Søren K ierkegaard’s
Fear and Trem bling
(The Com plete Notes)
Pr eface
Sum m ar y
Fear and Trembling opens with a preface by the pseudonymous author, Johannes de
Silentio, which discusses the modern world's cavalier attitude toward doubt and faith.
Today, he suggests, everyone is unwilling to stop with doubt, but wants to go further, as
if doubt itself were something easily attained. Descartes attained doubt, but only by
means of a long and difficult process following years of study. The Greek skeptics
considered doubt to be a matter that takes a lifetime to acquire. People today want to
start at this point, the point Descartes attained only by denying himself everything.
Today, he suggests further, everyone is unwilling to stop with faith, but wants to go
further, as if faith itself were something easily attained. Faith was once considered a task
for a lifetime, but today, all people seem to assume they have it, since they all seem to
want to go further.
Johannes confesses that he is not a philosopher, that he does not understand the
system. He points out that even if faith were put into conceptual form, the system could
not help us understand it, how it comes to us, or how we come to it. Johannes is not tied
to the system in any way, but writes, he suggests, because writing to him is a luxury, the
more so the fewer readers he has. He imagines he'll be ignored, and that what few critics
write about him will disdain him. What he fears even more is that someone will attempt
to make sense of his writing by carefully dissecting and systematizing it. Johannes
pleads with this "enterprising abstracter": this is not the system, nor can it be divided up
in such a clinical manner.
An alysis
All of Kierkegaard's major philosophical works are written pseudonymously, with
authorial personas such as "Vigilius Haufniensus," "Johannes Climacus," and
"Constantin Constantius." Fear and Trembling is the only book authored by Johannes
de Silentio, which literally means "John of Silence." Alastair Hannay identifies the name
as a reference to a character of that name in the Grimm fairy tale "The Faithful Servant."
That John was the servant to a young king, and warned his master of three dangers,
knowing full well that he would be turned to stone for having spoken. Later, the king
,sacrificed his two sons in order to bring John back to life, and once restored, John
resurrected the two sacrificed sons.
We may interpret the name and the allusion Kierkegaard has chosen on a number of
levels. Most immediately, the name connects with what the author has to say about
faith. This will be discussed in greater detail in later stages of this analysis, but briefly,
faith is regarded as something that cannot be intelligibly explained, understood, or
spoken about. Johannes is a very talkative, eloquent author, and yet he is "of silence"
because the one subject he most wants to discuss—faith—is beyond the power of his
words.
The John of Silence from the fairy tale can also connect to our author in two ways. The
first we see in the preface, as Johannes suggests that his writings are likely to be met
with critical disdain or incomprehension, if they are to be met at all. Like the character
in the fairy tale, he speaks the truth and warns against the complacency of the age, and
is likely to be rewarded with deadening silence. This prediction is somewhat prophetic—
Kierkegaard was largely ignored, and reviled when not ignored, during his lifetime. His
fame would not come until the 20th century, long after his death. We also see in the
fairy tale the theme of repetition emerging, where the young king can regain his sons
after having sacrificed them.
The discussion in the preface of doubt and faith are meant as a direct critique of the
Hegelian "system" that dominated the philosophy of the day. For Hegel, faith is lower
than reason since it is immediate and requires no reflection at all. Faith is then
something that we must move beyond, according to Hegel, if we are to understand the
world correctly. Similarly, doubt is associated with Descartes by the Hegelians, and is
considered an earlier stage in the dialectical process that leads to the Hegelian system.
This doubt is a starting point that must also be moved beyond.
Johannes contrasts the easy intellectualizing of the Hegelians with the dedication
required by true doubters and believers. The ancient skeptics, for instance, maintained
that since nothing is certain, they should suspend judgment about everything. Learning
to suspend judgment took a lifetime of dedicated asceticism, however, since we are
naturally accustomed to passing judgments on the things we sense and think about.
Similarly, the faith required of Abraham was not a simple matter to be had and then
moved beyond. Abraham's faith had to be so strong that he would unquestioningly
sacrifice his only son to God.
The difference between these people and the Hegelians can be understood as the
distinction between knowing with one's mind and knowing with one's heart. We might
draw the analogy to our consciousness of death. We all know that we will die, but young
people tend only to know this with our minds: we know it as a fact, and we would never
, deny it. However, only old people, or those who have had a near-death experience,
might know with their heart that they are going to die. That is, they are conscious of
their mortality in a way that informs their daily actions and their attitude toward life.
