Read fear and trembling by Søren Kierkegaard Online


Throughout history, some books have changed the world. They have transformed the way we see ourselves - and each other. They have inspired debate, dissent, war and revolution. They have enlightened, outraged, provoked and comforted. They have enriched lives - and destroyed them. Now Penguin brings you the works of the great thinkers, pioneers, radicals and visionaries whosThroughout history, some books have changed the world. They have transformed the way we see ourselves - and each other. They have inspired debate, dissent, war and revolution. They have enlightened, outraged, provoked and comforted. They have enriched lives - and destroyed them. Now Penguin brings you the works of the great thinkers, pioneers, radicals and visionaries whose ideas shook civilization and helped make us who we are.The Father of Existentialism, Kierkegaard transformed philosophy with his conviction that we must all create our own nature; in this great work of religious anxiety, he argues that a true understanding of God can only be attained by making a personal 'leap of faith'....

Title : fear and trembling
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 20760513
Format Type : Kindle Edition
Number of Pages : 160 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

fear and trembling Reviews

  • Ryan
    2019-07-20 05:24

    dear reader,you don't even read this stuff anymore, do you?! i wouldn't if i were you! but that's the difference between me and you! you have no life, are pathetic, sit in front of your computer all day stalking your peers on various social networking sites, while i go on constantly mocking your efforts through half jest and utter disregard for the values you hold dear to your heart!alas, perhaps the joke is on me?!haha, boy do i get ahead of myself sometimes! silly me! yes, that is what i say! i say, "silly me!" and i sit in the bathtub at night and i make tiny little cuts into the backs of my thighs and the bottom of my feet! the pain let's me know i am alive! anywho! today's book is a classic by the greatly pathetic soren kierkegaard, entitled "fear and trembling: who let the dogs out?" ok let's go!REVIEW:one could easily argue that the central thesis of this book is the idea that "faith begins precisely where reason ends."kierkegaard struggles with faith, simultaneously demonstrating that it is impossible to successfully rationalize faith (i.e., give any kind of logical explanation of it), just as it is impossible to achieve faith by way of reason.another highlight is the four alternative retellings of the story of abraham and isaac, which are truly a mindfuck.VERDICT:in my supremely accurate and overwhelmingly insightful opinion, this book is most important as a device by which to make people at least recognize, and hopefully respect, the great personal struggle and triumph that is religious faith. too many people in this generation, it seems, write religion off without even knowing why they do so, other than that it doesn't agree with what science dictates. kierkegaard here demonstrates the difference and mutual exclusiveness of the two, and thus that it is possible to love and respect both. lol!

  • Kalliope
    2019-07-06 01:14

    Many readers come to read this book via the Hegel pathway. Or at least realize that a Hegel preamble is required. And most probably such a preamble is indispensable.Alas, I came to it through a side door. As an attendant of a cycle of lectures given at the Prado Museum on the Bible (Old Testament) and Art, I listened, and looked, in fascination to the exposé of one of the Speakers. He examined the myth of Abraham and the Sacrifice of his beloved son Isaac.After portraying what he considered an utterly unethical behavior in the part of Abraham he presented Kierkegaard’s ideas as the only way to approach the dreadful myth. For it cannot be understood.For such is the nature of Paradox.Abraham was no Agamemnon (*). There was no heroism in his act: Agamemnon was driven by duty; Abraham by faith. Agamemnon could hate his own act but overcome his hatred and announce the intended outcome. Abraham, as the Knight of Faith could not doubt a single instant. He had to want to kill his son, while loving him dearly, because his god had ordered him to do so. And this he had to do quietly.Abraham was greater than all, great by reason of his power whose strength is impotence, great by reason of his wisdom whose secret is foolishness, great by reason of his hope whose form is madness, great by reason of the love which is hatred of oneself.And so at the core of Abraham’s act was the Absurd.In this context of absurdity silence, elastic, takes its place. And opens the door to laughter.And of the painters, Rembrandt, the master of capturing the interruption, was also the one who represented the force in Abraham’s unrelenting and unvacillating will. There is no second-guessing god in his Abraham. No acting and no hope. Rembrandt was the one painter who understood what Kierkegaard stated about two hundred years later. Angel had to fight hard to stop Abraham in his unflinching intention to murder.------Do I need to point out that Beckett read this book?---(*) another example of this paternal filicide not mentioned in this book is Emperor Frederick II and his son Henry.

