Ejemplo perfecto de la filosofía/teología moderna en el ámbito religioso. Kierkegaard es un animal en la casuística de pienso y luego “desespero”. Ver la desesperación, desglosarla y entender como puede ser algo positivo. Sin dejar de lado, una introspección oscura y un viaje por el ser, sus posibles y sus limites bastante curioso. Recomendado y le pongo 5 porque realmente me ha llegado a plantearme (adoptar) muchos puntos de vista que no tenía.

Among the canonical works of existentialist thought, few possess the arresting force and literary ingenuity of Søren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. Published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, this enigmatic text is no dry philosophical treatise but rather a meditation of uncommon intensity—part theological inquiry, part narrative exegesis, part philosophical performance. It is, in short, a work that defies easy categorization, much like its author, that perennially restless Dane whose critique of both reason and institutional Christianity would shape the intellectual currents of the next two centuries.

The book takes as its central motif the biblical story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac—an episode that has troubled theologians and moral philosophers for millennia. But where others have sought to rationalize the tale, to render it palatable for human comprehension, Kierkegaard refuses. His Abraham is not a figure of untroubled obedience but a man caught in an impossible paradox, suspended between divine command and human ethics.

To read Fear and Trembling is to encounter a work that is not merely about faith but is itself an act of faith—written with the conviction that true belief demands not logic, not reason, but something far more radical: the "leap" into the unknown.
The Knight of Faith vs. the Tragic Hero

Kierkegaard, with his habitual irony and rhetorical cunning, does not merely argue his point; he dramatizes it. He introduces two archetypes, the tragic hero and the knight of faith, through which he contrasts conventional moral virtue with the far more unsettling demands of true faith.

The tragic hero—embodied in figures such as Agamemnon, who sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia for the greater good—is comprehensible. His actions are painful, yes, but they adhere to a moral logic. He acts in accordance with ethical principles that, however harsh, are still within the bounds of human reason.

Abraham, by contrast, stands alone in his ordeal. His willingness to sacrifice Isaac cannot be justified by ethics, nor can it be rationalized as an act of duty to society. He does not kill for a cause, for justice, for the good of the many. He prepares to do so solely because God commands it. And here lies Kierkegaard’s terrifying proposition: that true faith is not an extension of ethics but a contradiction of it.

The knight of faith, then, is not simply a good man; he is a man who obeys God even when obedience defies all worldly understanding. This is the scandal of faith, its outrageous and unsettling nature—one that Kierkegaard insists most people, even self-proclaimed believers, fail to grasp.
The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical

One of the book’s most provocative ideas is what Kierkegaard calls the "teleological suspension of the ethical." In plain terms: the moral law, which ordinarily governs human conduct, is not the highest authority. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is, from an ethical standpoint, monstrous. But within the logic of faith, it is something else entirely—a submission to a divine order that transcends human morality.

Kierkegaard is not advocating moral relativism; rather, he is exposing the limits of moral reasoning. If Abraham had obeyed human ethics, he would have refused to sacrifice Isaac, and in doing so, he would have acted righteously—by human standards. But faith, in Kierkegaard’s formulation, demands more than righteousness; it demands total submission to the divine, even when the divine command appears to contradict all earthly reason.

It is here that modern readers may recoil. The notion that ethics can be "suspended" for faith’s sake is a deeply unsettling one, particularly in an era that prizes rationality and moral autonomy. Yet this is precisely Kierkegaard’s point: faith is not comfortable. If it does not disturb, it is not faith—it is merely social convention dressed in religious garb.
Kierkegaard’s Literary Brilliance

Though often categorized as a philosopher, Kierkegaard was, at heart, a literary genius. Fear and Trembling is as much a work of imaginative storytelling as it is a theological exploration. Kierkegaard reimagines Abraham’s story in multiple ways, each retelling peeling back new layers of meaning. In one version, Abraham cannot go through with the act and despairs. In another, he secretly wishes to disobey but outwardly complies. In yet another, he becomes mute, unable to express the torment of his faith.

This method of repetition, of circling around a single event from different vantage points, is part of what gives Fear and Trembling its hypnotic, almost incantatory power. Kierkegaard does not seek to "solve" the problem of Abraham; he forces the reader to inhabit it, to experience its anguish firsthand.

Moreover, the book’s pseudonymous authorship is itself a literary device. Johannes de Silentio, the supposed writer, is not a believer—he admires Abraham but admits he cannot comprehend him. By placing his argument in the mouth of one who remains outside faith, Kierkegaard both enacts and critiques the limits of philosophical analysis.
Faith and the Modern Condition

Though written in the 19th century, Fear and Trembling speaks powerfully to the dilemmas of modernity. We live in an age that demands rational justification for every belief, that seeks to reduce all convictions to logic, psychology, or social utility. Kierkegaard stands as a rebuke to this tendency. Faith, he insists, cannot be domesticated in this way. It is not a calculation, not a set of moral guidelines, not a self-improvement program. It is a terrifying, absolute commitment to something beyond reason.

