Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting [Archive]

Dan Rutter

11-15-2005, 12:12 AM

For Part I of the Prelude this is what I got from Kierkkegaard's version of Abraham, and how it relates to his brief parable. Abraham is told by God to offer his son, Issac, for a burnt offering. In the process of this event, Issac learns to move his trust of his earthly father figure Abraham, to the father figure of all God. Issac learns to always trust God. One must learn to move from only trust of parental figures, and begin to trust in God.

The parable mentioned relates to this in that a child must depend on his mother for survival when life begins, but as he grows he must be able to use what nature provides him. In the parable he still is able to have a good relationship with his mother, he is just not as dependent on her. It seems with Issac and Abraham, Issac will have a strained relationship with Abraham based on how the event took place. So there is a slight difference between the story of Issac and Abraham and the parbable mentioned. Unless Issac understands afterwards the lesson to be taught, and is still able to keep the same relationship with Abraham.

mosquito

11-15-2005, 01:28 AM

DougShrapnel

11-15-2005, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read last night that SK died 11/11/1855. We decided to read him on 11/11/2005 (when Scotch confirmed in his post of 11/11 that we would go with him.) 150 years later - I think if we had any doubts on whom to read first, this anniversary is reason enough.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]I like it when a plan comes together. I am having trouble getting past the inaccurate description of the story of abraham tho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you suppose there is a significance to the description's inaccuracy, or is it merely fluff?

[/ QUOTE ]I believe it is of significate importance to the story being told. There is likly nothing about the Abe story in this work that is fluff. Unfortunelty, for the author there is a much simpiler explaining of Abrahams actions. It's not as rightoues as the author would have you believe. Milgram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) More so it is very very dangerous. But give me some more time so I can re read this work to give it a fairer read.

Scotch78

11-15-2005, 01:50 PM

Could someone who knows where in the bible to find this Abraham story please post a link to the original?

Scott

chezlaw

11-15-2005, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I compressed the Word file; the ZIP is available here (http://www.princeton.edu/~etostano/fearandtrembling.zip).

[/ QUOTE ]

many thanks

chez

RJT

11-15-2005, 02:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Could someone who knows where in the bible to find this Abraham story please post a link to the original?

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in Genesis (I don't have a Bible handy). I read it last night. The story of Abraham is quite lengthy, although the particular text with Isaac is short.

RJT

11-15-2005, 03:40 PM

My thoughts thus far – haven’t even deciphered the whole of the Prelude (I think I spoke in haste when I told chez, SK was easy).

In his preface SK (as J De Silentio) pokes fun of almost (or at least finds them not particularly relevant) philosophers of his day (or immediately prior to his own time) who seek to go beyond doubt and live only with what is empirical. “In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.” Or that they expect their empiricism to be able to take them further.

He says others can look to go beyond doubt. That for me (him) Faith is fine. I (RJT) might have said it this way “Hey, maybe it’s just me”. He uses self deprecation to disarm the reader. SK as De Silentio says the writer is not a philosopher – yeah right.

I like his wit:

“What those ancient Greeks (who also had some understanding of philosophy)…”

and

“… so that there were fifty words for a period and thirty-five for a semicolon.”

Trop – I take it Trop is a contemporary of Soren who wrote criticisms of works in their day?

Regarding the Prelude – without getting into the text yet, I think of some filmmakers who use this technique. I can’t recall anything specific, but I think Tarentino does this. I remember Costa-Gavras in his film “Missing” uses a similar technique to SK. CG repeats the same scene in flashbacks – he further tells what (might have) happened to the missing son until near the end of the film we see how the son was probably abducted and killed. The scene is repeated as does SK repeats the Abraham story each time with a new (different?) understanding. Reading the different versions of the Abraham story I imagine rewinding a video and then playing it again but, each time we are watching a new movie. Or perhaps like a recurring dream (perhaps, nightmare is a better word) that differ dramatically each night.

SK’s technique here seems very novel for his time. Without a keen sense of 19th century literature, I might be overstating.