  • Saleh MoonWalker
    2019-07-20 04:29

    انتظاری که برآورده نشد...اونقدر که انتظار داشتم و ازش شنیده بودم برام جذاب نبود.نقاط ضعف : - توضیحات اضافه زیادی توی این اثر وجود داره. مطلبی رو که میخواد بیان میکنه، مطمئن میشه که شما مطلب رو متوجه شدید، دوباره مثال میزنه، دوباره مطلب رو بیان میکنه و دوباره مثال میزنه و تغییرات جزئی در اصل مساله میده. مثل جایگشت در ریاضیات، اگر اصل مساله رو فهمیده باشی و بتونی کانسپت اصلی رو درک کنی، دیگه لازم نیست ادامه سوال، فقط با تکرار های جزئی دوباره پرسیده بشه، و در نتیجه جواب هایی با تغییرات جزئی دوباره به آن داده بشه. اگر کسی نمیتونه این قضیه رو با تمام توضیحاتی که داده شده، متوجه بشه، حتی اگه تمام حالت های مختلف جزئیات رو دوباره بیان کنی و جواب رو با تغییرات جزئی بدی، باز هم کمکی به فهم خواننده نخواهد کرد.- نکته ای که ذکر کردم، میتونه قابل توجه دوستانی هم باشه که میگن که این اثر با سیستم کاملا هگلی نوشته شده، یا این ایده که این اثر از قصد سخت نوشته شده و فهمیدنش سخته.- در ادامه باید بگم که با اینکه کتاب حجم زیادی نداره، اما اگر نکته ای که ذکر کردم رعایت میشد، حجم این اثر خیلی کمتر میشد و زمینه تفکر بیشتری در متن برای خواننده باقی میماند.- برای افرادی که بیان کردن که خواندن این اثر سخت هستش، میتونم بگم که ابتدا سعی کنید عنوان مساله رو کامل متوجه بشید، سپس ابتدای قضیه توضیحی رو کامل درک کنید و با سیستم پیشروی نویسنده آشنا بشید، اونوقت میتونید به تنهایی تمام موضوع رو خودتون با قدرت تفکر، متوجه بشید. در نتیجه خواندن ادامه اثر هم سریع تر و آسان تر خواهد شد.- نکته جزئی دیگری که بشخصه دوست نداشتم، که البته با توجه به سلیقه هر کس میتونه متفاوت باشه، وارد کردن جزئیات مساله زندگی شخصی فرد، در باطن مساله ای هستش که ذکر شده، که باعث میشه افرادی مثل من، به این نکته فکر کنند که محرک اصلی و واقعی نوشتن این اثر برای نویسنده چی بوده. بخش جالب و طعنه آمیز این قضیه اینجاست که با توجه به محتوای این اثر، نکته ای که ذکر کردم، کاملا پارادوکسیکال میشه. (باید این اثر رو بخونید تا کامل متوجه منظورم بشید.)- نکته جزئی دیگه اینکه عنوان کتاب با محتوای آن زیاد سازگاری نداره...- یک نکته شخصی : به عنوان یک آتئیست، خواندن دوباره داستان های خدا، ایمان و پیامبرش، کمی برام حوصله سر بود، به طوری که اگر واقعا حرفی برای گفتن نداشت، خواندنش رو ادامه نمیدادم.حالا بریم سراغ نقاط قوت : - پوشش کامل اثر، بر روی مساله ذکر شده طوری که اگر همگام با نویسنده پیش برید، هیچ نکته تاریکی براتون باقی نمی مونه.- تِم معما گونه مناسبی که اثر داره، جوری که کاملا یک اثر دیگه در باطن نیست و از طرفی معمای خیلی سختی هم در مفهوم و مخاطب خاصش نداره.- مانور مناسب نویسنده روی موضوع مورد بحث و بیان قوی پارادوکسیکال آن در ظاهر و باطن مفهوم مساله.در نهایت میتونم بگم که برای من چیز جدیدی برای ارائه نداشت که قبلا نخوانده باشم، البته این موضوعات رو از نویسنده هایی که بعد از کیرکگور بودن خواندم، پس بنابراین چیزی بدی متوجه نویسنده نمیشه و در اصل قدرت این نویسنده رو نشون میده. حل کردن مسائل اصلی داستان هم، با توجه به موضوع اخلاق، قدرت تفکر و محاسبات ریاضی، به سادگی قابل حل هستش و بر خلاف تصور عموم، این کتاب رو به اثری نه چندان پیچیده تبدیل میکنه.برای من، به یک بار خواندنش می ارزید.