For the modern reader, this raises uncomfortable questions. Is faith possible in a secular age? Can one truly believe in God without demanding explanations, assurances, proofs? Kierkegaard would argue that to demand such things is precisely to miss the point. Faith is not knowledge. It is not certainty. It is a leap—a mad, beautiful, incomprehensible leap—into the unknown.
Final Thoughts: A Book That Demands to Be Reckoned With

To read Fear and Trembling is not merely to engage with a philosophical text but to wrestle with a spiritual challenge. It is a book that resists easy consumption, that frustrates as much as it illuminates. It does not leave the reader with tidy conclusions but with a lingering, unsettling question: What does it mean to believe?

Kierkegaard offers no comfortable answers. He does not seek to reassure but to disturb. And in that disturbance, in that confrontation with the limits of reason, he compels us to reconsider the very nature of faith itself.

It is, in short, a book that lives up to its name—one that inspires both fear and trembling.

"Sickness Unto Death"
I re-read this essay as a form of self-medication. SK's analysis of despair is disturbingly accurate - like a surgeons knife that cuts at all the right places. I recognize that this book can be an exercise in learning something about the author; but i suspect that its true worth is in "reading" the reader. Perhaps it will be just another diatribe on Christendom that you read; or maybe, it might just uncover those places in your life that need life breathed into them from a living God.

One of the greatest work of Christian philosophy, an existentialist classic shall I say lol...

I liked this better than Alastair Hannay's translation.

Both were profound in their own ways. I felt Fear and Trembling could have been much shorter. Like 20 pages. Sickness unto death was such a powerful diagnostic, it seemed nearly undeniable. But I also felt a longing for more help to get out of despair.

These essays by Kierkegaard speak to his lack of acceptance of the Christian church on a whole while arguing his point about Christianity in general as the "truth" but, as a philosophical statement, fall flat in the foundational components being based purely on the "absurdity" of faith. I enjoyed reading both pieces although thought that Lowrie himself detracted overall from the works with his introductions and notes. Kierkegaard is definitely worth considering even in modern times as a basis for how ethics are viewed through his ideals of Christianity versus the more hypocritical lens of the church itself. However, if you want to better understand a similar philosophy that doesn't require leaps of faith, consider reading Kant.

Fear and Trembling is one of the most insightful, thought-provoking treatises on Abraham I have ever read. He opens with a prelude, an exploration of a theme in contrasting vignettes. He ends the introduction with this observation:

“If Abraham when he stood upon Mount Moriah had doubted, if he had gazed about him irresolutely, if before he drew the knife he had by chance discovered the ram, if God had permitted him to offer it instead of Isaac-then he would have betaken himself home, everything would have been the same, he has Sarah, he retained Isaac, and yet how changed! For his retreat would have been a flight, his salvation an accident, his reward dishonor, his future perhaps perdition. Then he would have borne witness neither to his faith nor to God's grace, but would have testified only how dreadful it is to march out to Mount Moriah.”

But a “Panegyric upon Abraham” is insufficient. Kierkegaard approaches everything dialectically. It is not enough to stand in awe of Abraham's trial and accept him as an incredible example of faith. To fully display the paradox of faith, Kierkegaard must approach the problems inherent in the story.

1) Is there such a thing as a teleological suspension of the ethical?
“The ethical as such is the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone.....As soon as the individual would assert himself in his particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal.”
2) Is there such a thing as an absolute duty toward God?
“Either there is an absolute duty toward God, and if so it is the paradox here described, that the individual as the individual is higher than the universal and as the individual stands in an absolute relation to the absolute/or else faith never existed, because it has always existed...”
3) Was Abraham ethically defensible in keeping silent about his purpose before Sarah, before Eleazar, before Isaac?
“If there is not a concealment which has its ground in the fact that the individual as the individual is higher than the universal, then Abraham's conduct was indefensible, for he paid no heed to the intermediate ethical determinants.”

In all of this, what exactly does it take to be a “knight of faith”? Does common man even begin to approach it?

The knight of faith is a rarity. “Faith is a miracle, and yet no man is excluded from it; for that in which all human life is unified is passion, and faith is a passion.” And yet, “Most men live in such a way under an ethical obligation that they can let the sorrow be sufficient for the day, but they never reach this passionate concentration, this energetic consciousness.” A man can live ethically, but not be a “knight of faith”.

Faith comes up in the second part of his other work The Sickness Unto Death, but in a different context. He presents despair as the sickness unto death and the forms (psychological manifestations) and universality of the sickness. In this sense, despair is sin, and he makes this, often over-looked observation, “...the opposite of sin is not virtue, not by any manner of means. This is in part a pagan view which is content with a merely human measure and properly does not know what sin is, that all sin is before God. No, the opposite of sin is faith, as is affirmed in Rom. 14;23, “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” And for the whole of Christianity it is one of the most decisive definitions that the opposite of sin is not virtue but faith.” This is something I may often say I believe, but actually live as though “good” were the opposite of sin.

The Sickness Unto Death begins with a definition of self as a synthesis between body and spirit. This self must “either have constituted itself or have been constituted by another.” He posits that if human self had constituted itself, there would only be one form of despair, not willing to be one's self. But since there is another form of despair, that of willing to be one's self, the self must have been constituted by another.

