Gonna be so honest; I didn’t understand a lot of this book… or at least I’m open to the ~idea~ that I didn’t understand a lot of it (there will always be some philosophy-head who will tell me I’m misunderstanding anyways, so here I beat them to the punch).

The “leap of faith,” to believe, is the challenge of the rational age, for faith is itself absurd. Nonetheless, though, it is the most sublime of things.

In the Epilogue, Kierkegaard writes the following:

“When children on holiday get through all their games by noon and then ask impatiently, ‘can’t anyone think of a new game?’, does this show that they are more developed and advanced than children of the same or previous generations who could make the games they already know last the whole day? Or does it not rather show that those children lack what I would call the good natured seriousness that belongs to play?”

I think that about sums it up.

Have you ever wondered what Abraham was thinking as he set off to kill his son in the name of faith? What he would have done as a true "knight of faith"? This book gives a very, very detailed study on the psychology of faith and specifically what Abraham would have been thinking at each step of the process.

I'm sure this was revolutionary in it's time, and gives a great view on philosophical developments at that time, but I personally didn't feel that it was that universal enough to have much parallel and insight into today. That also may be because I've never been religious and battled with being a "knight of faith" or otherwise... In any case, it's pretty short...

Bilo mi je potrebno neko vreme da privedem ovo kraju jer posle prve polovine knjige u kojoj postavlja temelje svoje relativističke filozofije, Kirkegor posvećuje celu drugu polovinu da ponavlja i ponavlja i ponavlja iste argumente – što stilski u mnogome doprinosi potpunoj zbunjenosti i anksioznosti koja karakteriše knjigu, ali.... nije baš zanimljivo za čitanje. Sve u svemu, drago mi je da sam posvetio Kirkegoru neko vreme; njegova vrsta vere i verovanja u mnogome je drugačija (i iznad svega – smislenija) nego ono na šta sam navikao.

3+

It seems to me that Kierkegaard falls into the trap that's so typical of the case history approach to philosophy and psychology, namely: to lionise a specific personality style as pre-eminently noble - a didactic tool for the edification of all - when it's really just a biopsychocial quirk virtually unattainable through effort.

I found it difficult to come to terms with his Christian existentialism. I understand how, with Abraham’s belief in the absurd and that, with God’s will set to manifest in this life (not the afterlife), it’s existentialist, however the whole thing seems to belong more in the realm of theology. It seems to be predicated too definitely on acceptance of God and this appears to me to be fatal to existentialism.

Kierkegaard is certainly enamoured of faith, and he constructs a detailed edifice of imaginative ideas in praise of it. It's a fine creation, but to me it just seems like creative imagination. I think it’s the worst thing that philosophy can do: formulate a system of ideas that is divorced from the evidence of reality.

It was very repetitive too and went off on a lot of half-related tangents.

Brilliant meditation on Abraham and Isaac and what it means to have faith. Haven't read since college.

For better and for worse, society needs religion as we do. Kierkegaard helps some make the leap of faith.