Soren Kierkegaard | Fear and Trembling (part 1) | Existentialist Philosophy & Literature
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ย. 2024
- support my Video Work - / sadler
study Existentialism with me - reasonio.wordp...
get Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling - amzn.to/2yDSzcv
In this lecture, we begin to study one of Soren Kierkegaard's most important works: Fear and Trembling. This lecture provides an overview of the text as a whole, and then examines all of the sections, except for the three problemata at the center of the book (covered in the second lecture). We discuss in particular the relationship between faith, religion, theology, reason, philosophy -- and lived experience. We also focus on Kierkegaard's treatment of Abraham and how he transcends the category of the Tragic Hero.
![[TH] RNT vs SPG - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RUTkf8Detj8/mqdefault.jpg)
What treasures of thought are here! I'm so grateful that you're sharing this.
The challenge now is to not merely be a consumer of philosophy, but to "work for my own spiritual bread".
Dear Professor Sadler, I have struggled with the principles of Existentialism most of my adult life. I have gleened many new insights after listening to your lectures. Knight of Infinite Resignation and Knight of Faith. True I need more substance but those two elements have helped immensely. Thank You. David N. Insana
Glad that they've been useful for you!
That was very helpful in clarifying things for me. Fear and trembling is by far the most complex book I ever read.
Glad it was useful for you
You're very welcome. It's been very gratifying to read all of the comments from people outside of my classes who use these videos. I've got quite a few other sequences planned for down the line -- but my next big project, now that I'm in TH-cam EDU, is to start adding resources to accompany the videos I've already got out there.
Thank you for this. I'm a philosophy layman, and discovered KS through Fear and Trembling a few years ago. To the extent that I understood it, it shook me, and to this day I retain primitive sketches of his Abraham and Knights in the back of my mind. Your lecture has reminded me of a dimension of that call to Faith I'd forgotten.
You're very welcome!
you're welcome. I've actually got some Nietzsche up already, and will be filming additional videos
Thank you so much for uploading your lectures! I'm an economics major but I've always had an interest for philosophy, sadly I never really got the chance to take it in college.
I'm not sure why this is a recurring issue.
Something can very well exist without a person having objective (in the usual sense of the term) proof of it. Something either exists or it doesn't. Whether an objective proof of its existence can be found or not does not (usually) make that thing exist.
For financial reasons I've decided against trying to minor or double major in Philo, but have consoled myself with the assurance that universities do not hold the keys to knowledge, just accreditation. In this regard your videos are a wonderful supplement to my autodidacticism, and I sincerely thank you for the work you put into your channel. :)
This is a truly humbling lecture.
How is it humbling?
Well, some Existentialists do in fact pay attention to Repetition -- as well as to the Philosophical Fragments, Sickness Unto Death, the Concept of Anxiety, et al. But, you're right, there is a tendency to pay closer attention to Fear And Trembling.
Why? I'd guess because it's pretty schematic (or rather schematizable) in parts, and also because there's the "if you're only going to discuss one. . ." dynamic. If some already have a text filling that role, it's natural to continue that
You're welcome. Yep, you can only get so much covered in any given period of time
I am really drawn into your lectures. I find them all very thought-provoking and can't wait to watch more of them.
You're welcome -- that's unfortunate, not getting to take courses in it during college. But, there's quite a few decent resources out there, and there's always self-study, which it sounds like you're embarked upon
Thanks very much. I've got a few more on Kierkegaard planned for this Existentialism Playlist, but also some more coming up on Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Heidegger, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus, and Marcel
Thank you so much for your lectures!
Please do at least one video on Either/or
th-cam.com/video/vkXKtxleGA8/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I am reading fear and trembling and hope to see the next video after I am done.
He can have joy, sure.
First off, the knight of infinite resignation does not in most cases sacrifice EVERYTHING for the sake of what he takes to be the highest, most encompassing good. Something is sacrificed. Why think that means everything is sacrificed?
Second, he can take a sort of joy in the very alignment of his will with what he takes to be the highest good, in his own nobility -- read K's passages on the Knight. He paints him in quite positive light, doesn't he?
No, for Kierkegaard, the poor in spirit wouldn't necessarily be the Knight of Infinite Resignation, I think, for a few reasons.