Scotch78

11-15-2005, 06:15 PM

King James Version (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen022.html)

New American Bible (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis22.htm)

New International Version (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=%20Genesis%2022)

Hebrew (http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/GEN/GEN22.HTM)

Scott

11-15-2005, 06:52 PM

Pick a Version... Any version.... (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=genesis%2022)

chezlaw

11-15-2005, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read last night that SK died 11/11/1855. We decided to read him on 11/11/2005 (when Scotch confirmed in his post of 11/11 that we would go with him.) 150 years later - I think if we had any doubts on whom to read first, this anniversary is reason enough.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]I like it when a plan comes together. I am having trouble getting past the inaccurate description of the story of abraham tho.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

RJT

11-15-2005, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I had that same idea that the man retells the story at different stages of his life. I wasn’t sure if that was implied by SK or even the case for sure.

I also agree that SK will probably get into more of what he is offering here as we proceed with F & T. I am going to give the Prelude another go later on this evening. I suggest that we discuss this a bit longer - (Scotch, you set the timetable) - but not get bogged down in it quite yet, as it seems this might be what the whole book deals with in various ways.

I don’t mean to suggest that if someone has a good idea so far that they should refrain from posting it. I certainly will post if I have something to add after my re-read. “Not bloody well likely.” (That last sentence is a quote from Seinfeld. I’ll probably allude to him often as we get into existentialism. Thought I should disclose this from the onset. The Bible, Godfather I and II, To Kill a Mockingbird, Seinfeld and a dictionary - my essential reference material in my life thus far. Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

mosquito

11-15-2005, 10:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

[/ QUOTE ]

Unintentional if at all. I usually have no idea what I mean. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

RJT

11-15-2005, 11:25 PM

I was browsing the internet to cut and paste some pictures of Abraham and Isaac as depicted in Art. I was hoping also to find a few examples that I thought might match up with the 4 versions.

It seems that this has already been done - made my work easier.

www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/ashp/brunelleschi_ghiberti.html (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/ashp/brunelleschi_ghiberti.html)

chezlaw

11-16-2005, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I had that same idea that the man retells the story at different stages of his life. I wasn’t sure if that was implied by SK or even the case for sure.

I also agree that SK will probably get into more of what he is offering here as we proceed with F & T. I am going to give the Prelude another go later on this evening. I suggest that we discuss this a bit longer - (Scotch, you set the timetable) - but not get bogged down in it quite yet, as it seems this might be what the whole book deals with in various ways.

I don’t mean to suggest that if someone has a good idea so far that they should refrain from posting it. I certainly will post if I have something to add after my re-read. “Not bloody well likely.” (That last sentence is a quote from Seinfeld. I’ll probably allude to him often as we get into existentialism. Thought I should disclose this from the onset. The Bible, Godfather I and II, To Kill a Mockingbird, Seinfeld and a dictionary - my essential reference material in my life thus far. Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

[/ QUOTE ]
Version are vital. When I refer to the godfather it will mean the book.

[ QUOTE ]
In these and similar ways this man of whom we speak thought about these events. Every time he came home from a journey to the mountain in Moriah he collapsed in weariness, clasped his hands, and said: "Yet no one was as great as Abraham; who is able to understand him?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I've re-read the prelude again and can't make any other sense of it. This quote clearly? refers to this man who immersed himself so deeply in the story of Abraham that each time he visited the story it was like being on the journey himself, and that it was very difficult to understand what was transpiring.

chez

SonofJen

11-16-2005, 08:18 PM

A few comments from reading both the passage and this thread:

1) Great idea to start this book club Scotch - good pick too (especially with the anniversary and all) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

2) RJT - Good find on the four different works of art depicting the four different interpretations.

3) The Milgram experiment was interesting - hadn't heard of it before yet it totally reminded me of Ghostbusters

4) I also found the following commentary interesting Storm's Commentary (http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org/kw6a.htm). The number of levels that this text is operating on is quite extraordinary. I especially liked the analogy between the reader and the baby and the mother and SK. Very interesting indeed. In that case, let the weening continue!

Scotch78

11-16-2005, 10:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

In logical terminology, what is the parallel of "faith"?

Scott

edit: And as a further hint, why do people think that I, an agnostic and a skeptic, agree with Kierkegaard?

RJT

11-17-2005, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

In logical terminology, what is the parallel of "faith"?

