One thing that caught my attention during our conversation yesterday was the idea of God as the absolute. We asked the question: For what are we teleologically suspending the ethical? Kierkegaard’s answer is for the sake of God, the absolute. This makes sense for Kierkegaard to name this absolute power God seeing as he is a Christian. If he had been Jewish he might have called this absolute power Yahweh, and if he had been Muslim he might have called this absolute power Allah. All three of the Judeo-Christian religions trace their lineage back to Abraham so it isn’t much of a stretch to imagine Jews and Muslims thinking about the Abraham story in a similar way to a Christian.
This got me thinking about how other religious traditions might understand Kierkegaard’s formulation of ‘the religious’ and the absolute. Obviously other religious traditions that do not draw upon the Hebrew Bible and the stories in Genesis for religious belief might not accept using the story as the prime example of faith. Followers of those other religions, however, might be able to find an example in their own holy text that is similar to the story of Abraham and Isaac. They could most likely at least find an example where an individual places himself above the ethical and in an absolute relation to the absolute.
My knowledge of other religions is limited, so my question to everyone is: does this situation of an individual in an absolute relation to the absolute exist in non-Judeo-Christian religions? Can it exist in non-Judeo-Christian religions? I think Kierkegaard would argue that it can’t exist outside of the biblical tradition. I would argue though, that even with my limited knowledge of Eastern religions such as Taoism or Buddhism, such an absolute relation to the absolute can exist outside of a religion based in the Hebrew Bible. Any Buddha or enlightened person who has reached a state of nirvana seems to have achieved this absolute relation to the absolute. One of the key features of this relation for Kierkegaard is that one cannot speak of the relation. Because it has surpassed the ethical or universal, any meaning of the event necessarily cannot be conveyed. This is similar to the Buddhist masters attempting to teach young students. From what I understand, achieving enlightenment is not like learning to read or write. It would be understood better as belief than knowledge. The very first lines of the Tao te Ching (the book that Taoism is roughly based around) are “The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real.” Is this similar to Kierkegaard’s understanding of the absolute relation to the absolute or am I missing something?
If y'all are interested in the Tao te Ching, here's a link to an online translation: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
ReplyDeleteLove this question (also love the Dao [also not to be a dick but, these days its translated as Dao De Jing because most people favor the Pinyin system over the Wade Jiles])
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if Kierkegaard believes that faith is limited to just the three Judeo-Christians religions. I do however agree that it can be achieved by other religions and/or beliefs. Faith is not limited to religion, you can have faith in an absolute ideal, because isn't something absolute only because you believe it to be so? In Kierkegaard's book "Fear and Trembling" In the chapter "Is there such a thing as a Teleological suspension of the ethical?" He states "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." As such in class we discussed the name of the third realm, Faith, while religion (even though organized) is in the second. Yes, faith in religion once the paradox has been in-braced can lead an individual to ascend the universal; but I believe it is open to a broader spectrum then just religion, and Kierkegaard only uses the Abraham story as an example, not the only answer. More then just the Judeo-Christian religions can experience true faith, but I believe it is possible outside of religion as well. Really liked this question because I was totally thinking about it in last class.
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point with this question. I agree with you that an absolute relationship to the absolute can exist in other religions. When you mentioned that the absolute power is God in Christianity, it seems that it would make sense that Yahweh is the absolute in Judaism, Allah in Islam, etc. I think that they would be the "appropriate" absolutes since these beings are seen as the "spiritual leaders." In terms of non-Judeo-Christian religions, I think it is possible for an absolute relation to the absolute exist. I thought of an example in terms of Islam that can apply to this. In the Islamic religion, people look up to Muhammad as a person who was able to attain the highest spirituality possible to communicate with Allah. In this sense, hasn't Muhammad experienced a similar situation as Abraham, and hence achieved an absolute relationship with the absolute? And if so, then wouldn't this be similar to Buddha?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting thread and one that aligns with my own extrapolations regarding Kierkegaard's definition of faith, though I would like to broaden its considerations to those completely outside the realm of traditional religion. I, too, maintain a limited knowledge of other religions; however, in practice, I believe it is fairly easy to substitute any god for what Kierkegaard considers "the absolute", because in all cases there exists an ultimate authority by which, he says, one finds justification. My question is an overextension of yours: Is there justification for the suspension of the ethical without the existence of a god, and, having more pertinence to your question, what would the "absolute" be? My thought is that, though Kierkegaard did not intend for this to be possible, his language and definitions make this possibility arguable. The very definition of faith requires an external force (an absolute) insofar as it needs to be directed towards something (one must have faith IN something) but does it have to be God? The crux of my argument lies in his definition of faith as a passion, which is defined in several dictionaries as a "barely controllable emotion". Human emotion has been depicted in philosophy as the opposite of reason, which emphasizes the irrationality of the passions. Kierkegaard highlights the irrational qualities of faith several times in his text, primarily through his ideas of the "absurd" (56) and the "infinite" (60) and especially in his final conclusion of faith as a "marvel", defined as "something beyond reason". By calling faith a passion (or emotion: an innately HUMAN quality, capable of existing without God) he enables man to know and exercise faith in and of himself, without the assistance of God; by emphasizing the absurd, he allows man to use the irrational as his "absolute" because no boundaries exist otherwise. Therefore, man can suspend the ethical simply through belief in himself without disrupting Kierkegaard's model of faith. Or so it appears to me...
ReplyDeleteWhile Kierkegaard would agree everyone is able to have faith, it is only through Christianity that one can achieve it. I'd like to make it clear that this post was intended to push possible applications of Kierkegaard's theory, not argue that Kierkegaard himself would accept other religions as being able to establish an absolute relation to the absolute. In the reading for today, for example, he says "Here the necessity of a new category for the understanding of Abraham becomes apparent. Paganism does not know such a relationship to the divide" (60).
ReplyDelete