  • Foad
    2019-06-21 07:23

    کیرکگور، پس از معرفی سه سپهر انسانی (زیبایی طلب، اخلاقی، ایمانی) کتاب "یا این یا آن" خود را به تحلیل دو سپهر نخست اختصاص می دهد، اما سپهر سوم شخصیتی را به کتاب دیگرش، ترس و لرز وا می گذارد.ترس و لرز به تمامی در وصف ماهیت ایمان است، آن سان که کیرکگور تعریف می کند. این دید منحصر به فرد از ایمان مخالف دید مرسوم کلیسای پروتستان بود، به همین سبب کیرکگور تا پایان عمر با کلیسای پروتستان در نبرد بود. کیرکگور می گفت: کلیسا ایمان را به امری سهل الوصول بورژوازی تبدیل کرده، که هر کس و در هر زمان می تواند بی دردسر و با خیال راحت مؤمن باشد و زندگی اش را بکند. اما ایمان حقیقی، آن ایمانی که ابراهیم را بر آن داشت که اسحاق را به مذبح ببرد، به هیچ وجه با زندگی هر روزه سازگار نیست.من در نظر دارم که زمانی بگردم دنبال شباهت ها و تفاوت های این دیدگاه از ایمان، با دیدگاه اسلامی-شیعی.در جستجوی ایمانکیرکگور برای ایمان سه خصوصیت کلیدی بر می شمارد، که هر یک همچون ضربه ای سهمگین است بر پیکرۀ ایمان سهل الوصول کلیسایی.١. غيرعقلانىايمان از مقوله ى اراده است، نه علم و نه احساس، در نتيجه غيرعقلانى است.(view spoiler)[الهی دانان، ایمان را معمولاً در یکی از دو مقوله جای می دهند:ادراک، یا انفعال نفسانی معطوف به واقع،یا احساس، یا انفعال نفسانی غیر معطوف به واقع.در حالت نخست ایمان داشتن عملی صرفاً عقلانی است، همچون آگاهی داشتن به جواب یک معادله. چیزی نیست که نیاز به جار و جنجال داشته باشد، یا صحیح است یا سقیم.در حالت دوم اما ایمان برابر شور است، احساسی قدرتمند که باعث انگیزش فرد می شود و با دانستن پاسخ یک معادله تفاوت فراوان دارد. هر چند در این مورد، واقعیت دیگر اهمیتی ندارد و ایمان صحیح یا ناصحیح معنا ندارد.و هر دو حالت، ایمان امری "انفعالی" است. یعنی چه از سنخ ادراک باشد چه از سنخ احساس، نفس از عاملی تأثیر می پذیرد و معروض ایمان می گردد. در حالت نخست این عامل مؤثر، یک "دلیل" است و در حالت دوم، یک "علت خارجی" که باعث ایمان شده.اما کیرکگور به عنوان یک فیلسوف مؤمن حالت سومی را بر می گزیند: ایمان نه از سنخ انفعال، بلکه فعل نفسانی است. ایمان ادراک واقع یا احساسی درونی نیست، بلکه "اختیار" و "اراده" ی نفس است. نفس بر می گزیند که مؤمن باشد، بر می گزیند و باید هر لحظه این انتخاب را ادامه دهد بى آن كه اين تصميم (همچون تمامى تصميم هاى اساسى وجودى) بتواند هيچ پشتوانه ى عقلانى داشته باشد.و اصولاً به خاطر همین خصوصیت فعّال بودن ایمان است که انسان ها در قبال ایمان شان مسئولند. نمی توان فردی را بازخواست کرد که چرا اشتباه فهمیدی یا این که چرا عوامل خارجی باعث ایجاد احساسی ناصحیح در تو شد. اما می توان او را به خاطر چیزی که با اراده ی آزاد انتخاب کرده است مسئول دانست.(hide spoiler)]٢. غيراخلاقىايمان شخصى است، در نتيجه غير اخلاقى است.(view spoiler)[كانت می گوید: خصوصيت گزاره ى اخلاقى عموميت آن است: «چنان كن كه بر هر كس در هر زمان جايز باشد چنان كند.»كيركگور در دنباله ی همین حرف می گوید: خصوصيت گزاره ايمانى شخصي بودن آن است: «چنان كن كه بر جز تو جز در همين لحظه جايز نباشد چنان كند.»وقتی ایمان از حوزه ی عقلانیت خارج شد، آن گاه وظيفه ى ايمانى هر كس در هر لحظه را جز خود او، آن هم به شك و نه به يقين، نمى تواند بداند و انجام دهد، و ایمان سراسر اضطراب خواهد شد.این که ابراهیم فرزند خود را قربانی کرد، کاری کاملاً غیراخلاقی بود، به این دلیل که نمی توان آن را به هر زمان و هر کس تعمیم داد و در نتیجه، از نظر اخلاقی محکوم بود. به همین دلیل است که واعظی که با شور و حرارت عمل ابراهیم را تحسین می کند، هرگز به ذهنش خطور نمی کند که یکی از مخاطبانش برخیزد و دست بچه اش را بگیرد که قربانی کند. (hide spoiler)]٣. خودمتناقضامید داشتن به چیزی که ممکن نیست تحقق یابد.(view spoiler)[ركن مهم ايمان از ديدگاه كيركگور، ایثار است: از عزيزترين چيزت در راه خدا بگذرى، اين عزيزترين چيز ممكن است ثروتت باشد، مقام و منزلتت باشد، يا فرزند دردانه ات، چنان كه ابراهيم پدر ايمان اسحاقش را به مذبح خداوند صبايوت برد.كيركگور چنين كسى "شهسوار ترك نامتناهى" را مى نامد و مى گويد اين تنها اولين قدم است، و كسى كه در همين جا توقف كند، تمام زندگانى اش را ترك كرده بى آن كه ايمان را به دست آورده باشد.ايمان مرحله ى بعد از ترك نامتناهى است. ايمان آن است كه به رغم تمام شواهد و دلايل، به رغم تلاش شخص خودت براى نابودى معناى زندگى ات، ايمان داشته باشى كه خداوند آن چه ترك كرده اى را در همين دنيا به تو باز خواهد گرداند. نه "مثل" آن را، نه در "آخرت"، بلكه خود همان را و در همين جهان. و اين است كه كيركگور ايمان را "پارادوكس" مى نامد: تو تلاش مى كنى همان چيزى را نابود كنى كه انتظار دارى خداوند نگذارد نابود كنى. اميد داشتن بر خلاف تمام شواهد و دلايل. ابراهیم اسحاق را به دست خود سر می برد، و خداوند همان اسحاق را در همان جهان به او باز می گرداند. (hide spoiler)]كيركگور خود عزيزترين چيزش را در راه تحصیل ایمان ترك كرد: معشوقش و نامزدش "رگينه اولسن" را. اما با اندوهى ناتمام مى گويد: من شهسوار ترك نامتناهى شدم، بى آن كه واقعاً ايمان داشته باشم. رگينه اولسن با مرد ديگرى ازدواج كرد، و كيركگور تا آخرين لحظه ى حيات نتوانست به چيز ديگرى بينديشد.از کتابهر كس به قدر عظمت آن چه با آن زورآزمايى كرد بزرگى يافت:آن كس كه با جهان ستيز كرد با چيرگى بر جهان بزرگ شد؛و آن كس كه با خويشتن نبرد كرد با چيرگى بر خويشتن بزرگ شد؛اما آن كس كه با خدا زورآزمايى كرد از همه بزرگ تر بود.