Scott

edit: And as a further hint, why do people think that I, an agnostic and a skeptic, agree with Kierkegaard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Paradox. Maybe, I should say: Paradox?

Aces McGee

11-17-2005, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

-McGee

Scotch78

11-17-2005, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that doubt fundamentally undermines faith, but I don't think that is what Kierkegaard's getting at, so I'll throw out another question/clue: If faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, why aren't faith and logic also mutually exclusive?

Scott

chezlaw

11-18-2005, 04:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that doubt fundamentally undermines faith, but I don't think that is what Kierkegaard's getting at, so I'll throw out another question/clue: If faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, why aren't faith and logic also mutually exclusive?

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm on a roll at missing the point today so I'll have a stab at this, knowing I'm unsure about your point.

Faith and doubt are two different states of mind that refer to the nature of the world. If you have faith that P is the case then you accept that P is the case and hence don't doubt that P is the case. Therefore faith and doubt are mutually excusive.

Logic is not a state of mind about the nature of the world. Its a way of understanding what faith that P is the case means about the world e.g if you have faith the world is flat then logically that means you believe the world isn't banana shaped.

Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

chez

Scotch78

11-18-2005, 09:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

11-19-2005, 12:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

mosquito

11-19-2005, 02:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts, rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

chezlaw

11-19-2005, 06:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

chezlaw

11-19-2005, 07:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

mosquito

11-19-2005, 07:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Okay, some things have to start out as definitions. That 'color' is 'red'. We assume everyone agrees with these 'universal' definitions. From that standpoint everything might be considered an assumption. We assume that since gravity seems to always work, that it is a constant, and it has been measured to be that way. What is acceptable to you as a proof may not be acceptable to sometone else. Semantics will bog down anything.

Partial credit only.

chezlaw

11-19-2005, 07:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Okay, some things have to start out as definitions. That 'color' is 'red'. We assume everyone agrees with these 'universal' definitions. From that standpoint everything might be considered an assumption. We assume that since gravity seems to always work, that it is a constant, and it has been measured to be that way. What is acceptable to you as a proof may not be acceptable to sometone else. Semantics will bog down anything.

Partial credit only.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not being picky but we're talking about deductive logic and no way is gravity a known fact as a conclusion of deductive logic without some premise which its itself based on prior premises in a chain that leads back to something unknown.

Unless you can start from an unassumed premise about the world then the initial premise must be taken on faith. The claim from KS is that it cant be done and faith is required.

chez

bearly

11-19-2005, 04:02 PM

hi, actually deductions can be made from any system of logic that has been proved to be consistent and complete. if what you mean is that all formal reasoning is analytic---that's correct.............b

The Yugoslavian

11-19-2005, 06:27 PM

Great book. I may chime in at some point if I have some time. Kierkegaard is my fav.

I'd have gone with Either/Or though.

I helped a peer with his undergraduate thesis talk/paper on Fear and Trembling....it's very easy for thinking to get way too uptight on this one, so I may want to go back and look at what we discussed for later in your book club discussion.

Very good book, IMO. I should reread it....got it lying right next to my bed, lol.

Oh, btw, it's also useful to keep in the back of your mind the Continental tradition Kierkegaard fit into....most of the way he presents and elucidates his insights (and why he goes to great lengths to use telling pseudonyms and make fun of/belittle his contemporaries) was directly impacted by the juggernaut of the day that was Hegel.

Yugoslav

mosquito

11-19-2005, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Okay, some things have to start out as definitions. That 'color' is 'red'. We assume everyone agrees with these 'universal' definitions. From that standpoint everything might be considered an assumption. We assume that since gravity seems to always work, that it is a constant, and it has been measured to be that way. What is acceptable to you as a proof may not be acceptable to sometone else. Semantics will bog down anything.

Partial credit only.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not being picky but we're talking about deductive logic and no way is gravity a known fact as a conclusion of deductive logic without some premise which its itself based on prior premises in a chain that leads back to something unknown.

Unless you can start from an unassumed premise about the world then the initial premise must be taken on faith. The claim from KS is that it cant be done and faith is required.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Never made gravity an example to prove my point, it was just an example of possible controversy that was the first thing into my head in the wee hours. I was trying to give you more credit, actually.

