Seite 246 [246]
ORSOLYA HORVÁTH
existentialism as its starting point, namely, that in its way of thinking about
existence, it consistently maintains the element of atheism. Sartre takes
Dostoevskys statement as a principle: "If God did not exist, everything would
be permitted." However, for Sartre, there is no God, so there is no forgiveness,
no determinism, and no norm; therefore, as Sartre says, "we are left alone,
without excuses,” so “we are condemned to be free.” This freedom is the only
basis for ethics. Atheistic existentialism makes it clear to the individual that
responsibility — for how his decisions form his existence — rests on him alone.
According to Sartre, as the human being creates himself in these decisions
and — at the same time — stands as an example before others, these decisions
weigh heavily on him. As a consequence, he trembles in the moment of
decision-making precisely for this reason. Sartre refers to Kierkegaard’s
notion of “the anguish of Abraham,” who also trembles when he faces Gods
command to sacrifice his son.
In Sartre’s view, Kierkegaard explains Abraham’s anguish by pointing out
that the decision about the origin of the voice which commands Abraham to
sacrifice his son is Abraham’s decision alone. Abraham is in anguish because
his personal decision determines his act and, furthermore, his decision
is — though unintentionally — a model for others. The stakes are high, but
the decision is Abraham’s alone. He cannot turn to anybody or anything
for help: he cannot have an adviser, since by choosing the adviser he would
already be making the decision. Moreover, it would be fruitless to look for
a sign proving the divine origin of the voice; such a convincing sign, as Sartre
writes, could not be found. Therefore, Sartre’s concludes that Abraham is in
anguish as a consequence of having to make the decision on his own about
the origin of the voice. After all, the challenge, which relates to the way in
which Abraham interprets the voice he has heard, is a hermeneutical one.
This interpretation seems obvious. The only person who has heard the voice
is Abraham. What he thinks he heard is the horror itself: the command to
sacrifice his son. And his son is not just any child, he is Abraham’s only son.
He is the guarantee of the divine promises, and Abraham had to wait so long
for him that conception itself was a miracle. If the voice has a divine origin,
God is contradicting himself: he asks for the sacrifice of someone who was
his gift to Abraham, given after a long time. On top of it all, God commands
Abraham to commit a murder, furthermore, the murder of a child. This
cannot be justified from an ethical viewpoint. Abraham is absolutely alone
in this situation. The challenge seems clear: how does Abraham interpret
the message? Or to be more precise: based on the contents of the instructions,
what is Abraham’s conclusion about the origin of the message? The statement
seems evident, but the declarer doubtful. Nevertheless, how is it possible to
make a decision in favour of the act commanded in the statement if the doer
does not clarify for himself the identity of the declarer? Abraham’s main
+ 244 c
Daréczi-Sepsi-Vassänyi_Initiation_155x240.indb 244 6 2020.06.15. 11:04:22