What it means to have faith for K is to have moved past infinite resignation -- to expect, to await, to hope from God -- even though it is inexplicable -- the good to be given to (or back to) you. The poor in spirit could very well be that.
The knight of infinite resignation is really quite rich in spirit -- they have chosen what seems to be the highest path
I'm not sure about that -- the Religious is higher than the Ethical -- and keep in mind, it is a "teleological suspension of the ethical", with the telos being a religious one
Glad you liked it so much! You're very welcome
In my opinion, Kierkegaard took a very humble profile behind F&T ... A sort of "We're not worthy!" Stance to teleological ethics.
27:00 - 28:52! This hit real hard right there!
In Problema III, Kierkegaard takes up the problem of concealment and explores the question of whether it is ethical to remain silent through his act of faith. Is moral community possible without linguistic communication? What about Hegel, what would he think?
Well, that's not a radically new idea that K is putting forth -- it's a commonplace of the earlier Christian intellectual traditions (which K knew quite well, in parts).
I suppose one key aspect of it is that, when one actually does pray, one is putting oneself, for better or worse, in the presence of God, thinking about oneself in relation to something transcending oneself, hopefully thereby growing in some degree of self-awareness and humility, and turning one's will in the right direction
Sure. But, that's really the problem so long as interpretation is not adding anything, culling anything new out of the previous work. By that logic, strictly applied, we'd have to say that K's own diss. on Irony, as well as all of his discussions of Socrates (via Plato and to a lesser extent, Xenophon) are not showing us new dimensions or sides of those authors.
You're welcome
Thank you very much for these, there's only so much that can be discussed during lectures - it's really nice to delve into the entire community of philosophy in this way.
To say that one has no objective proof that God exists is something very different than saying one knows God does not exist. All that saying one has no objective proof means is that one does not have an argument that would necessarily convince any rational person.
Kierkegaard believes God exists, and it's actually on that basis that he criticizes philosophical proofs as being inadequate. He's not the only one, by the way, who does that -- Cotta in Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods does that
Thanks for you're great lecture, I look forward to Nietzsche.
By the end , concerning the wright to take what is not yours and decide upon it ?
Can anyone decide existence for another person without consent?
So where is freewill here ?
If the son decides not to die this day , Who can interfere on his will?
And existence , where does it fit here ?
Thanks for all of your lecture posts, these are a great resource. My Philosophy class is using "The Worlds of Existentialism" reader with a short ppt in conjunction, it's just not enough to grasp some of these concepts.
About the knight of infinite resignation: does he have any joy? He sounds almost like a nihilist, though not quite the same. Both acknowledge that complete satisfaction in life is unobtainable, although the nihilist believes in nothing whereas the knight of infinite resignation sacrifices all else for the sake of his single highest principle. If the knight has no joy, can we really view him as being the second best kind of person?
I have indeed thought about vids on Schopenhauer, and I agree that he's a good one to study. But, he's (and other German Idealists) going to have to wait a bit, as I produce other sequences, in particular this Existentialism one, which I'm projecting to include somewhere around 30-40 videos.
The faith is the only who can reach levels remote for science and maybe philosophy too. The Faith is some steps forward than science. But in the other hand, the method of sciene without doubt is a lot more creible, more secure. I think it is about trust or no trust. We dont have today a anserw confortable about the fundament of religion. But still is very powerfull. Thaks for your time. (sorry for my english, i am from argentina)
thanks for making this video, very appreciated.
+Bernd Lauert You're welcome!
great lecture, professor
Thanks!
Hi Professor Sadler, is it okay to use this as an alternative on reading Fear and Trembling? Or is it still better to read Fear and Trembling?
You should always read the texts
Well, Kierkegaard wouldn't say that he knows God doesn't exist, so if this is supposed to be Kierkegaardian, that's a major departure.
I think you're confusing possession of the free will, and actually being able to use it. The one is an ontological condition of the human being. The other has to do with the circumstances in which one finds oneself (which, complicating matters, might have been chosen, or be products of choices)
Can another person "decide" for another without their consent? Sure. It happens all the time.
Thanks very much!
I just got into Kierkegaard recently, and surprisingly found that his ideas reflect a lot of what Nietzsche talks about (particularly in Zarathustra and the gay science), especially in terms of things such as the ethical, infinite resignation and leap of faith. Is there some kind of intrinsic connection between these two? For example, can Nietzsche's Ubermensch be somehow equated in terms of K's Knight of faith (because both kind of act in similar ways)?