Johannes sees this contrast as one between reflection and passion. The Hegelians may
think they have reasoned through faith and doubt in the same way that think their
system allows them to reason through everything else. However, faith and doubt, unlike
science or logic, are meaningless and void without passion. We cannot allow Descartes
to do our doubting for us: in order to appreciate what it means to doubt, we need to go
through the process ourselves. Anything less will lead to cheap theorizing that doesn't
understand the objects of its theories. By rationalizing doubt and faith, by rendering
them as parts of a system built fully by reflection, Hegelians have destroyed doubt and
faith, have rendered them impotent. Kierkegaard is a staunch opponent of the Danish
church of his day, feeling that faith has been reduced to an aesthetic level which
cheapens the true value of religious passion.
Exor diu m
Sum m ar y
The first section of the book is a short one entitled "Exordium." It tells the story of a man
who deeply admires the story of Abraham in Genesis 22, admiring it more and more as
he grows older, but understanding it less and less. More than anything, this man wants
to witness the event, to watch Abraham, in order to understand how Abraham did what
he did. The man ponders over four possible scenarios, each accompanied by an analogy
to a mother weaning her child.
In the first, Abraham explains to Isaac that he is to be sacrificed, but then pretends to be
a homicidal psychopath, so that his son will blame Abraham, and not God, for his death,
and not lose faith in God. The man draws the analogy of a mother blackening her breast
in order to wean the child: the breast changes, but the mother remains the same.
In the second, Abraham did what God told him to do, but did it reluctantly and
uncomprehendingly. Forever after, Abraham was changed, and unable to feel joy. The
man draws the analogy of a mother concealing her breast so that the child feels it no
longer has a mother to draw milk from.
In the third, Abraham assumes God is testing him in a different way, to see how dearly
he loves his son. Abraham rides alone to Mount Moriah and begs God's forgiveness for
having even considered sacrificing Isaac. The man points out that both mother and child
mourn over the weaning, as the child will never be closer to the mother than to her
breast.
Fear and Trem bling
(The Com plete Notes)
Pr eface
Sum m ar y
Fear and Trembling opens with a preface by the pseudonymous author, Johannes de
Silentio, which discusses the modern world's cavalier attitude toward doubt and faith.
Today, he suggests, everyone is unwilling to stop with doubt, but wants to go further, as
if doubt itself were something easily attained. Descartes attained doubt, but only by
means of a long and difficult process following years of study. The Greek skeptics
considered doubt to be a matter that takes a lifetime to acquire. People today want to
start at this point, the point Descartes attained only by denying himself everything.
Today, he suggests further, everyone is unwilling to stop with faith, but wants to go
further, as if faith itself were something easily attained. Faith was once considered a task
for a lifetime, but today, all people seem to assume they have it, since they all seem to
want to go further.
Johannes confesses that he is not a philosopher, that he does not understand the
system. He points out that even if faith were put into conceptual form, the system could
not help us understand it, how it comes to us, or how we come to it. Johannes is not tied
to the system in any way, but writes, he suggests, because writing to him is a luxury, the
more so the fewer readers he has. He imagines he'll be ignored, and that what few critics
write about him will disdain him. What he fears even more is that someone will attempt
to make sense of his writing by carefully dissecting and systematizing it. Johannes
pleads with this "enterprising abstracter": this is not the system, nor can it be divided up
in such a clinical manner.
An alysis
All of Kierkegaard's major philosophical works are written pseudonymously, with
authorial personas such as "Vigilius Haufniensus," "Johannes Climacus," and
"Constantin Constantius." Fear and Trembling is the only book authored by Johannes
de Silentio, which literally means "John of Silence." Alastair Hannay identifies the name
as a reference to a character of that name in the Grimm fairy tale "The Faithful Servant."
That John was the servant to a young king, and warned his master of three dangers,
knowing full well that he would be turned to stone for having spoken. Later, the king
,sacrificed his two sons in order to bring John back to life, and once restored, John
resurrected the two sacrificed sons.