  • Tara
    2019-06-21 02:24

    “To contend with the whole world is a comfort, but to contend with oneself is dreadful.”Fear and Trembling is Kierkegaard’s astonishingly dexterous analysis of faith via the Old Testament story of Abraham and Isaac:“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him…Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.”       –Genesis 22:1 According to Kierkegaard, Abraham was a true “knight of faith.” He didn’t merely resign himself to losing his son, but instead believed that Isaac wouldn’t actually be harmed. He had faith based on “the strength of the absurd,” or in spite of the fact that it made no rational sense to do so. Kierkegaard contended that Abraham’s belief in this undeniable absurdity elevated him to the highest plane of faith one can possibly hope to attain.Kierkegaard then made an apparently simple (yet really rather profound) point: Abraham’s decision to make a leap of faith could not concern itself with the OUTCOME of that leap:“Surely anyone with a speck of erectior ingenii [nobility of mind] cannot become so completely the cold and clammy mollusc as to lose sight altogether, in approaching the great, of the fact that ever since the Creation it has been accepted practice for the outcome to come last, and that if one is really to learn something from the great it is precisely the beginning one must attend to. If anyone on the verge of action should judge himself according to the outcome, he would never begin. Even though the result may gladden the whole world, that cannot help the hero; for he knows the result only when the whole thing is over, and that is not how he becomes a hero, but by virtue of the fact that he began.”Kierkegaard concluded this section of the book by stating that faith is fundamentally a paradox, and that it goes beyond what reason can comprehend. He then proceeded to examine three “problemata.” Problema 1: “Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?” Kierkegaard answered in the affirmative. Basically, taking care of your fellow human beings is generally your most important ethical concern. However, since murdering a helpless child doesn’t usually provide much benefit to humanity, and yet God commanded Abraham to do so, ethical considerations must have been suspended in favor of a higher imperative.Problema 2: “Is there an absolute duty to God?” Short answer: Yes. Slightly longer explanation: Kierkegaard held that “faith’s paradox is this, that the single individual is higher than [the human race], that the single individual determines his relation to [the human race] through his relation to [God].” I tinkered with the previous quote in an effort to make it more user friendly. Kierkegaard was kind of a dweeb with some of his jargon and specialized slang. Perhaps also with his coiffure:Problema 3: “Was it ethically defensible of Abraham to conceal his purpose from Sarah, from Eleazar, from Isaac?” Kierkegaard was of the opinion that honesty is usually the best policy. In Abraham’s case, however, since his task was Absurd with a capital A, and as such could not possibly be understood, he had to grapple with it alone. Abraham couldn’t even attempt to relate it to anyone else, since trying to explain what is absurd and incomprehensible is…well…absurd.Kierkegaard wrapped things up by asserting that “the highest passion in a human being is faith,” and that this is something each person must wrestle with and ultimately earn for themselves.Thus concludes my (probably overly detailed) summary of the main points presented in the book. I’d now like to share a few of Kierkegaard’s more brilliant quotes:“Someone who has understood life’s horror has grasped Daub’s meaning when he says that a soldier standing guard alone with a loaded gun by a powder magazine on a stormy night gets strange thoughts.”“There is greatness in meriting the tears of those who deserve to shed them; great indeed for the poet to dare hold the crowd in check, dare discipline people into testing their own worthiness to weep for the hero, for the waste-water of snivellers is a degradation of the holy.”“Aesthetics is the most faithless of all sciences. Anyone who has truly loved it will in a way become unhappy; while anyone who has never done so is and will remain a blockhead.”Overall, Kierkegaard was a phenomenal writer with an often merciless wit. His mind was arrestingly complex, nimble, fluid. I can’t claim to fully grasp everything he wrote; at times I got tangled up in the threads of his subtly nuanced logic, especially when I was frantically trying to keep up with some of his more peculiar terminology. That said, many of his points were beautifully reasoned, some even striking in their clarity. I especially appreciated his musings on the suffering that standing alone with your beliefs necessarily entails, and the importance of not letting the pain erode your resolve. Although the aforementioned merits made this a fascinating read, I couldn’t wholly relate to it, as I do not count religious faith among the more worthwhile pursuits available to us as thinking beings. I do agree with him on this:“How monstrous a paradox faith is, a paradox capable of making a murder into a holy act well pleasing to God, a paradox which gives Isaac back to Abraham, which no thought can grasp because faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off.”I just tend to side with Hitchens as to its rather dubious value:

  • StevenGodin
    2019-07-11 07:34

    It is not an exaggeration to say that Fear and Trembling (1843) was a challenging piece for me to to read, maybe being someone of no religious faith had something to do with it. Kierkegaard (Johannes de silentio) compounds the essential difficulty that lies within the theme of the work, the Akedah, through choosing an alternative pseudonym to praise Abraham as a knight of faith and examine his movements. That the pseudonym's perspective is shrouded in silence seemingly precludes any clear and straightforward understanding of this work. Ultimately, whether Kierkegaard's Johannes de silentio is to be read with irony or edification appears as undecidable as whether we should view Abraham as a murderous madman -- who in contrast to Nietzsche's madman proclaiming the death of god proclaims a living god who has commanded the death of his son and then later a ram, or the great father of faith. He goes over the story of Abraham and Isaac and can make no sense of it. he concludes that 'faith' must be a 'leap in the dark' Take the leap he seems to say and God will catch you. Most people do no such thing. They are too sensible and do not jump anywhere unless there is a soft landing of a safety net. Sadly he has bequeathed to the world the idea that Christianity is a religion and belief in god is not rational. Generations of Humanists, Rationalists and Materialists have taken this up as a stick with which to beat Christians and Christian belief. Because he thought God told him to?. Will this have you either going to church every Sunday believing it's OK to kill your kids as long as God gives you his blessing, or tearing the pages out and throwing the cover across the room screaming and swearing at Kiekegaard for being morally and ethically wrong. Like I said as piece of historical philosophy it challenged me, something most books I read never do, hence the four stars. But still left me feeling bemused and dumbfound. Definitely requires a second reading, but me doubt will happen. It's the sort of book that could fire great debate and war of words. I will just sit on the fence though and keep my opinions to myself.

  • Rosemary
    2019-07-21 06:20

    I was going to write that I still come back to this book, even ten years after reading it for the first time. But that's not quite true. What is true is that this book has never really left me; it has worked itself into my psyche and become an automatic philosophical reference point for my life. Kierkegaard's discussion of faith versus resignation is an exhileration to read. His unfolding of the concept of the absurd in the universe is sublime. Everyone should dive into this work, grapple with it, and re-emerge with some of Kierkegaard's Romantic greatness internalized.

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2019-07-16 06:27

    Frygt og Bæven = fear and trembling, Søren Kierkegaard تاریخ نخستین خوانش: پنجم اکتبر سال 1996 میلادیعنوان: ترس و لرز : غزل دیالکتیکی؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: محسن فاطمی؛ تهران، سازمان تبلیغات، 1373؛ در 231 ص؛ چاپ دوم 1374؛ چاپ سوم 1376؛ موضوع: مسیحیت - قرن 20 معنوان: ترس و لرز ؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: عبدالکریم رشیدیان؛ تهران، نشر نی، 1378؛ در 173 ص؛ چاپ دوم 1380؛ شابک: 9643124347؛ چاپ پنجم 1385؛ چاپ ششم 1386؛ هفتم 1387؛ هشتم 1388؛ یازدهم 1392؛ عنوان: ترس و لرز ؛ نویسنده: سورن کی یرکگور؛ مترجم: محمدصادق رئیسی؛ تهران، روزگار نو، 1392؛ شابک: 9786006867625؛ سورن کی یرکگور یا با نام مستعار: یوهانس دو سیلنتیو؛ داستان قربانی کردن پسر، و ایمان راسخ و استوار ابراهیم علیه السلام را بنوشته؛ و ایشان را شهسوار ایمان نامیده است. ا. شربیانی

