Fear and Trembling: A New Translation

I picked this up because it is at one point referenced in [b:God, Human, Animal, Machine: Technology, Metaphor, and the Search for Meaning 56097578 God, Human, Animal, Machine Technology, Metaphor, and the Search for Meaning Meghan O'Gieblyn https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1611107182l/56097578.SY75.jpg 87380849], and then I also saw it referenced in Carl Roger's [b:On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy 174879 On Becoming a Person A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy Carl R. Rogers https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348329148l/174879.SY75.jpg 168933], which I was thumbing through in the bookstore the other day. I picked this up with little knowledge of Kierkegaard beyond those two citations, other than a vague awareness of his status as a philosopher/theologian.This is a strange text to approach as someone without belief. Kierkegaard retells the story of Abraham and his task to sacrifice Isaac four times and then engages in a discussion. Part of the problem with my read of this is that I can't meet Kierkegaard at the same starting point. After his description of Abraham's tale, in the Preliminary portion of the Problemata, he begins: “Thus, then, my intention in telling the story of Abraham is to extract from it, in the form of problems, the dialectical element it contains, so that we might see what an enormous paradox faith is, a paradox that is capable of turning a murder into a holy act that is well-pleasing to God, a paradox that restores Isaac to Abraham, which no thinking can master, because faith begins precisely at the point where thinking leaves off.”It is simply that I do not believe there is any virtue by which a murder transmutes into a holy act. It is not even that I do not believe in the holy, it is that I cannot find it in me to condone a murder. That is not to disparage self-defense or even to some extent revenges of passion or something, but the cold, hard, murder that Abraham sets about towards his son. I do not think there is any circumstance in life that could make this admirable or awesome. Kierkegaard says repeatedly through the text that he cannot understand the act, but that he admires it. I do not admire it. I find it befuddling.There are some other groundfloor values that I cannot meet Kierkegaard at. In Problema I he discusses a scenario involving a father sacrificing his daughter, “for the good of the whole community.” He then speaks at some length about what a hero this makes the father, but nothing compared to the heroism demonstrated by the girl's fiancé. Of course, there is no consideration to how the girl feels. What the hell!? This is crazy stuff. The murder of a person is not heroic. Least of all when it is in some so-called sacrifice to figments.I know that there is much I did not get out of this that maybe I would if I had faith, but I am a doubter. I have always had doubts, about god, the world, myself, everything. I am beyond the point where I have doubt in faith and a god and am at the point where I am simply concerned by those that don't. Kierkegaard describes infinite resignation, which I can understand and relate to. He describes the final movement beyond that to be the movement to faith, the leap of faith. He expresses difficulty with that. He at one point describes faith as the leavetaking of thinking. That I cannot understand and cannot relate to and do not desire.Of course I have had times where I've fallen down and begged to nothing. I've talked to the air like it could hear me, and sometimes wished it could hear me. But I can't make that leap. I think that leap is a salve for some, to accept how difficult life often is. Sometimes I wish I could use that and be supported by it, but not often. Certainly not if it meant condoning some of the things taught as heroic in the Christian bible. I just can't do it.These are some of the lines/quotes that stood out to me, for whatever reason:* “What those ancient Greeks (who, after all, did have a bit of understanding of philosophy) assumed to be the task for an entire lifetime because expertise in doubting is not acquired in days or weeks; what was attained by the old, veteran combatant (==who had preserved the equilibrium of doubt through every seductive snare, fearlessly denying the certainty of the senses and of thought, uncompromisingly defying the anxiety of self-love and the flattering advances of sympathy==)—in our times, this is where everyone begins.” (I really love the phrase equilibrium of doubt, and I think this is a splendid description of doubt. I will probably quote this at some point.)* Abraham: “Lord in heave, I thank you; it is after all better that he believe me to be a monster than that he should lose faith in you.” What provokes such dedication to a thing so terrible?* “No one who was great in the world shall be forgotten, but everyone was great in his own way, and everyone in proportion to the greatness of what he loved.”* “the power whose strength is weakness, great through the wisdom whose secret is foolishness, whose form is madness, great through the love that is hatred of oneself.”* “The entire content of his life is contained in this love, and yet the situation is such that it would be impossible for this to become a reality, impossible for it to be translated from ideality to reality.”* “Only inferior natures forget themselves and become something new.”* In Problema I re: a peasant more or less and approaching the King's chamber. See page 77 for full context. “On the contrary, he should find joy in observing every rule of decorum with happy and confident enthusiasm, which is precisely what will make him openhearted and cheerful.” Difficult to suppress the chortle I made at this. Get real.* “It is far more difficult to receive than to give—that is, if one has had the courage to do without and has not proven a coward in the hour of need.”