During our last class we had discussed Kierkegaard’s
Exordiums and their potential meaning. In the beginning of the Exordium is the
tale of a man who greatly admires the story of Abraham. As the man grows older
“his enthusiasm for it became greater and greater, and yet he could understand
the story less and less” (9). This man wants to witness the events leading to
Abraham sacrificing Isaac so that he may better understand the nature of
Abraham and its meaning for faith.
Because this man is incapable of understanding the
paradoxical nature of faith, the man ponders over four potential scenarios of
how the events took place, and concludes each scenario with an analogy to a
mother trying to wean her child from her breast.
In the first scenario, Abraham says to himself: “I will not
hide from Isaac where this walk is taking him” (10). Abraham explains to Isaac
that he is to be sacrificed, which Isaac could not understand. Abraham, in
order to offer a motive for Isaac to understand, pretends to be a homicidal maniac
where, “his gaze was wild, his whole being was sheer terror”. This of course is
a noble sacrifice on Abraham’s part, for he had severed his bond of father and
son so that Isaac may not lose faith in God and instead lose faith in Abraham.
Johannes concludes the first scenario with the analogy of a mother blackening
her breast so that the child may be weaned, which is very much like the
scenario Abraham had done for his son.
In the second scenario Abraham loses faith in God, and
includes an analogy of the mother concealing her breast. In the third scenario
Abraham rides out alone to Mount Moriah to beg forgiveness from the lord, and
is concluded with a mother and child mourning over the weaning, for never will
the child be as close to the mother as it had been when suckling her breast.
The fourth scenario is of everything going to plan, but Isaac notices that
Abraham is holding the knife in despair. Forever after Isaac’s faith is lost.
The concluding analogy is a remark of how a mother has more solid food for her
child to feed upon.
In all of these instances, the man is trying to conclude the
kind of faith Abraham must have had for in order to act as he did. And each
analogy corresponds to the tale written. I believe that the analogy represents
the father Abraham, the son Isaac, and finally the Lord. What other connections
do you see amongst the analogies and the short stories?
I don’t think is necessarily the conversation you were trying to start, but you post has made me think about the way in which we talk about the paradox. Is there a difference between understanding the existence of the paradox and understanding the paradox itself? Describing Isaac as not understanding the paradox after Abraham explains the sacrifice seems to imply that Abraham does understand the paradox. This is where I think that faith steps in as a method of “understanding” or maybe just accepting that which is not or cannot be understood…? Throughout our discussions, I have been thinking that Abraham does not understand the paradox per se, but as the model of faith he accepts the paradox and participates in it. I think there is an implicit element of not understanding the paradox, otherwise wouldn’t the position of understanding the paradox be more like a tragic hero, thinking “what I’m about to do sucks but I understand why it has to happen”?
ReplyDeleteSorry to pick apart your post, I know you were trying to say something else but I’m just working through this “understanding” thing…