Oldal 249 [249]
OCR
HERMENEUTICAL BORDERLINE SITUATIONS—KIERKEGAARD AND THE COMPELLING SIGN is, as I tried to outline above, the reality of God, namely that it is God who speaks in the experience of Abraham. Kierkegaard — or to be more precise, Abraham in Kierkegaard’s interpretation — does not need a convincing sign for this. The basis for the whole train of thought is the fact that God speaks to Abraham. I have thoroughly studied the text, but I have not found any references or allusions expressing even the slightest doubt about this. For that reason, looking at Sartre, I call this divine reality and speaking, which are indisputable for Abraham, a compelling sign to differentiate them from Sartre’s definition of a convincing sign. In this regard, we face two questions. 1) What is the unique characteristic of the compelling sign as opposed to the convincing sign? 2) If we can accept the differentiation between the compelling and the convincing sign, what is the decision really about, i.e. what is the real challenge for Abraham, if not the one about which Sartre speaks? When Sartre speaks about the convincing sign, he states that there is not nor can there be a fact — the expression is not used by Sartre — which would prove the divine origin of the voice unquestionably. This is also the way Kierkegaard thinks. There is indeed no proof, and there cannot be one which would give certainty about the divine origin for the reason of the individual. However, for Kierkegaard this does not mean that human reason should have to make a judgement about the origin of the voice, and, in the end, about the existence of God. According to this approach, as I see it, faith (I owe the reader a definition of this concept) and madness would not be separable. Instead, Kierkegaard speaks (or hears!) about original experiential evidence, which somehow - from beyond the individual — testifies to the divine origin of the voice for the individual himself. I should emphasise: not for the individual’s reason. This testimony is compelling in so far as the human being cannot make a decision about being included in the experiential space of the testimony. In that moment, God decides about the speaking, and God enters the circle of the experience of the human being’s everyday life. This entry, this speaking, is given as an original act to the human, who at that moment is not in the situation of making a decision. It is not human reason that is affected by the entry of God, but the concrete, whole personality of the individual. Or rather, the entry of God affects the former: it affects human reason especially, in so Press, 2015, 122-141.); at the same time, on the contrary see among others Lukäcs György’s interpretation of the tradition of irrationalism and its influence on the history of Europe in the 20" century (Gyérgy Lukacs, The Destruction of Reason, trans. Peter R. Palmer, London, Merlin, 1980). The voice of the angel as angel of the Lord also represents the voice of God. Abraham in Kierkegaard’s view already knows this voice. If it were the first time that God revealed his Will to Abraham, the voice would not be familiar. The familiarity of God’s presence is the condition for Abraham’s submission. (See Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, 48-51.) However, at the same time, this familiarity is the condition for the possibility of offense. + 247 + Daréczi-Sepsi-Vassänyi_Initiation_155x240.indb 247 6 2020.06.15. 11:04:22