  • peiman-mir5 rezakhani
    2019-07-10 05:24

    افتضاح بود و بسیار بد دوستانِ گرانقدر... این کتاب سرشار از خزعبلاتِ تاریخی و نوشتن از نادانی بوددوستانِ گرامی، نویسنده 155 صفحه چرت و پرت و خرافات تحویل داده است، خواهشاً کاری به اسم و رسمِ نویسنده نداشته باشید، این گونه نویسندگان فقط می نویسند برای آنکه نوشته باشنداز آغازِ کتابش را با داستانِ موهومِ ابراهیم و ضبحِ اسحاق شروع کرده است، یک بیخرد و ابله به این داستانِ خیالی و موهومِ یهودیان باور دارد و خاک بر سرِ آن ابلهانی که اینگونه بازیچهٔ داستان های موهومِ مذهبی میشوندنویسنده سعی دارد بگوید که ایمان و دین از همه چیز بالاتر است و اخلاق در گروِ ایمان است... در صفحۀ 157 از این کتاب نوشته: ایمان عالیترین شور در انسان است، چه بسیار کسان که در هر نسل به مرتبۀ ایمان نمیرسندسپس در ادامه نوشته کسانی که به مرتبۀ ایمان نمیرسند، زندگی بیهوده دارندعزیزانم، این نویسندگانِ نادان، خرد را در چالهٔ حماقت گندانده اند و نمیدانند که اخلاق بر ایمان و دین ارجعیت داردعزیزانم، تا زمانی که این بیشعورها باور دارند که همهٔ امور اخلاقی بدونِ حضورِ خدایِ موهوم و نادیده درآسمانها، نمی تواند به سامان بنشیند، و شعورِ ناپختهٔ انسان ها در هویتِ حاضرِ خود سیر میکند، جنایت هایِ بشری، تمامی نخواهد داشتبینشِ این تودۀ احمق و ایمان آورنده به خرافات و ادیانِ ابراهیمی، تحتِ هیچ شرایطی نمیگذارد تا آنان چشمِ خودشان را برای رفعِ حوائج از آسمان به زمینی که در آن زندگی میکنند معطوف دارندآیا نادان ها به قدرِگنجشککی به گرسنگیِ شعور خود ایمان دارند؟ که از ایمان کتاب مینویسند؟! ... اصلاً و ابدااادوستانِ خردگرا، مکتبی که از روزِ نخست جز به کشتن و خونِ انسانها دوام و بقایی برایِ خود فهم نکرده است، چگونه میتواند اخلاقِ انسانیِ شما را نهادینه کند؟!؟ ... عزیزانم، خزعبلات و مهملاتِ مذهبی و دینی را با اخلاق درهم نکنید، به جایِ ایمان به داستانِ ابلهانۀ گوسفند و ابراهیم و اسحاق یا اسماعیل، اخلاق را در خود و در وجودتان تقویت کنیددوستانِ عزیزم، باید اخلاقِ انسانیمان را تربیت کنیم نه تَحَکُّماتِ دین و مذهبِ مسخره را که در طول زمان در خرد ما تِرید و پَروار کردند و منزلتِ انسانی مارا بردۀ توهماتِ خویش کرده و خرد ما را مثالِ گوسفند قربانی نمودند و ایمان به دینی را برایمان تعریف کردند که به هیچ عنوان با واقعیتِ انسانیِ انسانیمان سازگار نیستعزیزانم، فرار کنید از این نویسندگانی که شما را، با وعده هایِ دروغینِ اخُروی به بازی گرفته اند... هستی همین خاکی است که شما در آن زندگی میکنید، حال اگر به این معنا فهم یابید هیچ شخصی تحتِ هیچ شرایطی و با هیچ کتابی نمیتواند شما را فریب دهد<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

  • Jan-Maat
    2019-07-05 04:15

    It seems to me that after reading "Fear and Trembling" that all of my thinking on faith lies within Kierkegaard. Which isn't to claim that I understand his arguments but that his arguments have come to dominate the way I think about the issues.Curiously although Kierkegaard's voice comes at us from the margins he seems oddly part of a broad current of nineteenth century writing, Dostoevsky, if he cold have got past the author being a non-Russian and a Lutheran would have agreed with the emphasis on faith alone I feel. Though then again I can be no adequate reader of Kierkegaard as he reveals himself only through a nest of alternative identities as though engaging in plausible deniability, or hide and seek, with the reader.I think I read this first, and then was brought back to it several times by reading Dostoevsky more seriously in my 20s and then by means of David Lodge's novel Therapy - although Kierkegaard is more of a staging post in his downward path until the central character clings to a desperate ridiculous, plan (view spoiler)[ returning to his long lost first girlfriend, thirty? Forty? years after separating (hide spoiler)] through faith alone which results in his renewal.Historically I think it's interesting because it offers in the knight of faith a rejection of the triumph of reason. Not having been raised as regular church goer, I was slightly surprised by Kierkegaard, because my assumption was that all religious people were naturally Kieregaardian knights of faith.What strikes me as interesting about the Abraham story is that he isn't bothered by the concept of child sacrifice, which seems to be as a concept an entirely reasonable one to him, what is bvothersome is just the logical conundrum of how God may not be sticking to his side of the bargain and that leads, even requires Kierkegaard to dub Abraham a knight of faith, the champion of sola fide. We might well think that in those days God was plainly so slippery and elusive that one was obliged to cling to pure faith to avoid being completely hopeless. A golden calf is at least reliably golden and immobile.