I might be a few years too late here, so keeping my fingers crossed for a response.
There is no intrinsic connection between the two
This might be random, but could you explain Kierkegaard’s concept of “the absurd” and how it differs from Albert Camus? Camus’s explanation is easy to grasp but Kierkegaard’s is a bit confusing.
I wouldn't say that Kierkegaard has a "concept" of the absurd in the same way Camus does
You're welcome. Yep, in the areas where it's competent, science is great
Sorry, I have another question; what does Kierkegaard mean there is no objective proof of Gods existence, and that God still exist?
Since you like Hegel so much, how do you feel about S. Kierkegaard?
I like him even more
I thought thatKierkegaard is in opposition to Hegel :D
lninnka@gmail.com
Yep. On some things.
Gregory, have you ever read any of Ernest Becker's work?
Matty Man Just bits, and long ago. What's the relevance here to this video?
Gregory B. Sadler There's some relevance. But I was more just asking out of curiosity, since I like you and your videos and just wanted to know. Becker does do a good job of taking these existential questions and applying them to sociology and anthropology. His basic premise is that the fear of death is the motivating factor behind all human ideologies. That all cultures and social structures are Hero systems that people can participate in in order to overcome their mortal doom. I've been reading Escape from Evil over and over again by him. If you haven't read it, you should, because it'd be cool to hear you give a lecture on it and to hear your thoughts. Your video on The Genealogy of Morals was very instructive for me, and I feel that Becker's "Denial of Death" thesis is in a sense 'ressentiment' on a larger scale. Everyone is weak and powerless before the awareness of their impending doom, even those of the greatest physical prowess. So ressentiment becomes an almost inescapable condition of all human life. It is a rather dour book, but it's interesting to see how all these existential questions fit within his thesis. At the end of escape from Evil, which Becker never fully completed before his death, Becker seems almost to support religion, Christianity in particular. He speaks more of Kierkegaard in his previous book, The Denial of Death. But at the end of Escape from Evil, he seems to be taking a very Kierkegaardian outlook, concluding that all human systems are born of ressentiment. At least, as far as my Kierkegaard knowledge is concerned. That is what Kierkegaard is saying, right? In the sickness unto death, he kind of just applies ressentiment to all those outside of a relationship with God. They are weak in their despair and try to create themselves. But only God can save them from this human condition of weakness in the face of Death. Is this right for me to think? Sorry if that was a little blabbery. It's early for me and I am too tired and lazy to edit that down. ha! But yeah, I like your videos a lot and just felt like sparking up a convo with you.
The main issue would be finding the spare time to read, think about, and then shot videos on someone I've not already got on the docket
Thanks!
Is getting a Hong translation truly a must for reading Kierkegaard? I know that's the modern standard but is reading Lowrie translation would make a significant difference?
Read them and find out for yourself, right?
All I want to know is how did Hegel and the Hegelians start their all mighty system? How does one know that one has doubted everything so that one can happily begin?". I suppose 200 years later an expert Hegelian will emerge from the garden of speculation to explain it to myself and all the other unwashed non-speculative masses. I mean surely no Hegelian would make a tiny little "qualitative leap" just to get the all important system rolling now would they? In such a case as that, I'd say it was rather dubious that a system that claims it begins with no presuppositions has, well.... begun with a presupposition.
Oh great and all powerful "Mediation", I know you have found Motion in the Negative, but alas, I remain blinded to your blessed mysteries. I just can't seem to find Movement in logic no matter how much I strain to discover it there. Does this mean I will be engulfed in that dreaded spurious infinity ? Will I be placed on the rack of your majestic unity and be discarded as the unwanted remnant of your historical progress? Oh if only the great System would have mercy on my pathetic simpleton non-speculative soul
I have been watching your lectures and i find these highly effective. I have a question does kierkegaard provide any grounds for discrimating passion from obsession or even religious fanaticism
Yes
Kindly elaborate or refer any source if possible. I need it for my assignment
Read Fear and Trembling through attentively
Doesn't Kierkegaard say that their is no objective proof of God? And to still believe in God in a subjective manner is faith?
Thank you.
You're welcome
Great stuff
Glad you enjoy it!
