The Story of Abraham is the stroy of Faith

Moina Maaz 2/7/2019 Phil 118 The Story of Abraham is the Story of Faith According to Kierkegaard, the individual has three stances towards his own existence. In the aesthetic, life is conditioned by pleasure and pain that can be anywhere between hedonism, artistic and theoretical. In the ethical stance, one’s judgments are based on good or evil and life, in general, is about rules and duties. The religious comportment is divided between paganism and Christianity and the latter is the main focus of Kierkegaard in his book Fear and Trembling. The absurdity of the God-man paradox in Christianity requires passion according to Kierkegaard, and this passion is what helps the person become a self. Fear and Trembling uses the journey of Abraham and Isaac’s sacrifice to understand the notion of selfhood and to present “infinite resignation” and “faith”. Comparing “faith” and “infinite resignation” in the light of Fear and Trembling and in the related interpretations of Adams and Lippitt unfolds the notions of the absurd and the self along with the belief in the impossible and the struggle with God, all which will be the themes of this essay. I will also present my own stand on Kierkegaard’s interpretation of the Abrahamic sacrifice and all that it represents. There are four attunements at the beginning of the Fear and Trembling proposing different scenarios on the journey of Abraham none of which represents “faith” or “infinite resignation”. These four different takes, end with weaning metaphors attempting to make sense of how and why Abraham accepted to give his son away. The weaning metaphors are about the different ways a baby can be detached from his mother’s breast in comparison to four interpretations of why would Abraham want to kill his own son. This comparison highlights the different ways Isaac gets detached from his father and from God. Kierkegaard uses Johannes di Silentio as a pseudonym and as the author of Fear and Trembling that is trying to understand the journey of Abraham and Isaac toward Mount Moriah. Di Silentio is also trying to establish the components of Abraham’s faith that will make sense of his journey. Abraham and Sarah were old and childless and God promised Abraham a successor that had to be named Isaac. A covenant was established between God and Abraham where the latter was to be given a promised land and offspring that will fill up the earth. At that point, God hasn’t asked anything from Abraham besides the circumcision that had to be performed on his kin and sequentially on all males. Later on, Abraham knew through a vision that God wanted him to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac who was to be the seed of his offspring. This vision drove Isaac and his father on a three days journey to Mount Moriah where he was to be sacrificed. Abraham trusted God and loved him, therefore, he went through with the sacrifice knowing that he will receive Isaac back somehow. Not to forget that Abraham feared God’s wrath Witnessing Sodom and Gomorrah made Abraham realize that God is all-powerful and it is wise not to disobey him. and knew what he is capable of. Abraham’s act was perplexing, and willing to let go of a finite object of passion (Isaac) and yet expect to receive it back through the infinite (God) (FT 18) seemed really absurd. Di Silentio couldn’t make sense of this act and all his interpretations crumbled in front of Abraham’s faith. Abraham was neither delusional nor foolish to deny that the knife will not cut his son’s throat and kill him upon the sacrifice. Moreover, the sacrifice was serious and Abraham didn’t think that God will give him a ram to slaughter instead of his son, therefore, he shouldn't worry. What is puzzling about Abraham’s faith is the concept of the afterlife that was not in the picture (FT 53). Lippitt stressed this point by saying that if Abraham was giving up his son in order to be rewarded in the afterlife or out of fear of God’s punishment or even hoping to be reunited with Isaac after death The fear to end up in hell after death. then the whole scenario of Isaac’s sacrifice would have been easier to understand (Lippitt, 34). However, Abraham’s faith was about his life on this earth and this is what made it great. Amidst what he has been feeling for having to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham was able to acknowledge that the attachment to what is finite will not allow him to preserve it. On the contrary, the only way to have his beloved object is by receiving it back absurdly through the infinite. In “faith” the person keeps himself opened to all the possibilities in remaining vulnerable and also by trusting God to protect him, not in a naïve superficial manner but by relying on the deep trust in God’s character. In Fear and Trembling “faith” has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Isaac would have been murdered according to the laws of morality whereas in Abraham’s scenario he is sacrificed. It is obvious that Isaac was the most beloved person to Abraham and according to di Silentio, no father has ever been known to love his son more than Abraham loved Isaac. God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son because he is his dearest finite object. Isaac was also the mean of immortality to Abraham; he was the promised successor that will keep Abraham’s legacy alive (lecture 5, 1/22/2019). Di Silentio argues that agony and sadness must have been accompanying Abraham on his three days journey to Mount Moriah because Isaac was about to die and otherwise the whole act will not be perceived as a sacrifice. On the other hand, the joy that Abraham felt upon receiving Isaac is one of the most important features of "faith". At that moment of joy, Abraham was in complete mindfulness where neither the blame Blaming God for being so crucial in asking him to sacrifice Isaac and blaming himself for going through with the sacrifice. nor guilt Guilt over accepting to give his son up and causing distress to his son. had room to exist. What makes Abraham great according to di Silentio is the greatness of what he loves which is God, the greatness of what he expects which is the impossible in hoping to receive Isaac back, and lastly the greatness of what he struggled with which is God as well (FT 50). Lippitt says that the greatness of Abraham is clear in his ability to expect the impossible The impossible is getting Isaac back. while sticking to his desire Abraham’s desire was the detachment from the finite. and believing in the absurd The absurd is going on with the sacrifice and expecting Isaac back.. The components of “faith” are invisible and di Silentio gave the example of the tax collector to demonstrate that the average daily person can be a knight of faith once he is able to detach himself from the finite and then receive it back with contentment. Abraham, as a knight of faith, went through a double movement of believing that God would not require sacrificing Isaac because he was the promised successor, however, he was surprised to receive him back (FT 18). Di Silentio could not wrap his mind around this movement because it is where all the human calculations get suspended and all the wordily languages that we understand fail to express what Abraham was going through, therefore, silence, concealment, and the inability to utter any words are the only things that Abraham was portraying. Being a knight of faith is a continuous activity where the person keeps on shaping and reshaping his personality to adapt to all possibilities. Abraham believed in God without losing the connection with the world and its finite objects and when he was given a ram to replace his son on the altar, he received Isaac back with joy without the need to readjust his reality in the way the person in “infinite resignation” needs to do. “Infinite resignation” is the first part of the double movement and it is the last step before faith. “Infinite resignation” requires an object of focus that the person is passionate about an upon realizing the impossibility to obtain this object, the individual will redirect his love towards God and becomes a knight of infinite resignation. When a painter that is absolutely passionate about what he does loses his arms in a car accident he will soon realize that he can never paint again. At that point, he redirects all his passion towards God looking for safety and knowing that no one can take that away from him. If for whatever magical reason he gets his arms back, he would not know what to do with them because his passion for painting is indefinitely resigned and he lives in a completely different realm after focusing his love toward God. Not everyone can be a knight of infinite resignation, it requires courage in accepting the impossibility The impossibility is not being able to obtain the object of his passion and facing the reality The person has a to accept the new reality where he can never have his object of passion. . “Infinite resignation” is a visible movement that embellishes the person with calmness and nobility; the person finds peace in loving God and becomes noble by doing so. It is also ethically admirable, like Lippitt says, for someone to renounce the pleasurable for the sake of a higher cause. Being a knight of infinite resignation is rejecting the risk minimizer where others suggest an alternative replacement for the objects of passion. In the case of the painter, his friends might advise him to dedicate his life to music for instance but he will refuse because the object of focus is identity-constituting and after it’s lost the self degenerates, moreover by rejecting the opinion and advises of others concerning his resignation he becomes a self. The knight of infinite resignation has to preserve his love and redirect its energy towards the love of God so he can stay immune from any further loss. The individual invests all his strength in accepting the new reality by resining the unattainable object whereupon he will have no more strength to receive this finite object once more. The whole dynamic of “infinite resignation” is about redirecting the emotions, the interest and the energy toward the infinite The infinite in Fear and Trembling is God. whereas “faith” entitles a different formula and requires a different set of actions from the person. “Faith” starts off with believing in God and willing to give up the finite object of passion so it can be received back on a new basis. It has a complicated structure that the mind cannot make sense of and this is where Robert Adams in The Knight of Faith comes forward with his interpretation on the absurd wondering if it can be the ground of “faith” in the Abrahamic scenario. De Silentio presents the paradox in the "Preliminary Expectoration" in Abraham willing what is humanly impossible to be willed. Adams interpret this paradox as having two contradictories believes at once in giving up the enjoyment in the most important object and yet enjoy it at the same time. Lippitt also elaborates on his paradox by implementing that it is rationally impossible to believe that God will not demand Isaac of him while going on with the sacrifice. Moreover, Lippitt says that rationality cannot explain “faith” because its components are intelligible. “Faith” is a movement where the finite objects are being released into the hands of God because attachment to the mundane will prevent the person from knowing the truth behind the material boundaries. The joy upon receiving back the object of desire is God’s reward for doing so. This movement does not follow the law of reason because it is an ongoing process of developing one’s self through releasing it from the chains of attachment to the objects of desire. Adams affirms that Abraham’s faith is out of our common perception and the language that is used to express it, is not a language that we can commonly understand. Lippitt elaborates on this idea by saying that “faith” and worldly understanding are opposites (FT 50) and power and wisdom in the common understanding gets transformed to powerlessness and insanity in “faith”. “Faith” is multilayered and for someone who is not willing to dig deep into these layers, Abraham is merely a mad man that is about to murder his son and no more. Lippitt interprets the different dimensions of Abraham's faith by comparing it with “infinite resignation”. What is really happening in “faith” is giving up on the notion of attachment rather than giving up the object itself. Once the detachment is established, the joy in receiving the object back is far higher than what is obtained from the aesthetic order, it is indescribable in a way that drove a father to detach himself from his own son so he can obtain him back through “faith” and not through attachment. Abraham realized that being attached to finite things does not make sense because they can never last. The absurdity is to believe that he will accept to lose Isaac while knowing that he will receive him back through the infinite. Adams wonders if the absurdity can be the ground of belief of Abraham implying that there is really no intelligible description for “faith” except that it is absurd and yet “faith” seems to the way to become a self. Becoming a self is the emphasis of Kierkegaard in Sickness Unto Death however and “faith” can comport the individual toward becoming the self as well. The relation between acknowledging the finite without being attached to it and connecting with the transcendent while knowing that it will give back what was resigned is what becoming a self is all about. Lippitt wonders on how can the love of the finite become the love of God in “infinite resignation”. In loving God, we are building unconditional trust and a deep sense of safety knowing that nothing will ever be able to strip this sense of dependence from us. In loving the finite, we have an attachment to the material and the need to possess it. Therefore, the two forms of love are not similar except in the amount of energy that gets redirected from one towards the other. However, the mechanism that ought to be used in order to transfer the love from the object to the transcendent remains puzzling. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his Three Philosophical Dialogues talks about the free choice and the fall of evil. He draws a scenario where Michael and the good angels have to will justice for its own sake because it is what God wants them to will. After doing so, God rewarded them with eternal happiness. Prior to willing justice, the angels didn’t know that they are going to be rewarded and this is what made their choice great. In the same manner, Abraham knew that whatever God is asking him to do is what has to be done. Abraham’s motif for the sacrifice is not an awaited reward, but a mere faith in God. Moreover, Lippitt stresses the ability of the knight of infinite resignation to renounce the most important thing to him and then consequentially seek refuge in God (Lippitt 47). The knight of infinite resignation does not choose to resign the finite because he acknowledges God whereas in “faith” the knight’s actions stem from his admiration to God and yet he has the strength to stick to the finite after he receives it back. “Faith” and “infinite resignation” are not states of being that the person can achieve but ongoing practical movements. “Infinite resignation” is understandable and visible whereas “faith” isn’t. The story of Abraham presents to us a great example of “faith” where the absurdity to receive Isaac back with joy after giving him up is the only wordily understandable description of “faith” (Adams). "Faith" is also a continual renouncing of temptations in the same way Abraham has to continually renounce Isaac (Lippitt). Abraham did not have the intention to kill Isaac as Adams claims, on the contrary, the drive for going through with the sacrifice is trusting God blindly while feeling that he will not lose Isaac even though he was certain that he will. “Faith” brings the aesthetic and religious back in a different kind of relationship and offers a full enjoyment in the finite without making the latter one’s identity. “Infinite resignation” is a more common activity to detect in people, one that requires a great amount of courage. Both “faith” and “infinite resignation” are the movements that help the individual become a self. Works Cited Adams, Robert Merrihew. “The Knight of Faith.” Faith and Philosophy, vol. 7, no. 4, 1990, pp. 383–395., doi:10.5840/faithphil19907433. Cantuariensis, Anselmus, et al. Three Philosophical Dialogues. Hackett Publishing Company, 2002. Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. The Folio Society, Ltd., 2014. Lecture notes (1/22/2019, Lippitt, John. Routledge Philosophy Guide to Kierkegaard and Fear of Trembling. Routledge, 2003. 1 Maaz