|
the problem for kierkegaard with christianity was that he was in a direct line from nominalists like pascal (occam, etc. before that)
faith was irrational by definition: it was a leap....it involved a "pure inwardness" as he called it. this position created problems with talking about faith at all, in any direct way, not to mention with justification--which would be a problem that was almost antithetical to the nominalist game itself. you can look at "fear and trembling" as being in what he called the ironic mode because it deals with questions of justification directly....even if it is to show that the rules of the game that would link human beings to god in the judeo-christian tradition cannot be jammed into human categories, rules, laws, etc.
faith was also about control of the passions--on this pascal is clearer than kierkegaard, but nonetheless....
as for myself....i dont know what the thread is about, really, because i do not understand the need for faith. pascal is almost right in the famous "wager" pensee....:
it is possible that there is something higher.
it is possible that there is nothing higher.
the question of whether this something is finite or infinite is not interesting.
the question of whether human understanding could gain access to this higher force/being, if it existed, seems clearer: there would be no access....
where pascal is wrong, for me, is in his assertion that for some reason you as a human being cannot avoid making a choice about the question of faith.
i think the non-access problem is definitive: this means that the categories you create are just that, categories, names, words. worship them if you like, but i personally dont understand the impulse, and am not moved by the problem. it does not bother me to not know----it does not create any dissonance----does not require a decision.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|