Monday, September 26, 2005

I thought boils were extinct. Owe, Owe, it hurts so much.

Now this is my idea of a perfect class, it has no lectures. In fact, all we do is read, write essays and get together about six times during the term with the coolest proff ever, drink beer over lunch and talk about each others’ papers (which we all read before hand). It couldn’t get much better than that in my opinion (well, it could, but it will be a few years yet before I achieve the label of “coolest proff ever”).

Now, this is the part where as ask you lurkers to come out of the wood work and share your opinion. It would be especially helpful to me if you have some knowledge of faith. This is an area that I am sorely lacking, and when I am writing about Kierkegaard, that is not a good thing. I want to know what is this “act of faith” which is done through “virtue of the absurd.” SK uses the example of Abraham’s willingness to kill his son because he believed both that god would not really take his son and that god wanted Abe to kill his son. I can see why it’s absurd, thought not for the reasons SK gives, but I don’t see how Abe’s choice to kill his son just to prove his own faith to god, and for no other reason that I can see, is done by virtue of the absurd. Please share your thoughts; it might help to shine some light on this issue.

On a side note, Descartes makes me mad. Here is a short little summation of the 50 odd pages I’ve read today: I’m Descartes, I’m really smart. I’ve just proven (again) that God does indeed exist and that the soul is immortal. I’m the first person ever to have done this, but that’s because I’m really smart. The basic result is that we don’t need faith any more and that any atheists out there who can’t see what I’ve written is true are really really stupid. Now, I’m talking to the brightest minds in the (what counts as) the world and I am going to through you a bit of flattery, really I just want money. But if you want to, you can read my paper and help me edit it. There’s nothing wrong with it, but if you wanted to cross some “t”s (don’t worry about the “I”’s I’ve got them covered) I wouldn’t mind. I don’t need your help because I’m so smart, but you know. I don’t want for you to feel left out because you might just be stupid enough to be mean to me and not give me, the smartest guy in the world, some money.


Anonymous said...

Abraham had faith in God. That is why he left his comfy home in Ur for a place God was going to show him. He didn't know at the time where he was going. He left a house that could have had running water and a bathroom for a tent in the wilderness. His faith was looking towards a reward that he could not see. The Bible's definition of faith is the "assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities beheld". So he was Positive that if God asked him to kill his son that God had a reason for it and God would raise his son from the dead. Abraham saw a demonstration of this when God told him that he and his wife Sarah would even HAVE a child because Abraham was 100 and Sarah was 90. He "resurected" their procreative powers.

Hope this helps a bit

JustApril said...

To add to the previous comment - which is right btw -

God had promised specifically that through Isaac, Abraham would become father to a great nation. Another reason Abraham had faith that Isaac would be restored to him.

The account is also MEANT to evoke strong emotions of empathy for Abraham. We all think "What would I do in that situation? Could I actually imagine giving up my child, my son in such a way?" This is because the account foreshadows God giving up HIS son for US. So that we can see he didn't take this step lightly, without pain. The Bible even calls God, 'The Greater Abraham' and Jesus is foreshadowed by Isaac. Like a demonstration of what was to come when Jesus gave up his life for mankind.

Also, something most tellers of this account leave out, is that Abraham was VERY old, and Isaac was mostly grown up at that point, either in his late teens or early 20's - consider that Isaac had to have agreed to this or else he would have escaped. Also foreshadowing how Jesus WILLINGLY gave his life for mankind. said...

And to relate it back to Kierkegaard.... almost all the stuff he wrote is directed towards the church which he wants to stir up and call to live in the radical life that God truly calls Christians to live... God calls us to trust Him even when things don't seem sensical- a hard thing for most Christians. We let reason decifer most of our acts but one virtue is to be willing to do the seemingly absurd out of absolute trust in God.