Only for the sake of fairness to Kierkegaard's position, and to those theists that hold it along with him, we must consider the context in which Abraham is forced to make his decision, if we are to even attempt to understand it. The old testament - taken as literature - tells us that Abraham is a first-hand witness to miracles. Issac is born when Abraham's wife (who had been barren all her life) is somewhere around the age of a hundred. Absurd, sure. But likely an event that qualifies as a good candidate for miracle status. Abraham also watches the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah get destroyed just like the voice he is communicating with says will happen.
Now in light of those experiences, it is hard to rationally deny that there is something supernatural going on. Of course, the old testament only informs us that YWVH communicates to Abraham through miracles and not some other method, which always leaves room for doubt. This supernatural entity, speaking to him and doing all this crazy stuff, may be the devil for all Abraham knows. So he still has to make a choice. Take a leap of faith? Is this God? The Devil? Aliens? But in that context, his choice is rather complicated. There's also the thought, what might this thing, that destroyed two cities before my eyes, do to me or my family if I don't obey it?

The Dane was a sufferer. So was the German, FN (you know, Friedrich N., whose last name I can never spell.) While suffering can lead to certain lines of philosophical enquiry, it has little intrinsic value, in-and-of itself. I have espoused my own ideas about why we really are where we are---historionic effect and all of that pragmatism, some of it unwittingly supported by such minds as Stephen Hawking, in works such as A Brief History of Time. I found a sentence in Professor Hawking's book and then could not find it again...a bit like losing an idea in a black hole. In short, John, I can commiserate with your exasperations. I felt the same way about Habermas, and some friends and thinkers have affirmed my assessment. Other masters I have deleted from my must read list include Kant (tedious) and all great minds who support philosophy with religion or vice versa.
Keep up the good work---you and Ken have done much, seems to me.

Why would anyone take a leap of faith when truth is absolute.
If your going to take a leap,
Be true.
=
MJA

Hi Charles Myro here,
Is there such a clear divide 'tween reason and passion? Could it be reasonable to be very passionately reasonable in your use of reason---say like Spock, for whom reason was, in some sense, his greatest passion?
I think Kierkegaard's view presumes that dividing line not so clean in man. I think he presumes a source for reason and passion more profound and mysterious than either. I think he presumes that man did not make himself but he is part of a life vaster and far beyond him. Some human truth there I think in Kierkegaard.
Both Kierkegaard and Hegel seems to see man as subject to broader forces.
But Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" I find oddly Hegelian. The conflicts that compel the leap of faith are in some sense resolved in that leap , which seems to me oddly analogous to Hegel's synthesis that resolves the conflicting thesis and antithesis. Kierkegaard's leap seems a kind of Hegelian synthesis but with an injection of the human passion and sense of mystery that Hegel excludes, synthesis from a human point of view. Or maybe Hegel takes a universal cosmic reasonable flying leap. Two versions of a related resolution, perhaps.
In any case, they are strangely Philosophically complementary in a comfy sort of way.
Maybe start reading Hegel and when the vast stark reasonableness of the man grows tedious
switch to juicy intimate old Kierkegaard, until you're drenched in human passion and then dry off again with Hegel.
Refreshing, like going from the sauna to the cold plunge and back, a Philosophical spa, as it were-- subcranial
therapy , cleanse the pores of ratiocination-----or something. With Kierkegaard and Hegel at hand, who needs a vacation?

Kierkegaard asks two very important questions in the course of his authorship. What does it mean to be a human being? and What does it mean to become a Christian? Kierkegaard's attempt to describe the former question is what philosophers respect about him. With the latter question, Kierkegaard challenges anyone who wants to become Christian, with what Christianity really is.
What is Christianity really? The need to have faith in God like Abraham? Everyone today would consider Abe a blasted attempted murderer, as Kierkegaard continually points out in Fear and Trembling. Belief that a timeless, eternal God became a historical man in the form of Jesus Christ? The Absolute Paradox for every Christian. Why would anyone rationally believe that that guy Jesus born to Mary is actually the son of God? Faith to believe all that is needed to become a Christian. Kierkegaard is simply trying to weed out all the rational people away from Christianity, because rational people ought to be offended at the propositions Christianity claims.

Howdy everyone,
I am glad to see here a discussion on the works of Kierkegaard, which has always been rare. I am a big fan of Kierkegaard and his authorship impacted my life immensely. I don't know how many other people out there have read his books but I must be one of a few who has actually read most of his works. I stumbled upon him accidentally but once he was found I dove right in. Here is my little input into this discussion, though I could talk about his works for a lot longer.
The aspect I find most interesting about Kierkegaard's authorship (I'm only discussing his philosophical books, not his other more personal religious works) is the style in which he painstakingly wrote them. HIs main goal in all his works was for the reader not to think of objective topics, or ideas, or discussions; but for the reader to stop and think about his own life. Kierkegaard called this sort of communication "indirect." This is also the main reason why he wrote under various names. He wanted to vanish before the reader and for a sort of mirror to be put in his place. This is why terms like "leap of faith" and others come up. There are not ideas to be discussed, they are actions to be made by individuals. Individuals seeking truth within. I have never come across any other author who wrote this way and I suppose it is one of the reasons I became passionate about his works. Where is this today? Who dares to be an author of no significance, vanishing into the background so every individual may be magnified?
A few quick commits on the previous entries. Although Kierkegaard uses the language of Hagel (which is why it is difficult to read) part of his authorship was a reaction against Hegalism, of a world becoming more and more objective in their thinking and forgetting about themselves and their own souls. His idea of "leap of faith" is no different from what all Christian doctrine believes. We as humans can never know truth but the only way to life is under faith (truth in action), something that holds so many paradoxes that the gulf to believe it is vast, and thereby the only way to be with truth is faith (which is not like knowing truth, for if we knew something to be true then there would be no need to believe in it) and to believe in what is not seen is similar to taking a leap (on another note I have never come across another man since Jesus who believed in the power of parables and metaphors like Kierkegaard did). HIs discussion of Abraham is to highlight that beyond the level of aesthetic living, and even higher then moral living, is a level of faith, which is an offense to the world (how could a father kill a son?). That is all for now, I'll visit this webpage in the future and see if any more is to be said. If anyone wants to talk more about Kierkegaard please let me know cause I would love to. Take care ya'll.
Caleb from Wisconsin

Hi Caleb,
Thanks for shedding some clearity on Kierkgaard.
Regarding faith and truth:
One needs no faith or belief when One is true,
As the truth is simply One.
=

Why should we make leap of faith? Why there is paradox in our behavior?Simple answer to this question is our brain is hardwired by survival instinct.Death give meaning to our life. There is no other meaning to our life.All our struggle from birth to end of our life is overcome the fear of death.Every man is unique so his survival instinct hardwired different way in his brain. What kind of software he prepared in his brain that we could not say but man blindly follow what his unconscious instruct to him.Abraham killed his son obey to order of God.Some years back one so called god man order his followers suicide and they follow his order.We are irrational animal we rarely used our thinking faculty .that is why paradox in our life