself outwardly you realize that you are also connecting yourself with yourself as an individual, even in our relationship human beings which is so beautifully referred to as the most intimate (wedding) You remember that you have a more intimate relationship, the relationship in which you as an individual connect yourself to yourself before God?
The idea behind the history of the world and the quantification of the constant degrades the quality known as a single individual and can produce "rotting souls because of the monotony of self-attention and self-preoccupation" with anxiety about where you fit in the system. Language comes to help with many words to explain everything. But Kierkegaard says: "the course of ethics is acting."
The observer stares desperately into the great forest from generation to generation, and like someone who can not see the forest for the trees, he only sees the forest, not a single tree. He hung the curtain systematically and used people and nations for that purpose - the individual human being does not mean to him; even eternity itself is enclosed with systematic surveys and ethical imperatives. Poetry poetically disseminates, but, far from fasting itself, it dares not to assume the infinite divine simplicity that ethically-psychologically does not require many human beings but rather requires the idea. Not surprisingly, then, that one even admires the observer when he is noble, valiant, or perhaps more precise, absent-minded to forget that he is also a human, an individual human being! By continuing to look at the world's historical drama, he died and left; nothing remained of him, or he himself remained like a ticket received by the introduction in his hand as a sign that the audience is now gone. However, if being subjective is the highest task given to human beings, then everything becomes beautiful. From here it is first followed that it no longer has anything to do with the history of the world but in that it leaves everything to the royal poet. Secondly, there is no waste, because even though individuals are as innumerable as sea sand, the task of being subjectively is given to everyone. Finally, this does not deny the reality of the development of the history of the world, reserved for God and eternity, having its own time and place.
As a rule of repentance is identified by one thing, that he acts. In our day, it may be less misunderstood in this way. I believe that both Young and Talleyrand or the newer writers are correct in what they say about language, why it exists, because I believe that it exists to strengthen and help people in abstaining from action. What to me is nonsense might have a big effect and probably most of my acquaintances, if they read these letters, would say: "Well, now we understand him."
You are
The difference between Kierkegaard and Marx is that someone applies everything to himself while others apply everything to others or to the rest of the world. Implementing information or worldviews is difficult and more difficult for the less dependent on the opinions of others. Abraham had just heard God's promises and they made no sense but he had faith. The idea that the world should make sense or respond to human reason is one that ignores the spirit world. The world is abstract, the church is abstract, the spirit world is abstract, but the single individual is concrete if it wants to be that way. And an individual connects itself to the world, the church, the spirit world, the environment, the established order, the educational facility in a unique way according to Kierkegaard. A leap means stopping contact with the crowd or race and then to the world, the church, the spirit world, the environment, etc. Once an individual chooses to do that, a leap is made, resolution becomes possible and a person's personality can be developed in freedom.
Kierkegaard begins, at Either/Or Part 1, by saying, "" You know how the prophet Nathan dealt with King David when he allegedly understood the parable that the prophet had told him but did not want to understand that it was applied to him. Then to be sure, Nathan added: You are a man, O King. In the same way I also keep trying to remind you that you are the person being discussed and you are the person to talk to. "He discusses this again in another way at Either/Or Part II aequale tempermentum [even disposition]. But this is not an aesthetic mood, and no one has a natural or immediate nature. "Then, in 1845, he repeated the same thing in the Stages of Living with the story of an individual with gambling addiction and someone who is a gambler but not despair because of it:
A gambler stops, repentance catches him, he cancels all gambling. Even though he had stood on the edge of the abyss, repentance still hung on him, and seemed successful. With a life drawn as he does now, perhaps saved, one day he sees the body of a man pulled out on the Seine River: suicide, and this is a gambler like himself, and he knows that this gambler has fought, has struggled in battle who is desperate to resist his wishes. My gambler has loved this man, not because he's a gambler, but because he's better than he is. Then, how? No need to consult romances and novels, but even a religious speaker will most likely decide my story early and end up with my gambler, shocked by the sight, go home and thank God for his saving. Stop. First of all we must have a little explanation, judgment is spoken to other gamblers; every life that is not thought of eo ipso indirectly passes judgment. If the other gambler is unfeeling, then he can surely conclude: He does not want to be saved. But that's not the point. No, my gambler is a man who has understood the old saying de te narratur fabula [the story is told to you]; he is not a modern fool who believes that everyone should judge the enormous task of being able to bring forth something that applies to all mankind but not to himself. So what judgment should he go through, and he can not continue to do so, for this is the most sacred law of life, for it is the covenant of mankind. SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard Stages of Living p. 477-478 Hong
The visible church has expanded so widely that all the original relationships have been reversed. Just as it used to be the energy and determination to become a Christian, so now, even though rejection is not praiseworthy, it takes courage and energy to abandon Christianity, while it requires only carelessness to remain a nominal Christian. Children's baptism can be maintained; no new habits need to be introduced. But because the situation is so radically changed, the clergy should be able to understand that if it is their duty, when few people become Christians, to win people to Christianity, their duty is now better to win men by blocking them- for their misfortune is that they have become Christians. Everyone knows that the most difficult leap, even in the physical realm, is when someone jumps into the air from a standing position and down again in the same place. The jump becomes easier at a level where some distance intervenes between the starting position and the place where the jump takes off. And so it is with respect to the decisive movement in the spirit realm. The most difficult decisive act is not where the individual is away from the decision (as when a non-Christian will decide to be one), but when it is as if the matter has already been decided. What is baptism without a private designation? It is an expression for the possibility that a baptized child can become a Christian, no more and no less.
- Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Uncertified Noticecript , p. 326-327 (Problem Fragment) 1846, Swenson and Lowrie's translation, 1941 Princeton University Press
Throughout his writings, Kierkegaard repeats his emphasis on single individuals who learn how to make resolutions. One example is the following prayer from his April 26, 1848 Christian Discourse .
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments