Not through the state, but definitely through not apart from a covenant community. You do need to read James Smith.
Mike, I think you have misunderstood the exchange between Merv, KLW, Mark and me, which is not only a summary of what I understand SK to have said in his description of Hegel’s concept of the universal and Johannes de silentio’s understanding of Abraham’s relationship to it and to God in the context of faith, but also a discussion of how Marx understood and applied Hegel’s ideas in his own work, and how those played out in an actual marxist and nazistic states, as well as an exploration of the idea of the universal to an Anabaptist concept of community. None of us was suggesting that an individual relates to the absolute by means of the state. Kierkegaard does not do that either, nor did Hegel or Marx.
Mark has already been exposed to a good deal of this discussion earlier in a private thread where some good folks endure my lamentations and meager efforts at this book. So, he was already a bit familiar with what I had said in my public post.
Some time ago I sketched this relationship out (The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical) in my notes on F&T to help myself pull all the bits and pieces together from Problema I, where he first goes into detail on the idea. Maybe it will help you, too.
Here are the notes that I had written to help explain the drawing and what else I had worked on understanding.
This sketch reflects the first 6 paragraphs of Problema 1, where SK describes the Universal/Ethical as the telos of all. The universal/ethical is the highest telos of all. Everything goes into it and remains; nothing is supposed to come out.
Once in the universal, [C] an individual’s ethical task consists in annulling his individuality in order to become the universal. This is essential, because Hegel defines the human being in his particular state, as a “form of moral evil” which is to be annulled in the teleology of the ethical life. If an individual [A] asserts his particularity/individuality vis-a-vis the universal, this is sin or spiritual trial, and must be acknowledged in order to reconcile to the universal. This requires [B] penitent surrender to the universal again. Note that sin/spiritual trial take place within the universal.
Because the ethical is the highest telos in human existence, it has the same character as eternal salvation. There is nothing higher.
Faith is a paradox, because, as with Abraham [D], the single individual, who has been in the universal, annulled his individuality, now acts as a single individual again to isolate himself higher than the universal, that is, now higher than the highest telos of mankind.
Not only that, faith is a paradox, because the singularity of the individual, a moral evil, is now above/superior to what is highest, the ethical/social morality, and is justified over against (gegenüber) the universal (NOT within it).
Being outside the universal/ethical/social morality, this individual, Abraham, is in absolute* relation with the absolute [E], where no mediation is possible between the individual and the absolute (perhaps God), OR between the individual and the rest of society. Mediation is only possible within the universal and would take the form of speech, which Hegel describes as a function of the universal.
*Absolute: unconditioned reality which is either the spiritual ground of all being or the whole of things considered as a spiritual unity (see Schelling & Hegel). Ficte: an absolute self which lives its life through all finite persons.
Because the individual is asserting himself as a particular, the paradox of faith can easily be mistaken for a spiritual trial. However, spiritual trial can only take place within the universal. Because Abraham functions above the universal, he is not in a state of spiritual trial, and cannot speak of it as such, or he would reenter the universal.
An additional paradox is that Abraham’s duty to God is in direct conflict with the ethical. A temptation is something that would restrain a person from doing his duty. In this case, however, the temptation is the ethical demand that “The father should love his son” (and not kill him). If Abraham follows the ethical, he is in conflict with God’s command.
Abraham is different from a tragic hero, in spite of the superficial similarity, that he is willing to kill his son.
Do not mistake my description of what understand as an endorsement. I was trying to figure it out.
I look forward to reading some of Smith’s work. Maybe you can provide some quotes from his work you think would add to the discussion here.
A prayer from Kierkegaard’s “Practice in Christianity”:
Lord Jesus Christ, you did not come to the world to be served and thus not to be admired either, or in that sense worshipped. You yourself were the way and the life – and you have asked only for imitators. If we have dozed off into this infatuation, wake us up, rescue us from this error of wanting to admire or adoringly admire you instead of wanting to follow you and be like you.
Jay, thank you for this!
It fits exactly his description of the Knight of Infinite Resignation staying true to his love (for God) in contrast to the Knight of faith, “who every moment of his life purchases the opportune moment at the highest price, for he does not do the least thing except by virtue of the absurd [that is by faith].”
And his description of the church as equivalent to the universal, rather than something that requires faith.
It is an active faith then.
Thanks for this, Jay.
