FSTDT Forums

Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Raymond Dullaghy on July 22, 2013, 07:13:26 am

Title: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Raymond Dullaghy on July 22, 2013, 07:13:26 am
I've been intrigued by Soren Kierkegaard's (sic) "Knight of Faith" ideal. I've read several of his writings, including "Fear and Trembling", but his writing was pretty hard to understand, even with the Cliff's Notes. Could anyone sum it up so I don't have to waste money on a philosophy degree?
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: MadmanJohnson on July 22, 2013, 09:26:07 am
KILL....FOR THE LORD.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Raymond Dullaghy on July 22, 2013, 09:30:09 am
...I'm pretty certain we're thinking of different "knights of faith".
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on July 22, 2013, 02:22:27 pm
I'm afraid I don't actually have any idea what you mean by a "Knight of Faith" in the first place.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Star Cluster on July 22, 2013, 03:15:19 pm
I had not heard of this either, but this came up (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/07/kierkegaard-on-knight-of-faith.html) in a google search.  And in a nutshell, MJ appears to be correct.  While that may not be the be all and end all of the concept, it does appear from the blog I linked to that a true "knight of Faith" does what God tells him to do regardless of any other law or moral restrictions we as humans have put into place.

In other words, all those people that listen to the voices in their heads telling them to do horrendous things are aces in Kierkegaard's book.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: MadmanJohnson on July 22, 2013, 03:42:10 pm
I had not heard of this either, but this came up (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/07/kierkegaard-on-knight-of-faith.html) in a google search.  And in a nutshell, MJ appears to be correct.  While that may not be the be all and end all of the concept, it does appear from the blog I linked to that a true "knight of Faith" does what God tells him to do regardless of any other law or moral restrictions we as humans have put into place.

In other words, all those people that listen to the voices in their heads telling them to do horrendous things are aces in Kierkegaard's book.
(First post with the new avatar!)
In other words....Kill....FOR THE LORD.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Distind on July 22, 2013, 03:44:29 pm
Since no one else has done it:

Søren Kierkegaard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard)
Knight of Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_of_faith)

The see also is somewhat telling:
Quote from: wikifolk
See also:
Angst
Übermensch
Doublethink

If you roll those three up in a jesusy package I think you pretty much have it.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Raymond Dullaghy on July 22, 2013, 03:56:07 pm
I read the article as you suggested, as well as the comments. Based on what I've read, it seems "knights of faith" are the exception, rather than the rule. The reason I brought the issue up is that yes, I am a Christian (Lutheran, specifically), but I want to be more than a vapid "believer" without falling into the fundie trap. I had heard things--both good and bad--about Soren, and I wanted to see for myself. It's just that Fear and Trembling was confusingly laid out. Strange, considering I've read Kant's "Metaphysics of Morals" which is quite a snoozer.

Thanks for your help.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Old Viking on July 22, 2013, 04:25:23 pm
Broadway rehearsals are underway now for "Kierkegaard: The Musical."
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Errata on July 22, 2013, 10:45:35 pm
Kierkegaard's "Knight of Faith" is Nietzsche's Ubermensch but he believes in God. It's a person unconstrained by the cultural moral structure, who defines his morality and assertion of will on his own, and is able to pursue his course without needing validation from a power or authority structure like government, church, peers, etc.

In spite of all the pop shots that we like to take at Kierkegaard for being a Christian and pretty damn crazy in his own right, the idea is not someone who kills for the Lord. It's someone who is, in theory, unrestrained by structures and expresses true individualism, which means he expresses true faith because his faith is entirely a product of himself. It is not produced by adherence to creed, dogma, or organization.

If you're looking into Kierkegaard, there's something you need to understand about him: the man had good ideas and totally never lived up to any of them. Kierkegaard as a human was a severely flawed individual with a ton of problems and I've little idea how many of them he honestly owned up to and how many he just did not care about. Despite that, Kierkegaard was also ahead of Nietzsche in terms of considering the role of the individual and the expression of will. The two read like Left Brain/Right Brain counterparts. His work is undeniably unique and, along with Nietzsche and Sartre, is still highly important, especially in Christian philosophy circles. He's basically the more complicated C.S. Lewis without all the monarchy love.

I'd suggest giving his stuff a read (Fear and Trembling, Either/Or, and Philosophical Fragments are, I think, his most influential works), because, as a Christian thinker, Kierkegaard was quite a new voice and brought new thoughts to field, but as you've already discovered, he's also pretty confusing and nowhere near as succint as Lewis or Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. So, having Cliffnotes on the side and checking out some of his influences would be a big help.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Old Viking on July 24, 2013, 02:30:38 pm
Being unique in Christian philosophy circles is like being unique in yodeling circles.  It's a distinction, but it signifies nothing of interest or value.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Errata on July 24, 2013, 07:34:32 pm
Being unique in Christian philosophy circles is like being unique in yodeling circles.  It's a distinction, but it signifies nothing of interest or value.

Yeah, fuck fifteen hundred years of thought and five hundred years of musical development. Fuck em both in the same breath I say!
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Old Viking on July 24, 2013, 09:00:32 pm
What qualifies as "thought" depends upon how liberal your criteria are.  And yodeling is to music as hopscotch is to chess.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Errata on July 24, 2013, 09:13:18 pm
What qualifies as "thought" depends upon how liberal your criteria are.  And yodeling is to music as hopscotch is to chess.

You casually dismissed philosophy, music, and games in two sentences. Obviously this is no longer a thread for serious discussion.

So, who's your favorite knight of faith? This one's mine.