He follows by demonstrating that the sickness is universal. “Just as the physician might say that there lives perhaps not one single man who is in perfect health, so one might say perhaps that there lives not one single man who after all is not to some extent in despair.”

There are many forms of despair. It may be conscious or unconscious. If conscious, a man may despair over the eternal (an existential crisis, if you will). If unconscious, it may manifest itself as a despair over earthly things. Kierkegaard covers a wide range of instances and it is guaranteed to prick the reader's conscious on some point or other (or at least it did mine).

For Kierkegaard, despair is sin and once one becomes aware of it there is a natural progression, or “continuation” of it:

1) One despairs over one's sin,
2) One despairs of receiving forgiveness of sins, and if one does not humble oneself and receive the forgiveness so despaired of then the continued state of offense will lead to
3) The abandonment of Christianity, declaring it a falsehood (because it didn't “work”).

Honestly, there is so much to unpack in these short works. Brevity only encompasses length, not thought. Highly recommended.

Both works contained here (but especially 'Fear & Trembling' ) are impossible to critique. One can only dialogue, interact, and dwell with these works. Kierkegaard has his flaws, overwrought prose among them, but his insights and positions are so pivotal for modern ways of life. Especially someone like me, a mere novice who is just beginning, to rate Kierkegaard is a fools task. Yet to not do it, to merely read and then move on without any reflection would be ever more foolish.

'Fear & Trembling' beautifully articulates the foolishness of faith. By taking the story of Abraham and Issac (God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son), Kierkegaard explores the absurdity of faith. To him, or at least the pseudonym, the normal state of things is to try and mirror the ethical which is the universal. The universal rules of humanity are the moral principles we (generally) agree on. Faith, however, is the individual placing themselves over the universal. It's an absurdity and yet Abraham became the Father of Faith precisely because of that absurdity. Kierkegaard contrasts Abraham's moment of faith with other figures who sacrifice their children. He highlights Agamemnon's own moment of sacrifice. In Kierkegaard's own words, "Abraham's whole action stands in relation to the universal. It's a wholly private undertaking." Agamemnon's, on the other hand, necessarily revolves around the armies and ships at his command. Fear & trembling come in to view when we think of how absurd it would be to live like that, the depravity of such actions if they were not in faith, and the burden or weight of discernment.

That ties into the second text which I found less clear. 'Sickness Unto Death' recounts despair as the 'mood' (to borrow Heideggerian terminology. Much of my own understanding of these texts were through those lens and I found obvious and subtle connections between the two thinkers that deserve closer study) of humanity. We are either in despair at not willing to be oneself or in despair at willing to be oneself. He spends much of the text exploring what those means but it's not very clear. What is clear, however, is that Sin is the knowledge of despair before God. Sin is a positive position, as opposed to a negative in the classical sense, of not being grounded in God. Faith, the opposite of sin in this system, is the willingness to be grounded in God (more or less, I left out some jargon.) It's beautiful and worth reflection. By no means classical theism, it retains much force and power. Much of the second half is about Sin and how Sin is key to God's Revelation because only through Revelation are we aware of Sin. "Orthodoxy insists that there must be a revelation from God in order to teach fallen man what sin is..." is one such quote. A clear connection between the two works is that Kierkegaard holds that man is individual before God and the grace of Christianity is that we are able to be called akin to God. Such akinship, however, means that "the whole weight of this falls upon him in fear and trembling."

Also in these texts are critiques of casual Christianity, mindless apologetics, and other forms of defense. They are more or less compelling but by no means the main thrust of the texts. Someone more familiar with Hegel would likely get more from these texts as well. As I (eventually) open up Hegel, Kierkegaard will be opened up as well. Wrestling with Kierkegaard was a pleasure and one any serious person ought to do as well. It will be too long before I get the chance to read these again.

Penso, logo desespero.

OK, não foi a melhor maneira de descobrir Kierkegaard. Numa longa tradição filosófica cristã, Kierkegaard também tenta acomodar a filosofia grega (Sócrates, neste caso), no interior da teologia cristã. O resultado é mau porque toma a Bíblia como infalível INTEGRALMENTE. Certo, existem inúmeros versículos úteis na Bíblia para a formação moral dum indivíduo. Contudo, é um conjunto de livros que se contradizem entre si e não existe nada de muito original nos textos. Ou pelo menos nada que outras religiões/correntes filosóficas contemporâneas não "ensinassem" também.

Abro aqui um parênteses só para afirmar que, se não fosse um judeu chamado Paulo/Saulo a moldar (e pregar) o que hoje consta em grande parte do Novo Testamento, o cristianismo teria depressa desaparecido como uma corrente teológica judaica.

No século XIX já não devia servir de ponto de partida para um ensaio filosófico, pois quem o faz depara-se com todas estas incongruências e começa a divagar ao tentar explicá-las, em vez de seguir a linha de pensamento original. Por isso, filósofos, ponham de parte a Bíblia quando querem discorrer sobre determinado assunto.

Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.

Great title! Seriously, the only compelling system of thought based on religion is presented here, and it all stems from his unrequited love for a woman.