Sophie: Chapter XXVIII--Kierkegaard

I. Hilde resolves to use philosophy to play tricks on her father when he comes for the party. Keep in mind to whom Hilde must ultimately appeal if she is going to make this work: such need might occasion angst, requiring quite a leap of faith.

II. SOPHIE meets ALICE IN WONDERLAND

A. Wonderland is everywhere...(p. 370), so can we say Sophie and Hilde are in a wonderland?

B. THE PHILOSOPHICAL BOTTLES: (from the mind of the Major).--REMEMBER AGAIN POINT OF VIEW: HOW DO HEGEL AND KIERKEGAARD DIFFER?

V. THE PHILOSOPHY OF KIERKEGAARD--RELATE TO THE TWO BOTTLES:

A. rejects Hegel and the denial of individual responsibility ?

B. Melancholia occurs when the subject realizes that what has failed to respond. Check a poem by Robert Frost called The Most of It as a poetic example, and Hemingway's Soldier's Home as a prose treatment.

C. the philosophy of existentialism begins with an examination of Socratic irony. Why did Socrates so anger the Sophists? What would the Sophists have denoted to Kierkegaard?

D. the personal life of the individual is more important than objective truths. Why?

VI. we define our own existence by overcoming angst and making a leap of faith: “...risk the life to
come...” (Macbeth)

A. Is Christianity true?--Note that there are Christian existentialists: Kierkegaard, and atheists as Sartre whom we will consider later.

C. Faith is the issue in defining the meaning of X for us, but note that dialectically, ironically, one's perspective must evolve: Why was Kierkegaard's favorite biblical narrative Abraham and Isaac?

D. What meaning has God for me vs. a philosophical abstraction the meaning of which could be endlessly debated.

VII. The three stages on life’s way:

A. aesthetic--slave of desires which can lead to angst--the feeling of dread

B. ethical--series of moral choices--like Kant’s duty ethics

C. religious--jump {leap} into the open arms of the living GOD (Christianity)--does this stage apply to Hilde and her father?

There are three existence spheres: the esthetic, the ethical, the religious. The metaphysical is abstraction, and there is no human who exists metaphysically. The metaphysical, the ontological, is, but it does not exist, for when it exists it does so in the esthetic, in the ethical, in the religious, and when it is, it is the abstraction from a prius [prior thing] to the esthetic, the ethical, the religious. The ethical sphere is only a transition sphere, and therefore its highest expression is repentance as a negative action. The esthetic sphere is the sphere of immediacy, the ethical the sphere of requirement (and this requirement is so infinite that the individual always goes bankrupt), the religious the sphere of fulfillment, but, please note, not a fulfillment such as when one fills an alms box or a sack of gold, for repentance has specifically created a boundless space, and as a consequence the religious contradiction: simultaneously to be out on 70,000 fathoms of water and yet be joyful. Just as the ethical sphere is a passageway—which one nevertheless does not pass through once and for all—just as repentance is its expression, so repentance is the most dialectical

D. Why do the suffering of Jesus Christ dramatize a "leap of faith?" Must Sophie and Hilde 'leap?" If so, to where?

VIII. Be able to explain how Hilde's quest (and Sophie's) profit from Kierkegaard's philosophy:

--FROM THE ROMANTIC PERSPECTIVE--DOES MAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE CREATOR?

FROM FEAR AND TREMBLING: ON THE PARADOX OF ABRAHAM {THE KNIGHT OF FAITH] AND ISAAC:

However, a last word of Abraham has been preserved, and in so far as I can understand the paradox I can also apprehend the total presence of Abraham in this word. Firstly, he does not say anything, and it is in this form he says what he has to say. His reply to Isaac has the form of irony, for it always is irony when I say something and do not say anything. Isaac interrogates Abraham on the supposition that he knows. So then if Abraham were to have replied, "I know nothing," he would have uttered an untruth. He cannot say anything, for what he knows he cannot say. So he replies, "God will provide Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." Here the double movement in Abraham’s soul is evident, as it was described in the foregoing discussion. If Abraham had merely renounced his claim to Isaac and had done no more, he would in this last word be saying an untruth, for he knows that God demands Isaac as a sacrifice, and he knows that he himself at that instant precisely is all ready to sacrifice him. We see then that after making this movement he made every instant the next movement, the movement of faith by virtue of the absurd. Hence he is speaking no untruth, but neither is he saying anything, for he speaks a foreign language. This becomes still more evident when we consider that it was Abraham himself who must perform the sacrifice of Isaac. Had the task been a different one, had the Lord commanded Abraham to bring Isaac out to Mount Moriah and then would Himself have Isaac struck by lightning and in this way receive him as a sacrifice, then, taking his words in a plain sense, Abraham might have been right in speaking enigmatically as he did, for he could not himself know what would occur. But in the way the task was prescribed to Abraham he himself had to act, and at the decisive moment he must know what he himself would do, he must know that Isaac will be sacrificed. In case he did not know this definitely, then he has not made the infinite movement of resignation, then, though his word is not indeed an untruth, he is very far from being Abraham, he has less significance than the tragic hero, yea, he is an irresolute man who is unable to resolve either on one thing or another, and for this reason will always be uttering riddles. But such a hesitator is a sheer parody of a knight of faith.

Here again it appears that one may have an understanding of Abraham, but can understand him only in the same way as one understands the paradox. For my part I can in a way understand Abraham, but at the same time I apprehend that I have not the courage to speak, and still less to act as he did -- but by this I do not by any means intend to say that what he did was insignificant, for on the contrary it is the one only marvel.

And what did the contemporary age think of the tragic hero? They thought that he was great, and they admired him. And that honorable assembly of nobles, the jury which every generation impanels to pass judgment upon the foregoing generation, passed the same judgment upon him. But as for Abraham there was no one who could understand him. And yet think what he attained! He remained true to his love. But he who loves God has no need of tears, no need of admiration, in his love he forgets his suffering, yea, so completely has he forgotten it that afterwards there would not even be the least inkling of his pain if God Himself did not recall it, for God sees in secret and knows the distress and counts the tears and forgets nothing.

So either there is a paradox, that the individual stands in an absolute relation to the absolute / or Abraham.