(http://fftekc.brinkster.net/DelitaPortrait.jpg)

Awww yeah... eat your heart out Soren!
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Lithp on August 03, 2013, 05:41:39 am
Quote
the man had good ideas and totally never lived up to any of them.

Every philosopher everywhere!

Old Viking's got a point. A lot of Christian philosophy is SEVERELY outdated, & really was ONLY ever a subject of interest because Christianity has held a historical dominance in western education for so long.

I mean, you've got the ontological arguments, which are all basically a variant of "God exists because we think he does," Pascal's Wager which is famous for its false dichotomy, & then a very notable Christian philosopher is Kant, who basically just pointed out the fallacies of his predecessors & said that clearly God could not be explained through logic.

So there are some very compelling Christian philosophies, but the whole idea is pretty much handicapped by this assumption of a Christian God. And the ones that relate directly to the existence of this God just don't seem to stand the test of time. And why should they? The very book he comes from is just full of contradictions & inaccuracies.

Now, philosophers argue, & there's no such thing as an uncontested truth, but this seems to be one field where you can be flat-out debunked, sometimes by basic common sense, & still considered "great."

Also, while I don't say that philosophy is worthless or anything like that, the field undeniably took a hit when modern science came about. Suddenly, we had ways to identify, as an actual fact, which natural philsophers were right. And with advancements made with psychology & neuroscience, we're starting to have more explanatory power for human nature, as well.
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 03, 2013, 06:23:47 am
Here's a summary.

(http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0810/blood-for-the-blood-god-demotivational-poster-1224066562.jpg)
Title: Re: The Knight of Faith?
Post by: Askold on August 03, 2013, 08:36:38 am
Warning. This became much longer post that I originally thought.

KILL....FOR THE LORD.

I suppose that is one way to describe "The knight of faith." It does (in a way) point out one important part of the definition for Knight of faith. Generally speaking human beings do not like to or want to kill other humans, it is simply something that goes against our nature if it is not a "kill or be killed" situation and even then not everyone is cabable of it. So we take a situation where the common human is facing a difficult dilemma, where they must struggle with their consciousness, the expectations of society and multitude of matters. For the Knight of faith only one thing matters: "Is this something my faith demands me to do?"

If the answer is "God says kill the unbeliever" then you do it. End of discussion.

Another scenario might be when a beggar asks for help and the Knight of faith (Afterwards shortened to Kof) for help then the Kof would simply consider what does his faith suggest he should do? If his faith demands that he should give his coat off his back then he does so even if the result means that he will suffer some discomfort in the cold winter.

In fact, the Kof makes an interesting parallel to Übermensch and particularly to Ayn Rand's "Real man." Let's discuss Real man: Ayn Rand said that Edward Hickman was a model example her philosophies and his comment "What is good for me is right" was the best way to sum up her philosophy. If Kof lives only for his/her faith then the Real man lives only for him/herself. Both are completely free from the demands of society and do not need to care of what others think about them as they only have one thing that matters to themselves, one code that they live by. Hickman (whom Rand based the hero of her first novel on) only cared for himself and what would make him happy. In his case it was money and rather than work to get that money (which presumably would not have been happy-fun-time for him) he simply kidnapped, murdered, and cut-up a twelve year old girl and exhanged her corpse for ransom. (He had to masquarade the corpse a bit to make her look alive.)

The average person would not have made those choises because they would have considered it to be a horribly evil and discusting thing to do.But Hickman the "Real Man,"  as Rand said had "no organ for understanding ... the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people." Which is certainly one way to describe the rotten, cowardly rat he was.

Kof on the other hand does what they do for their faith. They completely believe that what they do is right because their faith says so. Kierkegaard used Abraham as an example. Abraham was told by God to kill his son. Naturally Abraham does not wish to lose his son but since he has received a command from God he obeys that command, and here is the important bit: Abraham also believes that even if he kills his son, he will not die. Because that would be a bad thing. And God cannot order him to do something that is bad. Therefore he follows this horrible command in complete faith that it is the correct and good thing to do. Which it is, because "secret test of character," but the important thing here is that yes, a Kof may do things that others and even Kof himself might think as bad things. They merely believe that they are justified by their blind faith.

In fact, I think we can replace God and faith with any ideology here. (Kierkegaard himself used a story of unrequited love as one example of Kof.) What matters is not what the Kof believes in, the important thing is that the Kof is willing to do anything for that cause and sincerely believes that the results will be good. (for a given value of good.) People have been willing to give themselves and their lives for kings, religions and political ideas. I do not know how many of those reached the blind faith that Kierkegaard set as the limit but I'm certain that many came close.

Actually now that I read the article on the matter Kof as described by Kierkegaard is a fascinating idea. Also,dangerous. Blind, unquestioning faith leads to crusades and suicide bombers and holocaust.

I also realised that Kof is in a way even more freedom than Nietzschean Übermensch or the Randian Real man do. The Real man lives for himself and his egoism. Therefore the Real man can "fail." Don't go to school because "that won't make [you] happy?" Have fun working at MacDonalds and see how happy that makes you. "Fuck laws, I do what I want!" So you'd rather go to jail and see how that works out? But the Kof only cares about doing what their faith demands. Grab a gun and go fight in the war or face a firing sguad? Well if your faith clearly says that killing people is a no-no then you have no choice in this matter. Even if that results in being executed as a contentious objector it still means that you followed your faith as obediently as you could. Certainly I assume that the Kof would have been happier living to die of old age than be executed as a traitor simply for following his faith but neither case means a failure on his part. And that in my mind is one of the most fascinating things in a Knight of faith.

(I do have to warn that I came across this subject today so I may have misunderstood some things. But this really is fascinating and I literally spent hours reading and pondering this subject.)