Fear and Trembling: 2.5
The Sickness unto Death: 3.5

Full disclosure, this is the actual book I read but I wanted to separate my reviews of F&T and Sickness so I marked F&T as its own book. This will be my thoughts on Sickness Unto Death.

First off, as one of the relatively few primary philosophy texts I've read, Sickness gave me quite a hard time, at least in the beginning. SK's definition of self is one of the most convoluted, twisting, circular sentences I've ever read and I eventually had to give up deciphering it so I could read the rest of his work. That said, I got the impression that SK's self is really a combination of body (finite) and soul (infinite) but in the sense that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The self is constituted by the relationship between body and soul and how it interacts with itself (kinda meta, right?). SK's self is important because that is how he goes on to define his various different types of despair, which was probably the more interesting of the two parts.

For SK, despair is the sickness [that results in] death; not necessarily death in a bodily sense, but rather in a spiritual sense. Everyone is in some form of despair all the time, some of which can be quite deceptive. That said, the common factor underlying all forms of despair is the inability of one to truly actualize their self. For some reason or another (SK lists quite a few) the individual is behaving or thinking things that are counter to their true nature. The aim is to, before God, self-actualize and enter into a private relationship with Him. Without going through all the types he lists, I'll pick out a few that stood out to me. First there are the despairs of possibility and necessity. The former is common enough: there are so many things that you could be that you're too busy exploring them or getting excited about them to actually become them. SK says that here "the self runs away from itself", hoping to chase all the possibilities available to it. The latter (despair over necessity) was the more interesting one for me. This is referring to things like Philistinism or anyone with a profound lack of faith (i.e. things *have* to be a certain way). SK talks about how probability is actually antithetical to possibility by "carrying [possibility] like a prisoner in a cage". He relates this to his concept of the absurd (which we saw in F&T) and says how all humans know that their destruction (death) is inevitable (a necessity), but its faith (possibility) that they use to not live in despair at all times. The belief that the universe (God) acts of its own will that is unpredictable to us is a source of hope (possibility) in the face of cold, hard necessity.

He goes on to talk about conscious and unconscious despair and as awareness of despair increases, so too does the suffering and proximity to God. The idea is eventually to humble yourself before God and allow him to help you with your despair. This line of thought continues into the much less interesting Part Second about sin. SK says that despair is sin and that it is a sin that is committed at every instant, so that only God can deliver us from it. I found this chapter circuitous and not incredibly valuable, especially when compared to the psychological analysis SK presented in Part First.

The bits that appealed to me in both F&T and Sickness were definitely the parts that smelled of existentialism. Interestingly, I encountered existentialism in a sort of reverse chronological order, reading SK (the Father of Existentialism) last. Something that really rubbed me wrong with SK that isn't the case in Camus, Sartre, de Beauvoir, and others is that the Absurd is represented by God and has a will. Maybe this is the part of me that SK talks about feeling "offense" at Christianity. The offense comes from people unwilling to accept help from all-powerful Father and unwilling to humble themselves before Him. Maybe that's me. At any rate, I'd much rather prefer to place the individual above God, blasphemous though it may be, because at the end of the day, that's all I have. I live my own life and if the universe doesn't have any meaning, maybe I can use that to add some to my life, by contrast.

All in all, definitely a challenging read, but glad I finally got to read the Father of Existentialism.

I'm writing commentaries for a book of my haiku, in which the three line haiku is now being commented on verbosely... perhaps ironic? But not so, really, as Basho also wrote about his haiku within a body of prose. Anyway, I referred to this book which I read over 40 years ago, and decided I needed to verify my comment and get into it again. It's a fascinating ratiocination on our prophet Abraham and the anguish he might have felt and the absurd position of the Knight of Faith who leaps into the Unknown with a case of heartfelt parachutitis (new word, use with caution...).

In the two treatises that this book is comprised 0f, Kierkegaard, the theosopher poet, attempts with mixed but never indolent results to demonstrate a myriad of beguiling and utterly unique theses. Fear and Trembling, which I find preferable to The Sickness Unto Death, is quite the manuscript. Herein we see the apex of the author's critical and poetic faculties, the resulting inquiry into anguish being a grand work that succeeds far more than it fails, which, as in the case of both of these books, is regrettably not all too rare, luckily it is not all too prevalent either, and thus the most rewarding features of these pieces makes them more than worthwhile. While discord certainly persists in my relationship with Kierkegaard, it is doubtful that I should soon abandon it, how else might I explore that sliver of my being who desires only to be absolutely and dutifully bound to the will of God?

ugh. what a turgid outdated translation. reading it felt like bitter medicine.

