Seite 247 [247]
HERMENEUTICAL BORDERLINE SITUATIONS—KIERKEGAARD AND THE COMPELLING SIGN
decision is therefore directed at the specification of the origin. If the origin is
divine, there is no doubt about how Abraham should act — while at the same
time, even in this case, acting itself is not at all evident. These are Sartre’s
reflections.” In what follows, I compare these reflections with Kierkegaard’s
explanation, as I myself interpret it.* However, considering the complexity and
the belletristic aspiration of Kierkegaard’s philosophy, my aim is not overly
ambitious; I will be satisfied if 1 can identify some main lines of Kierkegaard’s
philosophy and take these lines further.
The motto of Fear and Trembling is thought-provoking, if we approach
the text from Sartre’s perspective. The motto is from Hamann: “What
Tarquinius Superbus spoke in his garden with the poppies was understood
by his son, but not by the messenger.” So there is someone who understands
the message through the poppies, and there is someone else who does not.
Nonetheless, this does not mean that the son and the messenger determine
if there is a message or not. In this case, the reality of the message is not
created by the interpreter through his own understanding. The message in
the poppies does not become a message because of the “in-understanding” of
the son. Rather, the message is really in the poppies, according to the motto.
If neither the messenger nor the son had understood it, the message would
still have been there. So now the main consideration for us hidden in
the motto is that the message itself is not created or proved to be nothing by
the understanding or the non-understanding. Rather, the relationship to the
message is articulated. Why is this worth mentioning from the perspective
of Sartre’s reading? Because it signals, before the body of Kierkegaard’s text,
that human understanding has its boundaries (and I hope this viewpoint does
not derive from my repeated study of the text, but from the motto itself).
These boundaries are outlined — still using the expression of the motto — by
the message alone or, more closely, by the reality of the message. The son and
the messenger might understand the message or not understand the message,
but they do not judge the reality of the message. The realness of the message
stands above human reason.
? These intentions relate critically to Kierkegaard’s interpretation of Abraham. Though
there is an insoluble tension between atheistic and theistic philosophy, in 1964, Sartre, as
a key speaker in the ‘Living Kierkegaard’ conference in Paris, spoke about Kierkegaard’s
philosophy with the warmest appreciation. (Julia Watkin, The A to Z of Kierkegaard’s
philosophy, Lanham, The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2010, ‘Sartre, Jean-Paul’)
It is Johannes de silentio’s explanation. (On the problem of pseudonimity of Kierkegaard
see John D. Caputo, How to Read Kierkegaard, New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 2008,
67-80.) In this study, I refer to Johannes de silentio’s thoughts under Kierkegaard’s name.
Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, in Fear and Trembling and The Sickness unto Death,
trans. Walter Lowrie, Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2013, 30. (On
Hamann’s influence on Kierkegaard see Ronald Gregor Smith: Hamann and Kierkegaard,
Kierkegaardiana 5 [1964], 52-67.)
Daréczi-Sepsi-Vassänyi_Initiation_155x240.indb 245 ® 2020.06.15. 11:04:22