As far as unassumed premises go, my point was that there will always be argument about these things. Which is why it is still debated. Your definition of an unassumed premise will differ from mine or KS's. The fact that I was too tired to get that across clearly is my problem, not yours.

Also I get less joy from these arguments than you, so don't mind me if I drop out for awhile. Multiple responses to a post where I find out we are talking about apples vs oranges was not my intent.

chezlaw

11-19-2005, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As far as unassumed premises go, my point was that there will always be argument about these things. Which is why it is still debated. Your definition of an unassumed premise will differ from mine or KS's. The fact that I was too tired to get that across clearly is my problem, not yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
even if there is an argument for any premise, as finite beings we are always going to have starts somewhere. So if we end with beliefs about the world then we started from something assumed.

[ QUOTE ]
Also I get less joy from these arguments than you, so don't mind me if I drop out for awhile. Multiple responses to a post where I find out we are talking about apples vs oranges was not my intent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your perogative but I thought we wre trying to get at what KS meant. Don't know where the apples vs oranges comes in.

chez

11-21-2005, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

chezlaw

11-21-2005, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

11-22-2005, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

chezlaw

11-22-2005, 04:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
but not all our reasonable beliefs are true so either you have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief about the external world is one of the true ones or you need some faith.

btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?

chez

11-22-2005, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
but not all our reasonable beliefs are true so either you have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief about the external world is one of the true ones or you need some faith.

btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I would reject the dilemma you pose--that you either have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief is true or you have to take it partly on faith.

I agree that any belief 'about the external world' (not just the belief that there is an external world) is subject to some, however minute, degree of doubt, but that does not mean that we 'fill in' the remainder with faith.

As Hume said, the reasonable man proportions his belief to the evidence, which I take to mean that we can rationally hold beliefs to varying degrees. I am more sure that the sun will rise tomorrow than I am that the Colts will win the Super Bowl, because the evidence suggests that the former belief is on firmer ground. This does not mean that any element of faith is a part of my holding either belief, just that I hold one belief more strongly in terms of its likelihood of being true than the other.

chezlaw

11-22-2005, 03:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
but not all our reasonable beliefs are true so either you have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief about the external world is one of the true ones or you need some faith.

btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I would reject the dilemma you pose--that you either have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief is true or you have to take it partly on faith.

I agree that any belief 'about the external world' (not just the belief that there is an external world) is subject to some, however minute, degree of doubt, but that does not mean that we 'fill in' the remainder with faith.

As Hume said, the reasonable man proportions his belief to the evidence, which I take to mean that we can rationally hold beliefs to varying degrees. I am more sure that the sun will rise tomorrow than I am that the Colts will win the Super Bowl, because the evidence suggests that the former belief is on firmer ground. This does not mean that any element of faith is a part of my holding either belief, just that I hold one belief more strongly in terms of its likelihood of being true than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm nearly very happy with stance, its the one I take as well. It doesn't contradict what I said at the beginning it just means that there are no conclusions about the world.

There's still a major problem though, does it just sound more reasonable to say that its is more likely your perception of the external world is not some sort of dream, or can you explain the reasoning? All the evidence you have will be the same whether its some type of dream or not.

chez

SonofJen

11-22-2005, 04:12 PM

Are we on the preliminary expectoration yet (ch 2)?

Scotch78

11-22-2005, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are we on the preliminary expectoration yet (ch 2)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, still on the preface and prelude.

Scott

Scotch78

11-22-2005, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure exactly what you mean by a "reasonably held belief," but I can think of two possibilities. The first is known as a justified true belief (JTB) in philosophy. The alternative is that you mean a belief whose conclusion is supported by reason. Though for different reasons, each type of belief will rest upon faith at some point. All of our beliefs are either assumed on faith or concluded, whether by rational or irrational means, from beliefs that are. Unless you are willing to redefine human epistemology to include properties normally reserved for the divine (i.e. omniscience), there is simply no way around this. The absolute best one could do is to assume only the law of non-contradiction, but at the very least one must assume that (if you don't want to start there, then you'll be taking a hell of a lot more on faith).

Scott

Scotch78

11-22-2005, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry it took me so long, but I'm finally back /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Kierkegaard does not actually claim that it is wrong to "go further", but that faith and doubt are lifelong tasks that are being maligned by "every Privatdocent, tutor, and student, every crofter and cottar in philosophy" who jumps straight into the deep end.

For example, let us take the following set of assumptions:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omnibenevolent.
4. God exists.
5. Evil exists.

Logic can neither prove nor disprove any of these assumptions, yet this board is full of posters who have claimed the latter, i.e. "gone further". Taken separately, none of these assumptions contradicts itself, and therefore cannot be disproven. However, taken collectively, they do contradict each other and logic then tells us that at least one of the five propositions should be disallowed. Keep in mind, logic cannot tell us which assumption to throw out, merely that the whole set cannot be simultaneously put forth. The problem with doubting faith is not the expectation that our beliefs be valid, but the illogical application of logic.

Scott

11-22-2005, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure exactly what you mean by a "reasonably held belief," but I can think of two possibilities. The first is known as a justified true belief (JTB) in philosophy. The alternative is that you mean a belief whose conclusion is supported by reason. Though for different reasons, each type of belief will rest upon faith at some point. All of our beliefs are either assumed on faith or concluded, whether by rational or irrational means, from beliefs that are. Unless you are willing to redefine human epistemology to include properties normally reserved for the divine (i.e. omniscience), there is simply no way around this. The absolute best one could do is to assume only the law of non-contradiction, but at the very least one must assume that (if you don't want to start there, then you'll be taking a hell of a lot more on faith).

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the basis for the claim that all of our beliefs ultimately rest on faith?

Scotch78

11-22-2005, 09:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What is the basis for the claim that all of our beliefs ultimately rest on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "belief".

Scott

chezlaw

11-22-2005, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry it took me so long, but I'm finally back /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Kierkegaard does not actually claim that it is wrong to "go further", but that faith and doubt are lifelong tasks that are being maligned by "every Privatdocent, tutor, and student, every crofter and cottar in philosophy" who jumps straight into the deep end.

For example, let us take the following set of assumptions:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omnibenevolent.
4. God exists.
5. Evil exists.

Logic can neither prove nor disprove any of these assumptions, yet this board is full of posters who have claimed the latter, i.e. "gone further". Taken separately, none of these assumptions contradicts itself, and therefore cannot be disproven. However, taken collectively, they do contradict each other and logic then tells us that at least one of the five propositions should be disallowed. Keep in mind, logic cannot tell us which assumption to throw out, merely that the whole set cannot be simultaneously put forth. The problem with doubting faith is not the expectation that our beliefs be valid, but the illogical application of logic.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]
I was beginning to wonder what OSU was? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

So by 'gone further' KS is refering to throwing out one of 1-5 (usually god exists) because of the inconsistency of 1-5, when in fact all they are logically justified in doing is recognising that 1-5 are inconsistent.

Is KS going further and claiming that faith in logic is required to know that 1-5 must be modified and so we can accept 1-5 and add 6. Logic consistency doesn't apply?

chez

Scotch78

11-23-2005, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was beginning to wonder what OSU was?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you're a pommie, I'll forgive you this once /images/graemlins/grin.gif. OSU is the school that pwned Michigan last weekend.

[ QUOTE ]
So by 'gone further' KS is refering to throwing out one of 1-5 (usually god exists) because of the inconsistency of 1-5, when in fact all they are logically justified in doing is recognising that 1-5 are inconsistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this (my) example, "going further" would mean (mis)using logic to claim that any or all of the five propositions are false. As to what SK would say . . . that's what we're discussing /images/graemlins/cool.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
Is KS going further and claiming that faith in logic is required to know that 1-5 must be modified and so we can accept 1-5 and add 6. Logic consistency doesn't apply?

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I remember of the selections I read in a class, this question is best left for later in the book.

Scott

RJT

11-23-2005, 12:20 AM

chez,

OSU is Ohio State University. They had a big game this past weekend - OSU won. OSU is now 6th in the nation for college football. Notre Dame is #8. There is a chance that the two teams (his and mine) might play in a post regular season “Bowl” game.

