During the nineteenth century, Soren Kierkegaard emerged as one of the most significant and influential Danish thinkers. He had a strong personality being well endowed in poet, social critic, philosophy, theology and religion which were exhibited through his writings. The philosophical context of Fear and Trembling came up as classic writing in the history of both religious and philosophical thoughts which to date confuses the readers. Immanuel Kant was also an influential German philosopher who plays a critical function in the current world of philosophy. Both of these philosophers lay their ethics on challenging grounds as Kierkegaard picks faith whereas Kant is overwhelmed with reason. This work explains why each thinks he is right and views the other one to be wrong as discussed below.
It is postulated in the bible that God asked Abraham to do the peculiar act of sacrificing his only son Isaac of which he portrayed his willingness to do it. Isaac was considered as a blessing by his parents as he came to their lives during an unexpected time when Abraham’s wife Sarah had lost the power of bearing children. From the scripture, Kierkegaard posts a passionate argument terming Abraham’s act as being driven by faith. Kierkegaard reiterates that Abraham is the father of religious faith as his deed is indeed a depiction of pure faith as well as a knight of faith. More so, Kierkegaard can only remain as a wisher dreaming of having the personality of Abraham. He sees Abraham’s act of being willing to kill his only son Isaac as a matter of faith rather than being uncaring and mad. Furthermore, Kierkegaard backs up his thoughts by the perception that when human beings become deeply engrossed with faith, they have to forsake the ethical levels of viewing situations, as beliefs of the situations being unethical emerge as the least consideration ( Kierkegaard, Evans, & Walsh, 2006) . These reasons make his argument to be seemingly correct.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Kant’s argument terms the beliefs, which are morally justified and those of theoretical knowledge to be separate. He reiterates that there is no theoretical knowledge for human beings to claim to be free of the possibly experienced limits but moral judgments justify people’s sense of beliefs. More so, Kant proceeds to argue about freedom as he terms it as the only way that people know about a priori regardless of not being in physical conduct as moral law broadly reveals itself. If freedom could not be experienced by human beings, the exposure of moral laws would not have been possible. From Kant’s argument, it is evident that all his thoughts revolve around the perception of people having the real knowledge of freedom which is a practical reality. When Abraham’s encounter and course of action is considered fromo Kant’s contextual thoughts, it is displayed that Abraham was not being held by his conscious drive as he was not bounded by the moral laws.
In the aspect of these philosophers being right or wrong, Kant philosophical thoughts are seen as right due to evidence that ground his arguments. For instance, Kant gives an example of a man’s life being threatened by his prince so as to provide false testimony, which would be used to destroy an honorable man who is disliked by the prince. He stipulates about the high possibility of the threatened man participating in the false testimony not because of being unaware of moral law but because of the quest for freedom. Therefore, Abraham seems to be in the same position viewed as an ethical dilemma from which he displays his willingness to kill his son Isaac in order to seek freedom. On the contrary, Kierkegaard view’s Kant’s thinking as being incorrect. He indicates that faith involves a person working all alone without the consideration of the world’s day to day typical finitude as one operates and takes all the situations into the Godly world which full of infinity and possibilities. Therefore, Abrahams acceptance is viewed as a fulfillment of God’s will.
The intuition of trembling and fear is conveyed through faith, which is paradoxical. Abraham is guided by infinite faith regardless of the vehement risks which are prone to occur because errors and dangers of self-deception as well as being deceived thus posing fear and trembling. More so, faith arises as a paradox when humans get conscious about the absolute radical subjectivity world without considering the certainties of reason. Therefore, it is noted that one might consider being ethical in his deeds by following meaningfull and satisfying ways of life, or one may take the step of lining a life of faith which is full of fears and trembles due to choices which have the possibilities of deceiving oneself as well as being deceived.
In conclusion, human acts are complex in nature, but the most impactful human act is faith. People may have meaningful lives full of universal substance, but only the act of faith emanates as the highest. For instance, Kierkegaard, an influential philosopher, cannot help himself in to stop doubting if he will achieve the full faith as Abraham did. The act of reasoning before performing an act, as stipulated by Kant, is also inherent in man’s world. Both of these views tend to contradict but form some evidence to controversial human actions.
Reference
Kierkegaard, S., Evans, C. S., & Walsh, S. (2006). Fear and trembling . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