  • Fatema Hassan , bahrain
    2019-07-09 03:18

    " خوف و رعدة "أنشودة جدلية تأليف :-يوحنا الصامت - وهو اسم وهمي لكيركيغاردكوبنهاغن ١٨٤٣( الإيمان يبدأ تمامًا عندما يرحل التفكير )تقوم فلسفة كيركيغارد عمومًا على التمييز بين كل سؤال فلسفي عن وجود الله وبين موقفنا الفردي من الإجابة على هذا السؤال، كل إجابة يجدها العقل بمفرده بإيمانه المطلق، لذلك يجب على كل فرد تكوين علاقة مطلقة مع المطلق/ الله/ دون وساطة خارجية كما يقول كيركيغارد.. بذلك هو يتنقل بالإنسان عبر ثلاث مراحل وجودية ( الجمال/ الأخلاق/ الدين) نستطيع تلخيص اهتماماته الفلسفية عبرهم. المقدمة بقلم ولتر لاوري تتبنّى تحليل وافٍ عن كيركيغارد قائم بشكل أساسي على يومياته و بشهادة معاصريه، لذلك يجد المترجم للنص من الدنماركية للإنجليزية قراءة المقدمة إلزامية لمعرفة أسباب غزارة انتاجه و كذلك أسباب الصراع في نفس الفيلسوف / اللاهوتي صاحب المشاعر المتقدة بعد فسخ خطوبته على ريجينا أولسن وصراعاته الفكرية مع فلاسفة عصره والدينية مع الكنسية اللوثرية آنذاك، شخصيًا وددت لو أجلّت قرائتها لحين الإنتهاء من هذا النص المرهق جدًا و الجامع للفلسفة بشكل تحقيق شعري وتدقيق ديني ، بناءًا على آية في سفر المزامير ( خوف و رعدة أتيا عليّ و غشيني رعبٌ ) قام العنوان متحدًا مع القصة المعروفة عن تضحية النبي إبراهيم ب إبنه الوحيد إسحاق على جبل المريا تلبية لأمره عزّ و جلّ - كما ورد في سفر التكوين / العهد القديم خلافًا للقصة المتعارف عليها في القرآن الكريم والتي يذهب فيها قسم من المسلمين لتعريف هوية الذبيح بأنه اسماعيل و ليس اسحاق عليهم السلام بينما ينادي بعض المسلمين بالعكس ولنبعد هذه الحقيقة عن كونها مثار للجدل ونكتفي بفكرة القصة - لترى القصة من أكثر من منظور، ما الذي يستلهمه المطلع على هذه القصة من معانٍ ، و كيف يتغير منظور الفرد لهذه التضحية منذ الطفولة لمرحلة النضوج كقارئ، كلما نضج المرء منا فسد مفهوم هكذا قصص دينية عقليًا لديه، إلا لمن رجّح كفة تسليمه لدينه على استنباطاته العقلية، ربما يغنينا ديننا الإسلامي عن الخوض في هكذا تبريرات لقصة امتثال النبي ابراهيم لأمر ربه لإكتمال حيثيات القصة في القرآن، ولكن بالطبع تبقى لقراءة هذا التحليل الفلسفي لما يرونه كتضحية جمال لا يقاوم، كيركيغارد يجعلك ترى أسباب تنفيذ ابراهيم كأحد آباء الإيمان لأمر البارئ دون مناقشة من أكثر من زاوية، شرّين وجوديين يصعب الاختيار بينهما فإما التضحية بالولد أو معصية الخالق والتشكيك في دوافع الأمر الإلهي ،أن تخترق نفس ابراهيم وتعيش عذابه الوجودي جرّاء إرجاءه للجانب الأخلاقي عند تضحيته بإبنه وهو كنبي يتوجب إن يكون مثل يحتذى به و مُجسد إنساني للأخلاق، إتخاذه القرار الوجودي الذي يحدد مدى إيمانه وكيف ستتحول معاناته و ألمه لجمال فكري .. تفهمه و لا تفهمه! تجيز فعله وتؤيده أو تشجب وتستنكر موقفه أخلاقيًا .. وهكذا .. كل ذلك منوط بإيمانك ، ينبغي للقارئ الإلمام بالقصة من وجهة نظر الديانات الثلاث ليكون على استعداد نفسي لتشرّبها و استيعاب مواقفها.الإيمان هل هو تقبل المفارقات أم الإرادة الفردية أم التسليم للعاطفة أو العقل في زمن تكون فيه مشاعر المؤمن وتصرفاته عرضة للاستهزاء، كيركيغارد يرى الإيمان طبيعتنا المرعبة التي تمدنا بالقوة للتحرك وتفسير ما حولنا والخروج بنا من حلة المتفرج لحلة المُطبِّق، هو يرى أن الحقيقة هي تطبيقنا الفردي لذلك عارض الكثير من فلاسفة عصره.

  • Clif Hostetler
    2019-07-01 06:33

    Fear and Trembling was originally published in 1843 written in Danish and under a pseudonymous name. The purpose of the book was two fold. First Kierkegaard wanted to describe the nature of true faith using the story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac to illustrate the concept. Second he wanted to counter the philosophy of Hegel who maintained that reason was the highest form of thought. Kierkegaard argued that faith was higher than reason.However, Kierkegaard's understanding of faith was something different or beyond common understandings of the word in everyday usage. To distinguish the faith he's talking about Kierkeaard uses the term Knight of Faith. According to him anyone who says they are a Knight of Faith is by definition not a Knight of Faith. It is a personal characteristic that can't be shared. For that matter it can't be explained, understandable, or made rational. Nevertheless, this book attempts to do just that. My main problem with the book is that the story of nearly sacrificing a son as told in the story of Abraham and Isaac is abhorrent to my senses. I would much rather have faith explained using some other story. Ironically, the story of a father killing their child for supposedly honorable reasons seems to have been a fairly popular plot line in ancient literature. The two prominent examples noted in this book are the Agamemnon/Iphigenia and the Jephthah/daughter stories. These as well as the Abraham story had their origins in the Bronze Age and were probably passed along in the oral tradition many years before they were written down. I can see how a story like this would grab the attention of the listeners.Kierkegaard maintains that Abraham is a true Knight of Faith because he acted only in response to God's request and his planned action was known only to himself (and God). Agamemmon's and Jephthah's actions on the other hand were public and done to maintain personal honor, thus they are not true Knights of Faith.I'm inclined to believe that Hegel's philosophy makes more sense than Kierkegaard until it's pointed out that the Nazis and Communists used Hegel to prove that loyalty to the government was the highest calling. By contrast Kierkegaard's message places responsibility of one's action on the individual. Viewed that way Kierkegaard makes more sense. Although, the fact that I say Kierkegaard makes sense is an indication that I don't understand him properly because he says faith doesn't make sense.I would never read Fear and Trembling on my own initiative. It was discussed by Great Books KC group of which I am a part. Fortunately, members of the group are smarter than me so the discussion went well.