Soon after that is one of my favorite pages in the whole book. Might as well have just highlighted the whole thing and been done with it.
This was what I figured you were agreeing with.
Thanks for the lengthy explanation, and your notes are cool to look at.
I’m not in a place where I can read a lot of text and make connections that are not immediately apparent.
there is no access to the universal (meaning the divine, not the state) except through the individual
This seems to exclude access to the divine via a worshipping community. I am very much both/and when it comes to God’s relationship with individuals at a corporate and individual level.
Oh wow.
Thank you, Jay. This is a lot to take in.
You’re welcome. I hope it was helpful.
Completely understandable. SK sets out a thinly veiled dare to his readers at the beginning of F&T to read it attentively enough to grasp the meaning.
The present writer is by no means a philosopher, he is, poetice et eleganter [to express it poetically and in elegant fashion], a supplementary clerk who neither writes the System nor makes any promises concerning the System, 6 who neither obligates himself to write about the System nor obligates himself to the System. He writes because for him it is a luxury that is all the more pleasant and palpable, the fewer there are who purchase and read what he writes.
(“Preface”, Fear and Trembling 16% Bookshare edition viewed in Calibre.)
I’ve put in 6 months of work on this book. I’ve read the complete book, each section many times as I’ve gone, and the whole thing straight through at least twice. Some of it is starting to fall into place for me. I’m seeing connections I hadn’t seen before and wondering how much I’ve missed.
This is not the kind of book that one can just tinker around with and then discuss well. Take your time.
Sorry. Just skip straight to the conclusion:
What, then, is the difference between an admirer and an imitator? An imitator is or strives to be what he admires, and an admirer keeps himself personally detached, consciously or unconsciously does not discover that what is admired involves a claim upon him, to be or at least to strive to be what is admired.
In between, you’ve gone from student to teacher. I ran out of pointers months ago. Well done.
You have nothing to apologize for.
Not “a lot” as in “a lot of words.”
But in an enormous shift in thinking, in being.
It is the work of a lifetime, isn’t it?
As long as the generation concerns itself solely with its task, which is what is highest, it cannot become weary, for the task is always sufficient for a human lifetime.
Epilogue, F&T, 87%.
And this, Jay,
Thank you.
I needed a hand and encouragement. You answered and pointed when I needed help. You and @MarkD endured so many, many words and false starts. “Keep going.” Thanks!
I still fondly blame @vulcanlogician for starting this whole thing.
You dear subversives!
As you may remember, I listened to it while painting my house. I vaguely recall sections that stood out and were interesting. The knight of faith was one such section.
I like Kierkegaard, and am always interested in what others smarter and more knowledgeable than me draw from from his writing… and then apply to the present context where all that glitters is not gold.
I agree, and that applies to sinfulness, as well. “Corporate sin” can also be labelled “systemic sin,” such as racism, patriarchy and corruption of justice that favors the rich and penalizes the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the strangers. Sounds like CRT to me. What say you?
Justin Giboney is literally a both/and kind of guy and I like what I’ve seen from him.
I’m literally one minute from signing off and cooking dinner. Don’t send me down a Google trail trying to figure out what you mean. I’ll be back tomorrow afternoon. Hope to see a straight answer by then. C’mon. You can do it. Just try.
This is what I saw from him:
I understand what you’re saying. It’s simply not (much of) a consideration in F&T. The entire book is focused on the position that God’s command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac puts Abraham in, and this in relation to his community (the universal) and public morality (the ethical). The conclusion, reached over and over throughout the book, is that if there is no place in existence, higher than the universal (the highest telos of mankind) that provides Abraham direct access to God, then Abraham is lost.
The only mention of “the church” I remember in the book referred to it as analogous to the universal. It was intended to be a criticism, and is quite a harsh one in light of other passages in the book. Jay’s most recent scan from SK’s Practice of Christianity harmonizes with the brief mention of the church in F&T.
And yeah. I do remember you listening to it while painting the house. I’ve heard sections many times, while driving. One time through and only listening would be impossible for me to have comprehended enough to say anything at all.
Looking up K’s use of universal, I’m not sure what Mark meant then by saying
there is no access to the universal (meaning the divine, not the state) except through the individual
Do you understand what he is saying?
Brain’s done for tonight. If I forget to reply by tomorrow evening, remind me, ok?
Regarding the universal, SK is referring to Hegel.
If you have the OUP VSI, it covers Hegel enough.