Btw, Bigdaddydvo’s avatar is a pic of the ND head football coach. (ND is a Catholic university.)

We’ll keep you posted.

RJT

Sorry for talking in class, Scotch.

11-23-2005, 12:23 AM

"btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?"

I can see it.

RJT

11-23-2005, 12:36 AM

I am not part of the system. I’ll post my way. You guys who are part of the system can speak your language.

SK does say that doubt and faith are lifelong tasks. What is important to him is that even though we never get rid of all doubt (Abraham’s “…left hand was clenched in despair…” in the final version) if we have faith things will work out. God will fulfill his promise. And God does indeed show to Abraham that He is a God to be believe in - he let’s Abraham sacrifice the ram instead.

Abraham in the original story had faith in God. Whether he fully understood God’s reason for asking the unreasonable ( requiring Abraham to kill his own son) he obeyed him at any rate.

I am reminded of a quote from Simone Weil (I had posted this same quote a while ago on the forum, sorry to be redundant):

[ QUOTE ]
If it were conceivable that in obeying God one should bring about one’s own damnation while in disobeying him one could be saved, I should still choose the way of obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weil understood Abraham.

SK goes on to say that even those who have faith, never outgrow doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
When the tried oldster drew near to his last hour, having fought the good fight and kept the faith, his heart was still young enough not to have forgotten that fear and trembling which chastened the youth, which the man indeed held in check, but which no man quite outgrows …

[/ QUOTE ]

But, we can have less doubt the further we go:

[ QUOTE ]
…except as he might succeed at the earliest opportunity in going further. Where these revered figures arrived, that is the point where everybody in our day begins to go further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Abraham is the personification of faith. SK is in awe of him. He wants to understand him. I am not sure if SK says/agrees that even Abraham had a bit of doubt. I think he does say that Abraham has a bit of doubt (“…a tremor passed through his body…” in the final version), but still obeys.

RJT

chezlaw

11-23-2005, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?"

I can see it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you ever experience something like seeing in your dreams?

chez

chezlaw

11-23-2005, 01:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not part of the system. I’ll post my way. You guys who are part of the system can speak your language.

SK does say that doubt and faith are lifelong tasks. What is important to him is that even though we never get rid of all doubt (Abraham’s “…left hand was clenched in despair…” in the final version) if we have faith things will work out. God will fulfill his promise. And God does indeed show to Abraham that He is a God to be believe in - he let’s Abraham sacrifice the ram instead.

Abraham in the original story had faith in God. Whether he fully understood God’s reason for asking the unreasonable ( requiring Abraham to kill his own son) he obeyed him at any rate.

I am reminded of a quote from Simone Weil (I had posted this same quote a while ago on the forum, sorry to be redundant):

[ QUOTE ]
If it were conceivable that in obeying God one should bring about one’s own damnation while in disobeying him one could be saved, I should still choose the way of obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weil understood Abraham.

SK goes on to say that even those who have faith, never outgrow doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
When the tried oldster drew near to his last hour, having fought the good fight and kept the faith, his heart was still young enough not to have forgotten that fear and trembling which chastened the youth, which the man indeed held in check, but which no man quite outgrows …

[/ QUOTE ]

But, we can have less doubt the further we go:

[ QUOTE ]
…except as he might succeed at the earliest opportunity in going further. Where these revered figures arrived, that is the point where everybody in our day begins to go further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Abraham is the personification of faith. SK is in awe of him. He wants to understand him. I am not sure if SK says/agrees that even Abraham had a bit of doubt. I think he does say that Abraham has a bit of doubt (“…a tremor passed through his body…” in the final version), but still obeys.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
I struggle with your system as well, I'm hoping KS will help bridge the gap. Somehow we need to follow both systems and have faith the two will meet somewhere.

I'm confused about the choosing one's own damnation through obeying god. Does that mean eternal damnation or just doing something that damns us in our own eyes but which will be rewarded with eternal salvation?

chez

good luck with the 'swimming whilst wearing a boat' bowl.

RJT

11-23-2005, 01:27 AM

Chez,

Hers is an hypothetical. She is being literal, though - eternal damnation. It really is what Abraham is all about. Faith in God even when we don’t understand His reasons.