We may interpret the name and the allusion Kierkegaard has chosen on a number of
levels. Most immediately, the name connects with what the author has to say about
faith. This will be discussed in greater detail in later stages of this analysis, but briefly,
faith is regarded as something that cannot be intelligibly explained, understood, or
spoken about. Johannes is a very talkative, eloquent author, and yet he is "of silence"
because the one subject he most wants to discuss—faith—is beyond the power of his
words.
The John of Silence from the fairy tale can also connect to our author in two ways. The
first we see in the preface, as Johannes suggests that his writings are likely to be met
with critical disdain or incomprehension, if they are to be met at all. Like the character
in the fairy tale, he speaks the truth and warns against the complacency of the age, and
is likely to be rewarded with deadening silence. This prediction is somewhat prophetic—
Kierkegaard was largely ignored, and reviled when not ignored, during his lifetime. His
fame would not come until the 20th century, long after his death. We also see in the
fairy tale the theme of repetition emerging, where the young king can regain his sons
after having sacrificed them.
The discussion in the preface of doubt and faith are meant as a direct critique of the
Hegelian "system" that dominated the philosophy of the day. For Hegel, faith is lower
than reason since it is immediate and requires no reflection at all. Faith is then
something that we must move beyond, according to Hegel, if we are to understand the
world correctly. Similarly, doubt is associated with Descartes by the Hegelians, and is
considered an earlier stage in the dialectical process that leads to the Hegelian system.
This doubt is a starting point that must also be moved beyond.
Johannes contrasts the easy intellectualizing of the Hegelians with the dedication
required by true doubters and believers. The ancient skeptics, for instance, maintained
that since nothing is certain, they should suspend judgment about everything. Learning
to suspend judgment took a lifetime of dedicated asceticism, however, since we are
naturally accustomed to passing judgments on the things we sense and think about.
Similarly, the faith required of Abraham was not a simple matter to be had and then
moved beyond. Abraham's faith had to be so strong that he would unquestioningly
sacrifice his only son to God.
The difference between these people and the Hegelians can be understood as the
distinction between knowing with one's mind and knowing with one's heart. We might
draw the analogy to our consciousness of death. We all know that we will die, but young
people tend only to know this with our minds: we know it as a fact, and we would never
, deny it. However, only old people, or those who have had a near-death experience,
might know with their heart that they are going to die. That is, they are conscious of
their mortality in a way that informs their daily actions and their attitude toward life.
Johannes sees this contrast as one between reflection and passion. The Hegelians may
think they have reasoned through faith and doubt in the same way that think their
system allows them to reason through everything else. However, faith and doubt, unlike
science or logic, are meaningless and void without passion. We cannot allow Descartes
to do our doubting for us: in order to appreciate what it means to doubt, we need to go
through the process ourselves. Anything less will lead to cheap theorizing that doesn't
understand the objects of its theories. By rationalizing doubt and faith, by rendering
them as parts of a system built fully by reflection, Hegelians have destroyed doubt and
faith, have rendered them impotent. Kierkegaard is a staunch opponent of the Danish
church of his day, feeling that faith has been reduced to an aesthetic level which
cheapens the true value of religious passion.
Exor diu m
Sum m ar y
The first section of the book is a short one entitled "Exordium." It tells the story of a man
who deeply admires the story of Abraham in Genesis 22, admiring it more and more as
he grows older, but understanding it less and less. More than anything, this man wants
to witness the event, to watch Abraham, in order to understand how Abraham did what
he did. The man ponders over four possible scenarios, each accompanied by an analogy
to a mother weaning her child.
In the first, Abraham explains to Isaac that he is to be sacrificed, but then pretends to be
a homicidal psychopath, so that his son will blame Abraham, and not God, for his death,
and not lose faith in God. The man draws the analogy of a mother blackening her breast
in order to wean the child: the breast changes, but the mother remains the same.
In the second, Abraham did what God told him to do, but did it reluctantly and
uncomprehendingly. Forever after, Abraham was changed, and unable to feel joy. The
man draws the analogy of a mother concealing her breast so that the child feels it no
longer has a mother to draw milk from.
In the third, Abraham assumes God is testing him in a different way, to see how dearly
he loves his son. Abraham rides alone to Mount Moriah and begs God's forgiveness for
having even considered sacrificing Isaac. The man points out that both mother and child
mourn over the weaning, as the child will never be closer to the mother than to her
breast.
