In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous author, Johannes de Silentio attempts to explain faith by examining the biblical story of Abraham who was told, by God, to sacrifice his son, Isaac. With this objective in mind, we quickly come to bear that this explanation cannot so evidently be made since faith cannot be verbally expressed. Through a close inspection of the role of silence in faith, I will provide the interpretation that one cannot speak when acting in faith because in faith the ethical is bypassed. This will then be connected with the broader interpretation that since most experience faith through the ethical, the ethical bypass cannot be articulated, not by Abraham, nor de Silentio. This paper will consist of three parts,
…show more content…
The former does not speak. Conversely, his silence is one of reiteration of the status quo, he does so by placing Kierkegaard’s religious and societal atmosphere into perspective. By taking on a Socratic role, de Silentio does not introduce novel ideas as most philosophers may, nor does he try to explain nor evaluation the situation in question. In this way he is silent. By analyzing the situation from without, de Silentio leads us to unveil the visage of the divine that is mediated by the ethical. This leads the reader to conclude two things, first that the ethical is a propaganda that masks true faith; second, even if one were to have faith (as Abraham does), they would be bound to the paradox of faith and would not be able to explain …show more content…
The ethical can never be fully bypassed because one is always in some relation to it through temporal extension. This is precisely why Abraham must speak in silence – because the absolute relationship to the absolute cannot be articulated. Although we cannot understand Abraham’s action, we can still come to the recognition (after reading this text) of some significance of Abraham’s paradox – that it is through performance that significance can be grasped, that the question of faith is worth exploring. Finally, this is tied into the foremost message of what Tariq the Proud communicated in his garden with the beheaded poppies was understood by the son but not the messenger”; there is something concealed in Abraham’s action that cannot be verbally
The former does not speak. Conversely, his silence is one of reiteration of the status quo, he does so by placing Kierkegaard’s religious and societal atmosphere into perspective. By taking on a Socratic role, de Silentio does not introduce novel ideas as most philosophers may, nor does he try to explain nor evaluation the situation in question. In this way he is silent. By analyzing the situation from without, de Silentio leads us to unveil the visage of the divine that is mediated by the ethical. This leads the reader to conclude two things, first that the ethical is a propaganda that masks true faith; second, even if one were to have faith (as Abraham does), they would be bound to the paradox of faith and would not be able to explain …show more content…
The ethical can never be fully bypassed because one is always in some relation to it through temporal extension. This is precisely why Abraham must speak in silence – because the absolute relationship to the absolute cannot be articulated. Although we cannot understand Abraham’s action, we can still come to the recognition (after reading this text) of some significance of Abraham’s paradox – that it is through performance that significance can be grasped, that the question of faith is worth exploring. Finally, this is tied into the foremost message of what Tariq the Proud communicated in his garden with the beheaded poppies was understood by the son but not the messenger”; there is something concealed in Abraham’s action that cannot be verbally