Of course, her example would never happen. Just as God did not make Abraham go through with what SK calls “a sin” in version III - “He could not comprehend that it was a sin to be willing to offer to God the best thing he possessed…”

Not sure yet what SK means here about the sin thing. I know what he means by sin - just don't get it in context here.

RJT

11-23-2005, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the basis for the claim that all of our beliefs ultimately rest on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "belief".

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind.

chezlaw

11-23-2005, 02:04 AM

RJT,

Maybe I'm getting there. Is Simone Weil saying.

'If all my reason tells me that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to my damnation (and not carrying out leads to salvation) then I will cast aside my reason and put my faith in god.'

That makes sense and I can see the parallel with the Abraham story. However the way I read it is:

'If I somehow knew that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to my damnation (and not carrying out leads to my salvation) then I would still obey god'

This makes no sense to me. Hopefully you will say its the former or explain the latter.

chez

DougShrapnel

11-23-2005, 02:27 AM

Hey guys. Em... this is all I can make out of the prelude. Is this a good summary of the preludes I, II, III, and IV? I am asumming the author is trying to state the ways in which man looks at fiath incorrectly.

1. Man sometimes attemps to disguise faith

2. Man sometimes hides faith

3. Man creates a separation between himself and faith

4. Man sometimes tries to go beyond faith.

RJT

11-23-2005, 02:42 AM

Your examples I think just hit me what version 3 is about. I have to gather my thoughts and see if I can put it down concisely. Will post shortly.

DougShrapnel

11-23-2005, 02:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused about the choosing one's own damnation through obeying god. Does that mean eternal damnation or just doing something that damns us in our own eyes but which will be rewarded with eternal salvation?

[/ QUOTE ] If I am correct about what prelude 3 is talking about, I think that SK is saying that when you try to look at God thru our own morals/values/perseptions we create a speration between us and our faith. So much is the seperation that SK thinks that man should, if he wishes to be faithful, not look at God thru his own morals, values, or perceptions. So SK says to toss aside the whole "It's my son, and I'd give my life for him.", becuase that would seperate one from faith.

RJT

11-23-2005, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused about the choosing one's own damnation through obeying god. Does that mean eternal damnation or just doing something that damns us in our own eyes but which will be rewarded with eternal salvation?

[/ QUOTE ] If I am correct about what prelude 3 is talking about, I think that SK is saying that when you try to look at God thru our own morals/values/perseptions we create a speration between us and our faith. So much is the seperation that SK thinks that man should, if he wishes to be faithful, not look at God thru his own morals, values, or perceptions. So SK says to toss aside the whole "It's my son, and I'd give my life for him.", becuase that would seperate one from faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my next post agrees with you.

RJT

11-23-2005, 03:17 AM

Chez,

I took some liberties with your quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
If all my reason tells me that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to my damnation…then I will cast aside my reason and put my faith in god.

[/ QUOTE ]

In version 2 He doesn’t put his faith in God. He does not cast aside his reason. More precisely, his doubt overcomes his faith:

“…in silence he drew the knife -- then he saw the ram which God had prepared. Then he offered that and returned home. . . . From that time on Abraham became old, he could not forget that God had required this of him. Isaac throve as before, but Abraham’s eyes were darkened, and he knew joy no more.”

Then for V3:

[ QUOTE ]
If all my reason tells me that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to my damnation…

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what SK is calling sin in version 3:

“It was a quiet evening when Abraham rode out alone, and he rode to Mount Moriah; he threw himself upon his face, he prayed God to forgive him his sin, that he had been willing to offer Isaac, that the father had forgotten his duty toward the son. Often he rode his lonely way, but he found no rest. He could not comprehend that it was a sin to be willing to offer to God the best thing he possessed, that for which he would many times have given his life; and if it was a sin, if he had not loved Isaac as he did, then he could not understand that it might be forgiven. For what sin could be more dreadful?”

For version 4:

[ QUOTE ]
If all my reason tells me that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to my damnation… then I will cast aside my reason and put my faith in god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or more precisely -

[ QUOTE ]
If somehow I knew that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation then I will obey god.

