How does the individual understand that they are legitimate?

In Fear and Trembling, Soren Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham and his agreement to sacrifice his son to explain that faith is the highest realm of being. Because a philosopher can give you certainty but not faith, Kierkegaard tries to address this fact. He states that we cannot fully understand Abrahams faith because it is unique to his own relationship with God. However, if no one else can understand his justification, how does Abraham know that his reasons are legitimate? This paper analyzes how Kierkegaard asserts that the individual can authorize their own decisions based on faith. In this paper I will explain Kierkegaards account, first by explaining his philosophy of a dialectic of faith, and second by showing how Abraham and people of faith experience this dialectic. I will show that being legitimate in ones faith is a paradox, because the justification of ones belief is in this relationship with God. Kierkegaard begins Fear and Trembling by presenting us with what seems like a dilemma for everyone else, but doesnt seem to faze Abraham: God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, to prove his faith. Kierkegaard then gives four different scenarios that Abraham could have done. These scenarios demonstrated Abraham showing angst and uncertainty, which are easier for us to understand, but they dont demonstrate what actually happened which was Abrahams calm acceptance of the task. No one can understand Abrahams reasoning behind being willing to sacrifice his son. To help explain Abrahams position, Kierkegaard describes a dialectic of faith. This dialectic of faith is a movement upward and inward. The lowest level of the dialectic of faith is the esthetic. The esthetic is ones immediate wants. They are many and fleeting. Next is the ethical, which is what one ought to do based on the morals of society. Because of this, it is universal and eternal. Last is faith, which is in the highest realm, the absolute. Unlike the ethical,

it is singular, in the present, and silent. This means that faith engages the individual and cant be mediated to anyone else. Viewing Abrahams actions through the dialectic of faith gives insight to how Abraham becomes an individual of faith with legitimacy. To go through the dialectic of faith, one must make the double movement of faith and to describe this movement, Kierkegaard uses the metaphor of a tragic hero and a knight of faith. The tragic hero expresses the ethical and universal whereas the knight of faith expresses the absolute. The tragic hero makes the movement of infinite resignation which means that he gives up his esthetic wants for the good of everyone else, the universal. However, this forces him to give up his individuality, which impedes becoming a knight of faith. The knight of faith makes the movement of infinite resignation but also takes it a step further and makes the leap of faith to complete the double movement. This leap of faith means giving up ones wants, like Abraham would have given up Isaac, but getting it back through a relationship with God. This leap of faith is by virtue of the absurd, meaning that it is not comprehended by the universal, and therefore individual. By going through this double movement and making a leap of faith from infinite resignation to the realm of the faith, one enters into an individual relationship of faith with God. Furthermore, the knight of faith can only understand his own relationship with God, not another knight of faiths relationship. Although the knight of faith seems to come out in the end the most fulfilled because he gets everything back through his relationship with God, people can relate more to the tragic hero because he represents the universal and the ethical, what we know to be right. Abraham is at no time a tragic hero but is something entirely different, either a murderer or a man of faith. Abraham does not have the middle term that saves the tragic hero. (pg. 57) This middle term

of the ethical saves the tragic hero because it brings approval from the public. In Problema I, Kierkegaard states that for a tragic hero in the universal, what Abraham went to Mount Moriah to do would have been murder. Therefore, in order to understand Abrahams reasoning, there must be a teleological suspension of the ethical. This means that there must be a telos, or goal, beyond the ethical in order to fulfill a duty to God, or Abraham is a murderer. This telos is the realm of faith entered into by the individual, a realm where the universal justification cant be applied because it is not understood by anyone else. Abrahams murderous acts cannot be justified by worldly views of what is ethical; it can only be justified by himself as an individual and God. In Problema II, Kierkegaard asserts that in the absolute, there is a duty to God, where it is necessary to go against all ethical principles. What you ought to do at a religious level is only apparent after you have the experience of God. The believer who has experienced God transcends the universal for what is required. In this duty, one is actually tempted to do the ethical because God may ask for unethical actions, as shown in Abrahams case. This temptation itself actually transcends the universal, because in the universal, the temptation is to do the esthetic, ones own personal desires. Kierkegaard titled his book after these temptations to do the ethical and the fear and trembling a person of faith goes through in order to keep this faith. A person of faith goes through much anxiety in their personal relationship with God. Because of this struggle, something more than the ethical must exist for Abraham, or he could have easily chosen to take the easier ethical route and not sacrifice Isaac. Because of this struggle, there must be an absolute realm with a reason to defy ethics and obey God. There must be this personal relationship, where only the individual struggles and ultimately gains fulfillment.

Kierkegaard asks the question, Was it ethically defensible for Abraham to conceal his undertaking from Sarah, from Eliezer, and from Isaac? (pg. 82) in Problema III. The ethical as such is the universal; as it is in turn the disclosed. The single individual, qualified as immediate, sensate, and psychical, is the hidden. Thus his ethical task is to work himself out of his hiddenness and to become disclosed in the universal. (pg. 82) Abraham had a responsibility to say something so the action could be understood and have authorization. Although Kierkegaard states this, it is not possible for Abraham in his movement of faith to disclose himself to the universal because something experienced in the absolute cant be moved down in the dialectic of faith to the universal. Kierkegaard states, Ethics does not lend itself to debate, for it has pure categories. It does not appeal to experience. (pg. 86) Because having faith seems to be such a personal and absolute experience, it is difficult to qualify and categorize the reasons of a person of faith by worldly thought; but regardless, they are still reasons. Faith leaves behind worldly wisdom which can be calculated. Faith by virtue of the absurd means that it cannot be calculated but it does not mean it is unreasonable. Something calculable is certain and understood through knowledge. But beyond knowledge there is this higher form of human existence in the absolute. Abraham remains silent-but he cannot speak. Therein lies the distress and anxiety. (pg. 113) This existence seems challenging, with the knight of faith constantly going through anxiety and not being able to communicate to the universal because he is not certain. This is the irony of Kierkegaards writing- that what he is trying to write about cannot be said because it cannot be certain. However, the knight of faith finds consolation in his relationship with God. Nothing God would require would violate the law of love, so a person of faith has his belief to overcome his suffering. With this belief, the knight of faith knows that he will be fulfilled. His suffering of

doubt and anxiety will change to joy because without fulfillment, there cannot be faith. Therefore, this is a paradox. Kierkegaard asks, Is he justified? then states, Again, his justification is the paradoxical, for if he is, then he is justified not by virtue of being something universal but by virtue of being the single individual. (pg. 62) God authorizes us to go beyond the ethical and enter into a relationship with him where we are individuals in our own experience, indescribable to anyone else. This relationship is faith, and in this relationship, we enter into the realm of the absolute as individuals. The individual is assured by his faith alone that he is legitimate.