Kierkegaard describes faith as “the teleological suspension of the ethical.” What does this mean? Why does he associate the ethical with the universal? What does the universal mean for Kierkegaard? If faith suspends the ethical/universal, what then is the ground for faith? What are the strengths and weakness of Kierkegaard’s position? Do you think he is ultimately right? Why or why not?
Teleological suspension of the ethical in short would mean to sacrifice our moral obligations to achieve a higher goal. In the case of Kierkegaard due to his religious-based mind set, the phrase refers to the willingness to transcend ethical obligations to achieve religious goals. He pointed out that with faith, the results of an action are ultimately not the …show more content…
Faith, in Kierkegaard’s case, involves a degree of absolute certainty and personal commitment that transcends what can be rationalised, meaning it can never be supported by reason. Therefore, we are unable to seek evidence for such religious belief. If we can ever justify everything, it is then not required anymore because faith would always have existed. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard mentioned that “Faith is precisely the paradox that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, is justified before it, not as inferior to it but as superior”. This means that faith is rooted in this paradox that the individual one is above the universal. One has an absolute relation to the absolute. He is not justified by being ethical but rather he is justified by obeying God in faith. Faith, then, is a commitment when in face with uncertainty. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the demand in faith. The greatest faith is the belief in the impossible as how Kierkegaard saw it. In order to believe in God, an act of will, a passionate and personal commitment, a leap of faith is needed. Kierkegaard leveraged on this absurdity to portray his level of commitment. Such faith does not rely on reasons and is hence resistant against argument and uncertainty. Ultimately, when reasoned truths seem to be only ever …show more content…
Since faith does not apply to reason or logic, there may be adverse impacts in the promotion of a view that could justify some violent and immoral acts. One may argue that their case is an exception, which they are supposed to behave in a way that appears to be unethical, in a way of transcending the ethical obligations to achieve religious ends. This is evident in our society in which people of violence or even terrorism based their actions on religious faith to achieve the higher goals. A terrorist or suicide bomber believes that he is doing the right or good thing and they are acting in correspondence with what they believe to be the will of God, and this transgresses our usual interpretation of what is right and wrong. We may therefore question whether Kierkegaard’s idea is not misguided in our modern world of
Teleological suspension of the ethical in short would mean to sacrifice our moral obligations to achieve a higher goal. In the case of Kierkegaard due to his religious-based mind set, the phrase refers to the willingness to transcend ethical obligations to achieve religious goals. He pointed out that with faith, the results of an action are ultimately not the …show more content…
Faith, in Kierkegaard’s case, involves a degree of absolute certainty and personal commitment that transcends what can be rationalised, meaning it can never be supported by reason. Therefore, we are unable to seek evidence for such religious belief. If we can ever justify everything, it is then not required anymore because faith would always have existed. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard mentioned that “Faith is precisely the paradox that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, is justified before it, not as inferior to it but as superior”. This means that faith is rooted in this paradox that the individual one is above the universal. One has an absolute relation to the absolute. He is not justified by being ethical but rather he is justified by obeying God in faith. Faith, then, is a commitment when in face with uncertainty. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the demand in faith. The greatest faith is the belief in the impossible as how Kierkegaard saw it. In order to believe in God, an act of will, a passionate and personal commitment, a leap of faith is needed. Kierkegaard leveraged on this absurdity to portray his level of commitment. Such faith does not rely on reasons and is hence resistant against argument and uncertainty. Ultimately, when reasoned truths seem to be only ever …show more content…
Since faith does not apply to reason or logic, there may be adverse impacts in the promotion of a view that could justify some violent and immoral acts. One may argue that their case is an exception, which they are supposed to behave in a way that appears to be unethical, in a way of transcending the ethical obligations to achieve religious ends. This is evident in our society in which people of violence or even terrorism based their actions on religious faith to achieve the higher goals. A terrorist or suicide bomber believes that he is doing the right or good thing and they are acting in correspondence with what they believe to be the will of God, and this transgresses our usual interpretation of what is right and wrong. We may therefore question whether Kierkegaard’s idea is not misguided in our modern world of