[/ QUOTE ]
(Albeit, with a despair and tremor.)

"It was early in the morning, everything was prepared for the journey in Abraham’s house. He bade Sarah farewell, and Eleazar, the faithful servant, followed him along the way, until he turned back. They rode together in harmony, Abraham and Isaac, until they came to Mount Moriah. But Abraham prepared everything for the sacrifice, calmly and quietly; but when he turned and drew the knife, Isaac saw that his left hand was clenched in despair, that a tremor passed through his body -- but Abraham drew the knife."

RJT

RJT

11-23-2005, 03:36 AM

Perhaps better still:

If somehow I had faith that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation then I will obey god.

Or as Abraham does/is in the bible:

I have faith that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation, so I will obey god.

And how Abraham does in v 4:

I have faith (with a bit of despair and tremor) that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation, so I will obey god.

RJT

11-23-2005, 05:38 AM

Any thoughts on this partial quote from the first paragraph of the Prelude:

“…for what his mind was intent upon was not the ingenious web of imagination but the shudder of thought”?

RJT

DougShrapnel

11-23-2005, 06:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have faith (with a bit of despair and tremor)

[/ QUOTE ] My reading of this causes me to think that SK is stating the the despair and tremor, are incorrect. It is what caused Isaac to lose his faith. I think I may have to rewrite my summary of perlude 4. Faith without despair is the ideal that SK admires.

Scotch78

11-23-2005, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on this partial quote from the first paragraph of the Prelude:

“…for what his mind was intent upon was not the ingenious web of imagination but the shudder of thought”?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that "the ingenious web of imagination" refers to the third-person story of Abraham and "the shudder of thought" means Abraham's personal, subjective experience.

Scott

RJT

11-23-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on this partial quote from the first paragraph of the Prelude:

“…for what his mind was intent upon was not the ingenious web of imagination but the shudder of thought”?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that "the ingenious web of imagination" refers to the third-person story of Abraham and "the shudder of thought" means Abraham's personal, subjective experience.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

78,

Your answer certainly makes sense in the context of what SK talks about and that he uses the Abraham story as his focal point in his talk. In other words, imo, you are correct.

I sure as heck wouldn’t have connected the two – his words and your explanation - on my own. SK sure talks funny.

RJT

chezlaw

11-24-2005, 12:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps better still:

If somehow I had faith that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation then I will obey god.

Or as Abraham does/is in the bible:

I have faith that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation, so I will obey god.

And how Abraham does in v 4:

I have faith (with a bit of despair and tremor) that the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation, so I will obey god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Got it, thanks

chez

Scotch78

11-24-2005, 12:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with this part. Though a perfectly valid Christian interpretation, this is not an accurate Jewish reading. While it is true that Kierkegaard was Christian, Abraham was not and salvation would not have figured into his spirituality. Furthermore, SK does say in reference to the man who studies the story of Abraham, "if he had known Hebrew, he perhaps would easily have understood the story and Abraham."

In Judaism one obeys g-d, and that's that. Reward and punishment do not figure into the religion like they do in Christianity and Islam.

Scott

RJT

11-24-2005, 01:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the act god is ordering me to carry out will lead to salvation

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with this part. Though a perfectly valid Christian interpretation, this is not an accurate Jewish reading. While it is true that Kierkegaard was Christian, Abraham was not and salvation would not have figured into his spirituality. Furthermore, SK does say in reference to the man who studies the story of Abraham, "if he had known Hebrew, he perhaps would easily have understood the story and Abraham."

In Judaism one obeys g-d, and that's that. Reward and punishment do not figure into the religion like they do in Christianity and Islam.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct 78. Good catch. Although, Abraham did not have in mind Salvation; he does have in mind, or at least the God of the OT has shown, rewards. I think we can substitute reward for my word salvation then. Whether or not Abraham had reward in mind or simply obedience, I am not sure (now that you brought up your point). I am not sure this is relevant to the discussion, but is good you pointed this out, 78.

Btw, the reason we got on this tangent was my quote from Weil. Although her quote is not totally analogous, I think it helped (me at least, after chez’s posts) to understand SK a bit better.

RJT