At the end of his discussion of whether there is such a thing as a teleological suspension of the ethical, Kierkegaard uses two terms to describe those who attempt to teleologically suspend the ethical: the “knight of faith” and the “tragic hero.”
Throughout the essay, Kierkegaard tries to determine whether or not one can teleologically suspend what he defines as the ethical, using the biblical story of Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac as the example. In Abraham’s case, he suspended the ethical, the moral standard, that a “father should love his son more dearly than himself.” He suspended this in order to fulfill a promise with god that his people will rise and be mighty and numerous, a paradox then that Isaac, his only son would be sacrificed. In order for God’s promise to be fulfilled, he had to sacrifice Isaac, yet Isaac was the only offspring Abraham had. Abraham believed Isaac was going to die and not die at the same time.
What is the Abraham’s telos for suspending the ethical, though? It is his faith. Faith, in the Kierkegaardian sense, is a highly specialized experience and belief held by an individual, very unlike the common definition of faith that exists today. Abraham had to take a “leap of faith,” while believing Isaac was not going to die and die at the same time, trusting his faith to suspend his logic.
What is difference between the knight of faith and tragic hero, and is one actually better than the other? A knight of faith is someone like Abraham, whereas the tragic hero is one who gives himself over to the ethical and universal rather than faith, and is willing to lose what he values most. While most people can feel sympathy and understand the tragic hero, is he a better figure than the knight of faith?
I believe the tragic hero, while tragic, is a better figure than the knight of faith for a very simple reason. The tragic hero is willing to sacrifice what he loves, without the chance of gaining it back, for the betterment of society or his people. The knight of faith, however, takes a leap of faith, such as Abraham, for his own individual good. He was going to sacrifice Isaac, but at the same time knew he was going to be the father of a great people, and that he was somehow going to not die. Abraham was doing a rather selfish act (sacrificing his own son) for his own good, whereas the tragic hero is performing a selfless act while still experiencing the loss.
I agree in a sense that the tragic hero has a better stand point, because they do give up something that is truly meaningful in their life, and Abrahams reasoning to believe in God was because of avarice. But, the tragic hero can giving up something for the chance and obtaining something greater so in essence it is still a greed or some form of lust that spurs them on. While for the knight of faith we have only one example and can not tell. But I do not believe that the knight of faith has to directly relate to religion. Nowhere does Kierkegaard state directly that one has to be religious in order to have faith, albeit they are correlated but not the same thing. So one may be a knight of faith for a belief or an ideal as long as they accept the paradox and go beyond the universal. As stealing from Ben's post he makes a comment that Buddha's state of nirvana is in a sense a knight of faith, and is Buddha lead by capital gains or a legacy to be remebered by forever? So in the case of only the one example, Abraham and Issac, I agree that the tragic hero is "better" but if others are added among the ranks, maybe Gilgamesh for the tragic hero and Buddha or even Ghandi for the knight of faith, can't the answer be just as easily swapped?
ReplyDeleteMatt, you mention in your post that the tragic hero is willing to sacrifice what he loves, whereas the the knight of faith retains what he loves. While this may be true, both truly believe and are willing to sacrifice what they love. Moreover, we can all understand why the tragic hero sacrifices what he loves, whereas we can never understand the knight of faith. We morn the tragic hero, but cannot morn the knight of faith. S/he bears her/his burden in silence. This, to me, seems a lot more praiseworthy. The knight of faith not only makes the movement of the tragic hero, but makes another.
ReplyDelete