Hello Poressor,
I hear the word "angst" tossed around alot with regards to existentialism.
Woud you care to share your thougts?
I did a talk specifically on Existentialism and Anxiety. You'll find it by searching
sound is a bit low here
+Georgios Michalopoulos Look at the video date. TH-cam doesn't allow boosting sound in their editing options for videos already uploaded
I know God does not exist; however I still believe. Abraham was willing to kill Isaac; however, he believed he would get him back by virtue of the absurd. I know God does not exist, and yet am willing to give my subjectivity (my world, i.e Isaac) to God by virtue of the absurd. By doing this I get "Isaac" back but imbued with the divine not just the value I ascribe to it. From God part of God ( i believe all things have God's essence). Can you tell me if this makes any sense. Please help!!
Professor, what translation of F &T do you recommend? There is one by Lowrie and one by Hannay.
+Marco Dellorusso I like the Hong and Hong one myself, but I don't know Danish, so I can't really say much about the matter firsthand
Thanks, I read the Hannay translation. ... I find K hard to understand, he's not as clear as Nietzsche or Schopenhauer.
Marco Dellorusso That verdict of unclarity is likely a personal matter. I wouldn't say any of those three is more clear than the other
Can you explain Kierkegaards conclusion on this case?
That's in the video
well, get tooled up [ get faith ] wait for god to tell you to do something evil, go do it and god will send an angel to stop you at the last moment.
gda295 You most be joking right? :-P
no, yesterday I went to rob a bank but the angel letting me in stopped me.
Drink more
Sound quality is pretty bad..
Check the date. You're complaining about an old video
How tall are u greg
6'3"
Mic your body... sound his is strong
Professor Sadler what could Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling based on the dilemma Abraham is forced to kill Isaac under God's command bear concerning Jihadists and supposed passages in the Qu'ran that demand for Islamic non believers to be killed?
I have no idea what you're asking.
See if you can rearticulate your question, with punctuation, and I'll see if I can answer it
I'm sorry I realize now my question was poorly worded. Let me try again. Would Kierkegaard condone radical fundamentalist Jihadist killings of non believers given how he allows God in this work to let Abraham sacrifice Isaac?
Is that more clearer? I'm reaching the part in your 2nd video where you sort of discuss about this in the 2nd problemata (is our duty to God absolute) where you consider if God were to command to all be the murderers all would be good and well. I believe you respond no that is not what Kierkegaard is saying because (I'm having trouble finding it scrolling through the video so I might be misquoting) there is a difference having a relationship with God and a person as a metaphysical principle versus God and human as an ordinary relationship.
Thank you for responding to my question. It is greatly appreciated as are these videos.
He would not. You should read the text, since the video is a commentary on the text, and Kierkegaard does discuss what is unique about this case
Thank you
I have renounced everything ! I live everyday in the paradox of existence! I see the absurd in everything! I am not a little girl [i think]! I must have faith. Only problem is , not religious.
gda295 Then what do you have faith in?
gda295 Aka what is your answer to the absurd?
gda295 I don't think that is a fully developed answer. Simply having compassion for others, with no faith in a higher power, doesn't really combat against the thoughts of absurdity telling you everything is in vain. The secular philosophers Sartre, Nietzsche, etc. all tried to give better answers to the question Kiekegaard posed many years before them. But, I don't think they were able to fully succeed. Nothing in the temporal world seems to satisfy the needs of the absurd. In my experience and study, God (faith) is the only remedy.
gda295 So it sort of distracts you from the absurd? But, when the questions of absurdity do come up, you don't have much of an answer besides to distract yourself again.
gda295 The acquisition of a great deal of money magnifies feelings of absurdity. The process of making money and "becoming comfortable" in life distracts us from the fact that it is impossible to find repose in an absurd world through anything that is of the absurd world. As we labor away in order to build wealth, we delude ourselves into believing that a large sum of money will make us content... "I will never need to worry about paying the bills. I will retire in comfort. I will be at peace." We trick ourselves into thinking that money can solve problems that it simply cannot. We find solace in a false entity. The answer isn’t found in money. Money solves mere physical problems. In the first world, those are hardly of concern. After all, if we are not psychologically and spiritually healthy, then what is the purpose of physical health? Faith is the only satisfying answer to the absurd.
Thank you so much.
You're very welcome!