  • Emma
    2019-07-11 04:21

    I finished this book yesterday at my favourite Café. As I was sitting outside in my beret, smoking and drinking black coffee, I became a little self-conscious at the glances from passersby. Was the beret a little too 'Café philosophique'? Nah. So Fear and Trembling* discusses Abraham 'the father of faith' and his no-questions-asked agreement to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, at God's command. Kierkegaard says we cannot possibly understand Abrahams actions, his willingness to do the deed is incomprehensible; he didn't even freak out or get upset. He goes on to set out alternative paths for the Abraham and Isaac story, more comprehensible alternatives, but in each one Abraham fails the test of faith. Kierkegaard argues that the 'reason' shown in the alternatives paths can only ever undermine faith, not support it. The argument is interesting enough, that there are three basic ways of existing - the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious -and religion is only achieved through an irrational leap of faith, a passion that cannot be learned, that has to be experienced in order to be understood. Thus, we can never understand Abrahams actions. I find Kierkegaard's philosophy interesting and parts thought-provoking, but I didn't gain much new insight. My main issue, with this type of philosophy, is that it is tied to finding reasons to believe in god, it tries to accommodate a pre-existing belief (true of many philosophers) and that just doesn't resonate with me. That said, this book wasn't as hard going as I expected. I didn't even doze off and actually, I kinda enjoyed it. * everytime I read/write fear and trembling I get an image of Raoul and Dr Gonzo.

  • رؤیا (Roya)
    2019-07-03 07:21

    "کی یر کگارد ترس و لرز را بهترین کتاب خود می دانست. او میگفت این کتاب برای جاودانه کردن نام من کافی است. دیالکتیک تغزلی او, هنر او در وادار ساختن ما به حس کردن خصلت های ویژه این قلمرو مذهب...هرگز چنین ژرف بر ما تاثیر ننهاده است, و نیز هرگز روایتش تا این حد با شخصی ترین جدال هایش در پیوند نبوده است. به گفته هیرش این دشوارترین اثر کی یر کگارد است که در آن بیش از هر اثر دیگر به هر وسیله ای در سرگردان کردن خواننده کوشیده است."اولین خوانش من از کی یر کگارد که به نظر یکی از بهترین و در حین حال سخت ترین نوشتار این نویسنده هم بوده است که درکش را برای من بسیار دشوار میکرد بخصوص با نیمه آخر کتاب به سختی مانوس شده و معنایش را به زحمت درک کردم که شاید باید دوباره خوانی شود.ایمان یا به عبارتی ایمان واقعی که انسان را میلرزاند ایمانی است که با سهل الوصولی هیچ رابطه ای ندارد و برای فهم عمومی ساخته نشده است. ایمان واقعی گذشتن از مرز خود میباشد و به نمایش گذاشتن اخلاق به معنای واقعی کلمه است. ایمان واقعی قابل توضیح نیست و در اذهان عمومی انسان با ایمان انسانی دیوانه خطاب میشود. "در ایمان, فرد خدای آسمانها را تو خطاب می کند و در رابطه ای خصوصی با او قرار دارد. فرد به عنوان فرد در رابطه ای مطلق با مطلق وارد میشود. این همان حیطه تنهایی عظیم است. با همراه نمی توان به آن وارد شد, در آن هیچ آوای بشری شنیده نمی شود, هیچ چیز نمی تواند در آن تعلیم یا تبیین شود."دراین کتاب انسان معمولی که قهرمان تراژدی خطاب شده است میتواند دیگران را شاهد بگیرد اما شهسوار ایمان جز برای خدا و برای خویش عمل نمیکند و بنابراین درک مطلبش بسیار دشوار است. برای توضیح این ایمان, کی یر کگارد از داستان ابراهیم با جزییات و موشکافی زیرکانه ای بهره جسته است. مثال ابراهیم که هرروزه در زبان ادیان مختلف با سادگی بیان میشود و فقط در حد تحسین و تشویق به کسی که از خدایش حرف شنوی داشته است بازگو میشود به باور کی یر کگارد بسیار فراتر از یک داستان ساده و تحسین برانگیز است. "واعظ میتواند تا ربع ساعت به وعظ مانده بخوابد و مستمع می تواند به هنگام شنیدن چرت بزند, زیرا همه چیز برای هردو آسان و بی دردسر سپری میشود"... اما که ابراهیم درک نشدنی است و حرکتش خارج از تصور. آنچه که ابراهیم را به کاری غیر قابل تصور برانگیخت ایمان به محال بود "او به لطف محال ایمان داشت".به باور کی یر کگارد آنچه اهمیت دارد و انسان را بزرگ میکند کاری است که او انجام میدهد نه اتفاقی که برایش می افتد یا به عبارتی نتیجه اهمیتی ندارد این آغاز است که مهم میباشد. "اما مردم به نتیجه مثل پایان یک کتاب علاقه مندند و نمی خواهند چیزی از اضطراب, پریشانی و پارادوکس بشنوند." انسانهای بزرگ با لرزه بروجودشان از کاری که در پیش گرفته بودند بزرگ شده اند و این ترس اگر انکار شود به ایمان واقعی هرگز نخواهد انجامید.گرچه که با اصل مطلب بیان شده با نویسنده موافقت دارم اما هنوز در شک اینکه این ایمان ما را به کجا خواهد برد و خدا برای چه به عشق مطلق و یا سرسپرده گی تمام و کمال احتیاج دارد در مانده ام. شاید چون مطلب را درست متوجه نشدم و شاید چون هنوز به درجه معرفتی که کی یر کگارد اشاره کرده است نرسیده ام. هرچه که هست تلاش نویسنده در سرگردان کردن من خواننده بسیار موفق بوده است.