1 Aug 2023
Just finished reading the "Fear and Trembling" half of this book (2 in 1). Second time reading F&T, but a different translation this time. It's among my all time favorites. Short, but not a fast read. Kierkegaard takes real work, but the treasure is rich. F&T posits that "faith" is the greatest passion of which mankind is capable. It also makes clear that faith is only understood through a lens of faith. This book has enhanced my reading of the story of Abraham and Isaac found in the Old Testament. Like Kierkegaard, I stand in awe of Abraham, a "knight of faith." Interestingly, this book makes me think of Joseph Smith. Put to a similar examination, Joseph is also revealed as a knight of faith.

Anyway, I love F&T. Looking forward to reading "The Sickness Unto Death," which is about the spiritual ailment of despair.

Kierkegaard je veľmi inšpiratívny mysliteľ a kreatívny spisovateľ. Jeho zamýšľanie sa nad Abrahámom ako otcom viery by malo byť súčasťou kresťanského vzdelávania. Podobne aj pojednávanie o zúfalstve a hriechu ide veľmi do hĺbky a ponúka prísnu predstavu o tom, čo je to hriech. Ale úprimne musím povedať, že premýšľať Kierkegaarda je niekedy príjemnejšie ako ho čítať. Pre mňa to bolo utrpenie a obdivujem ľudí, ktorí o ňom hovoria, že to vlastne ani nie je filozof, lebo píše veľmi prístupnou prózou. Podľa mňa sa do Kierkegaarda treba ponoriť a treba hľadať - hlboko a vyberať si fragmenty, lebo na prvýkrát sa mi tieto dve práce ako celok nepodarilo uchopiť.

Bázeň a chvění (Bázeň a chvenie)

Táto knižka je podľa mňa jednak popis príbehu Abraháma, ktorý musel Kierkegaarda silno ovplyvniť a uchvátiť. Myslím si však, že je to zároveň Kierkegaardova kritika etiky. V úvodoch do filozofie sa často učí o tom, že Kierkegaard vo svojej filozofii hovorí o troch štádiách - estetickom, etickom a náboženskom štádiu. Abrahám je pre neho práve postavou, ktorá žije v náboženskom štádiu a ak náhodou nechápete, ako bol Abrahám schopný poslúchnuť Boha a vziať svojho syna, aby ho obetoval, tak sa netrápte. Žijete totiž v etickom štádiu a v ňom sa "to" pochopiť nedá. Absurdnosť Abrahámovho konania je však to, čo ho odlišuje od nás, lebo Abrahám koná ako jedinec, zodpovedný voči Bohu. Vymanil sa zo zovretia etiky, pretože "etika nepočíta s jednotlivými prípadmi, nepripúšťa žiadne rozuzlenie, nesľubuje žiadnu hodnosť, naopak kladie na hrdinove ramená ohromnú zodpovednosť. (74)

Nemoc k smrti (Choroba k smrti)

Choroba k smrti je (opäť) biblicky motivovaným, psychologickým rozprávaním o zúfalstve. "Choroba k smrti je zúfalstvo...môže byť trojaké: zúfalstvo, kedy si neuvedomujeme vlastné ja (nevlastné zúfalstvo); zúfalstvo, kedy nechceme byť sami sebou, a zúfalstvo, kedy chceme byť sami sebou." Slová autora často o knihe vypovedajú viac, ako ten, ktorý sa ich snaží zreferovať, ale myslím si, že Kierkegaard sa v knižke snažil poukázať na dve veci - obrovský dôraz na individuálny charakter ľudskej osobnosti a na našu neschopnosť prijať tento charakter. Hovorí napríklad, že "Namiesto toho, aby sme sa stali sami sebou, stali sme sa číslom, človekom ako iní, obyčajným opakovaním stále toho istého Einerlei (jednotvárnosť). (140)

