Oldal 248 [248]
OCR
ORSOLYA HORVÁTH This is why Kierkegaard refers to Descartes at the beginning of his train of thought." Descartes is a forerunner for Kierkegaard in so far as he sets boundaries for human reason, which means he takes Gods authority above the judgement of human reason. Why is this an essential discretion for Kierkegaard’s chain of thought? Not because it represents a type of dogmatism, which from the perspective of atheistic existentialism can be valued as a negative attitude and which does not prove the existence of God, but because it supposes it. If this is true, the philosophical value of the thoughts under discussion could become doubtful. That God is incomprehensible for human reason is not a precondition for Kierkegaard, but a consideration the source of which lies in the reality of the experience of the factical human life. Naturally, this could also be stated by dogmatic thinkers: the origo of their philosophy is in fact not a dogma, but a consideration based on everyday experience. However, Kierkegaard takes this concrete human life as the basis of his thoughts. He does not presuppose that the reality of God is incomprehensible to human reason, but instead works this notion out from concrete human life as the only basis for his ideas. This is why the story of Abraham has an extraordinary importance for him, since the experience of Abraham illustrates in a particular way how the human being exists when God enters the space of human experience. Sartre says there is no convincing sign which could define with unambiguous certainty the origin of the voice heard by Abraham. Kierkegaard also says: “Whether the individual is in temptation /Anfechtung] or is a knight of faith, only the individual can decide.” That means Abraham has to decide whether the given experience is a challenge of a deception or a situation in which the steadfastness of faith is being tried. If so, is what Kierkegaard says not the same as Sartres interpretation of Kierkegaard? As far as I see, Kierkegaard’s intention is quite different from Sartre’s interpretation. It is quite different but at the same time this does not mean that it would be easy to capture the difference.’ The starting point of Fear and Trembling 5 Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, 31-33. ® Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, 148. There are two main directions in interpreting Abraham’s story, which can contradict each other: the first looks at the positive content of faith as paradox, the second concentrates on the possible negative ethical consequences. In my view, it is the essential character of the story that it opens the space of misunderstanding in a special way, as this is the nature of paradox. In order to discover the real ethical perspectives of Abraham’s story, as the first step, one must approach the paradox itself. See for example Sharon Krishek’s study, which understands the narrative of Abraham as a universal positive answer for the human being’s pain of loss (Sharon Krishek, The existential dimension of faith, in Daniel Conway (ed.), Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, A Critical Guide, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, 106-121.); or John Lippitt’s thoughts about hope in Abraham’s faith (John Lippitt, Learning to Hope: The Role of Hope in Fear and Trembling, in Daniel Conway (ed.), Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, A Critical Guide, Cambridge, Cambridge University 7 + 246 + Daréczi-Sepsi-Vassänyi_Initiation_155x240.indb 246 6 2020.06.15. 11:04:22
