Differentiating between "The Knight of Faith" and "Tragic Hero"

In “Fear and Trembling”, Kierkegaard develops two figures to help his readers ultimately understand Abraham’s decision to sacrifice his son, Isaac: “The Knight of Faith” and the “Tragic Hero”. On Friday’s pop quiz, I mixed up the two; so I figured I would dedicate this week’s blog post to clarifying the distinction between the two. Kierkegaard describes Abraham as a Knight of Faith through his actions which “transgressed the ethical altogether and had a higher telos [end] outside it.” Abraham had to have known it was wrong to comply with killing his son, but the act was sent to him by God (the Absolute) to be carried out. Consequentially, because Abraham agreed to kill Isaac he must be understood differently. His relationship to the Absolute is the only justification for killing his son. “The Knight of Faith” is thus “higher than the universal”, and stands in a direct “relationship to the absolute.” Kierkegaard introduces the” Tragic Hero” in order to show what Abraham cannot be. He says the Tragic Hero always “stays within the ethical”, meaning, any act committed by the hero is always in a relationship to the universal ethical code. Therefore, in the ethical, Abraham is a murderer. During Friday’s class, Dr. Layne differentiated the two in a concise manner; “The Knight of Faith” cannot be understood nor universalized, while the “Tragic Hero” can be understood.

SVU

I was watching an episode of Law and Order Special Victims Unit the other day right after out class conversation on the religious man, and the ethical man. In the episode, a man killed another man who was a child molester. The child molester even raped the man when he was child. When the police officer was interrogating the man, I couldn't decide whether he was ethical or religious. The man felt no need to explain himself and did it because of his own reasons, not for the greater good. His actions weren't thought of with sympathy or empathy either, but I didn't know if his actions were religious or ethical. I just felt it was interesting to see how philosophy is everywhere. Kierkegard is awesome!!

What stage am I in?

This week we have been talking about Kierkegaard's stages on life's way. I don't agree that people can fit neatly into one category, aesthetic, ethical, or religious. Even having this opinion, I tried to discover which category I fit into. This proved extremely difficult. Of course I was not completely aesthetic. I definitely maintain an identity and have a set of morals I seem to act out on. On the other hand I could not be completely ethical either. Sometimes I put those morals that I stand on aside for other things such as love. I am also not religious because I am going through the process of questioning my religious beliefs in order to hopefully gain a stronger faith. I am also not as devoutly interested in the Christian way as I should be. So where do I fall? I can say I'm mostly ethical at this point, but not completely. I 'm sure I am not the only one who does not fit so neatly into these stages so I wonder how valid his belief is.

A Leap of Faith

I thought it was interesting in class when we talked about in order to truly have faith one must see that it is not ethical and not universally applicable. One must risk their own faith in order to have faith. This relates to the leap of faith. When two people are in love they take this leap of faith to be with each other. They do not know if it will work out in the end, there is no evidence to support this matter. One must doubt this faith in order to have the truest faith. To recognize this doubt allows one to take this leap of faith. We hear the phrase "leap of faith" all the time but before this the phrase meant very little to me. I understand now all that comes with a leap of faith, the doubting and the weighing of options. Once the leap has been made one has made a commitment to oneself.

Kierkegaard

Honestly I am enjoying Kierkegaard's Christian tendecies. His philosophy has basically described my life so far. Through junior high and high school I was an Aesthetic. I was always living in the moment; not worrying about concequences. Then last summer living in the immediate was not ennnough and I was extremely bored. Last semester I was depressed and worn out, so I was making a transission. This semester I am almost to the Ethical stage. I don't think I will ever make it to the religious stage but one can never tell the path God has set for us.

Kierkegaard

To love someone is not a duty but a commitment. Abraham sacrificed his son out of a commitment to God in proving his faith. God's demanding of Abraham's son was out of a spiritual trial not for a greater cause. God wanted to test Abraham to see in what place his heart laid. Abraham is a knight of faith for this but what then do we call him if he had chosen not to sacrifice? Is he now a tragic hero? For what purposes? For Abraham to not sacrifice is that now for a greater cause? To save a nation? Or is there some sort of third category that dedicates to that of the selfish and unfaithful?

Class Synopsis, March 30

On Wednesday we continued our discussion of Kierkegaard. Dr. Layne first finished covering the first stage of life, the aesthetic. Kierkegaard asserted that the aesthete falls short in life by living amorally and refusing responsibility. By giving oneself responsibility, one is free to act.

Upon finishing the aesthetic stage, Dr. Layne pressed forward with an explanation of the ethical life. The ethical life begins by taking a "leap" to choose to accept moral standards and to place duty above pleasure. This choice requires an either/or scenario; that is, a necessary loss is imperative in the choice. By choosing one side and giving up the other, one attains an identity. Kierkegaard states that the move to the ethical sphere is marked by despair and self-choice. In the ethical world, all must follow a universal standard. The embodiment of the ethical world is the knight of infinite resignation, who resigns oneself to relinquished rewards for the sake of duty. However, the ethical life also has flaws. The ethical person still feels one's own imperfection through sin. Furthermore, an inability to obey the laws produces an inability to always be oneself, which is a big no-no for Kierkegaard.

The third and final stage of life is the religious. This is the highest in Kierkegaard's opinion, as it transcends both aesthetics and ethics. The aesthetic life focuses solely on the individual and his or her desires. The ethical life focuses on the universal. The religious life instead focuses on the individual's personal relationship with the universal figure of God. Kierkegaard states that the religious life cannot be justified by reason, and even calls it absurd. This is not a rational choice that can be made, but rather will of the faith to a higher meaning. An example of the religious person is the knight of faith who goes to church every Sunday just because one is impelled to by one's very being, in contrast to one going for a duty to society or for pleasure. The knight of faith just feels it to go to Church.

Dr. Layne then focused on the change that precipitates the move to the religious life, the "leap of faith." Those who are in love or who believe in God exemplify this leap. There is no evidence to support such a belief; they just believe. In fact, there must be reasons to doubt such faith. True faith will believe in the face of these doubts. Dr. Layne then used the situation of two lovers who could not marry to further distinguish the three stages. In the aesthetic life, the boy would move on and accept there is another lover in the world. The ethical boy would not give up his love for the girl, but would be resigned to the fact that they could not be together. The religious boy, however, would insist that even through the absurdity of it all they will be together. He is steadfast in his faith in their love, and does not halt in attaining and exacting it.