Dosť sa rozpráva o premárnení života – ale život sa predsa premárni len vtedy, keď človek, sklamaný radosťami a starosťami života, žije bez jasného vedomia o tom, že je duch, že je ja, čiže – a to je to iste – keď si nikdy neuvedomí a v hlbšom slova zmysle nikdy nevníma, že Boh je, a že človek sám, jeho ja, je pre Boha; to je výťažok z nekonečna a dosiahne sa ho len zúfalstvom. Ach, aká bieda, že toľko ľudí žije len tak, ochudobnení o najblaženejšiu zo všetkých myšlienok! Aká bieda, že sa ľudia zamestnávajú všetkým možným, že sú nútení plytvať silami v komédii života a nikdy si túto blaženosť nepripomenúť; že sa zhromažďujú a klamú, namiesto aby sa jeden od druhého oddeľovali, tak aby každý ako jednotlivec získal to najvyššie, to jediné, za čo stojí žiť a čo vystačí na celú večnosť! (135)

Viac citátov a výňatkov z knihy nájdete tu.

I can't tell if this guy is completely insane and dumb as shit, or totally sane and a genius, and my opinion changes every time I reread this. So overall, that's the mark of a very good book.

The faith is firm or not ?Can human beings overcome their own weakness?

Definitely not easy reading, but you probably already know that. Kierkegaard gets pigeonholed as a "Christian philosopher" but his faith worked more as the primary pool of metaphor and cultural reference points for his analyses. I'll be checking out "Either-or" at some point based on what I saw here.

Note: I read "Fear and Trembling" and not the other essay in the volume.

Although the topic is a serious one, I was impressed by the playfulness of Kierkegaard's mind and presentation. First, SK "juggles apples and oranges". In this respect, the subject matter of the book calls for theological explication simply because it is the narration of the Sacrifice of Isaac reported in the Book of Genesis. However, SK creates a case study that explores the action of Abraham in comparison with principles of philosophy (ethics) and art (primarily drama). This is unusual for me. Second, SK's mind moves with attention to intellectual detail with, I feel, almost the joy and satisfaction of someone playing a complex game like chess or, better, writing well a very complex piece of poetry.

As to the subject matter itself, I think that SK was unusual in focusing entirely on the dilemma that Abraham faced as an individual. Indeed, SK is at pains to note that the life issues of a person of faith (like Abraham) are not the universal issues of ethics, for example, but the "particular" experience of each individual. This was quite interesting in that it divorces the experience of faith from any philosophy. But, even more interesting to me is that SK speaks to the particular experience of Abraham, the man of faith, and not to the nature of God who tested him. At least as I believe, other inquiries into this Bible story focus primarily on the nature of the divinity who could ask such a sacrifice. Perhaps this point of view is taken intellectually because of the "fear and trembling" of Abraham in the face of an absolute unethical enormity is incomprehensible and too awful to contemplate. Nonetheless, SK focuses on the awfulness of the response of the person asked or tested. Thus, he carries the man of faith beyond the world of philosophy and art which are two of culture's great achievements and seriously explicates the text of the New Testament's Epistle to the Ephesians in which Saint Paul, the writer, states that one must work one's salvation with the "fear and trembling" of SK's title.

I have read in the introduction to my copy of the text that, recently before writing this book, SK had rejected marriage with a person to whom he was betrothed. I just do not know enough about his experience to say how connected this book is to it. I would venture that the experience might have encouraged the book in the sense of that SK's "feelings" may have been somewhat like Abraham's. Although SK's feelings may have been strong, I do not think that the explication in this book is driven entirely by that personal experience rather than by the personal experience of life in a world of faith. I would appreciate any further information in this area, however.

I started this book pairing "Fear and Trembling" with "The Sickness Unto Death." I made it about halfway through "Fear and Trembling" and don't know if/when I'll get back to it. It's not what I expected. Both sound like gloomy titles, and knowing what I do about Kierkegaard, thought his philosophy would be gloomy. Yet that is not the case.

There is something disturbing and challenging about his ideas - enough so that he railed against mainstream Christianity and was considered a heretic, and that atheist and agnostic thinkers could use his ideas for existentialist materialism.

But the writing is dense and, unless I'm just really missing something, mystifying in its technical language. I've read philosophers from the pre-Socratics to Bertrand Russell and still-living philosophers, some of whom use rather technical wording. But I don't always get his points. He doesn't seem to purely use logic or rationality, yet neither does he rely on faith or assumption entirely. Perhaps his mode of reasoning is unique even today. He took a widely known story - the Abraham and Isaac story - and saw it as central to human experience and connection to God. Not because it was a lesson in sacrifice, per se, but because it was a lesson in the radical power of human choice.

It is an important work, but a bit of a struggle. I approach "Fear and Trembling" with my own fear and trembling.