  • Khush
    2019-07-05 03:07

    I read this book in translation. I was in awe of its author. However, the book is an easy read and the central situation (that Abraham has to sacrifice his only son Issac on God's command) around which the whole text revolves is intriguing and interesting too. Almost on every second page, I would read a line or two, and then just reflect on what is relayed. For instance, ''Faith begins where reason stops,'' and there are long sentences that one can think about for a long time. I also think that this is one of those books one has to be read slowly. Look at this; ''If there was no eternal consciousness in man, if at the bottom of everything there was only a wildly seething power … if beneath everything there lurked a bottomless void never to be filled– what else were life but despair! if it were thus, and if there were no sacred bonds which knit mankind together, if one generation followed upon another like leaves in the forest … how hollow and without consolation life would be.''I also found the 'Notes' at the end of the book interesting. Kierkegaard did not write this book in his own name, but he was superbly conscious of its depth and worth. In fact, he was quite cocky about his achievement. In his journals, he wrote that this book alone has the strength to immortalize him. It is rare that someone knows his writing so well (or the content and value of his work) and can issue such definitive statements. I have admiration for him because all such claims finally became true, and he knew this all along.In contemporary world, especially in the western world, we talk a lot about 'culture', 'clash of civilizations', religions– particularly Islam. The West also has a very settled tendency to separate itself from the rest, and views its tradition and culture in strictly demarcated boundaries of East/West (so famously espoused by Kipling). However, there is a lot in the Danish philosopher that blurs these rigid binaries. One can trace several key concepts of Eastern Philosophy in his works; particularly Hinduism. The books dwells a lot on the idea of faith and what it means. The kind of significance that Kirekegaard assigns to 'Faith' somehow directs one's attention to the varied tropes of Islam in popular western imagination. Of course there is much in the book that is singularly Kirekegaard's –his contribution to the world.

  • Michael
    2019-07-18 03:13

    Faith, is “the paradox of existence.” It is “look[ing] impossibility in the eye.” As such, Faith is the subject of this work which Kierkegaard limns through the pseudonymous authorship–a stratagem that I think grants him some of the freedom reserved for the writer of fiction–of one Johannes de silentio. So who is Johannes de silentio? He is funny: “Here we already have plenty to speak of for several Sundays, so there is no need to rush.”down-to-earth(?): “Instead of learning from this that he (the puny sectarian) is incapable of greatness and plainly admitting it, something I cannot but approve since it is what I myself do…”and snarky: “I for my part have devoted considerable time to understanding the Hegelian philosophy, believe also that I have more or less understood it, am rash enough to believe that at those points where, despite the trouble taken, I cannot understand it, the reason is that Hegel himself hasn’t been altogether clear.”One might even say there is a bit humility in his admitting his rashness; and further, that in this humility, he will allow his readers to make similarly ‘rash’ claims:I for my part have devoted not all that much but some time to understanding the Kierkegaardian philosophy, believe also that I have more or less understood it, am rash enough to believe that I can underhandedly imply that I am being humble by likewise admitting my rashness after having just invoked ‘a bit’ of humility in Johannes de silentio’s admission, when I too claim that [I] am rash enough to believe that at those points where, despite the trouble taken, I cannot understand it, the reason is that Johannes de silentio himself hasn’t been altogether clear. Perhaps one could fairly say such a thing about almost any philosopher worth talking about. To Kierkegaard’s credit, I don’t think he is unaware of this. It (the understanding and communication of the abstract) is in fact the problem of human existence. In Fear and Trembling Johannes de silentio takes the liberty of making a very specific interpretation of the Abraham/Isaac story in order to convey his points. He wants us to believe that, for Abraham, it was the ultimate difficulty, not to nearly murder his son, but to believe, as he is going about the business of it, in the absurdity that he will do this oft frowned-upon deed of fatally knifing one’s own offspring and yet not lose the child. Okay? Now it seems easy enough to go along with Johannes when he says that the Knight of Faith, by clinging to what he is to sacrifice while yet performing it, is proving himself the doer of a more difficult and significant act than the Knight of Resignation, who gives up his attachment in order to perform the same act. And it also seems rather easy to think that for me or you believing in this absurdity may equate to some sort of ultimate act i.e. difficulty.But what I am suggesting is not ‘altogether clear’ in this work is the reason that this act is being deemed so difficult for Abraham. Primarily because Abraham, presumably unlike most everyone else, had been in a somewhat regular and relatively direct communion with God prior to his ultimate trial; and this, to my thinking, would certainly skew the threshold of what is thought to be human understanding. One might even claim that Johannes de silentio doesn’t even gloss over this fact. For Abraham, who has had many a talkin-to by the God–it turns out God literally put the ‘ha’ in Abraham; it being Abram prior to this little irony–can it really be that difficult to accept any kind of absurdity? My human understanding is based, at least partially, on the fact that God has been absent from my experience in a way that ‘he’ was not in Abraham’s. Long before Abraham raised is recently sharpened sacrificin-blade, his understanding, if it still could be called human understanding, had been obscured by his contact with the Infinite; and so, I tend to think, he is much better equipped to perform in paradox, and his performance isn’t quite the ultimate act of faith that Johannes de silentio wants it to be.That said, I do think Mr. de silentio or should I say Kierkegaard is doing something important here. He is seizing from our reason a concept–in this case ‘Faith’–and flinging it into the distance, so that it is strewn far from the feeble reach of our imagination (one wonders if perhaps Kierkegaard heard Depeche Mode’s ‘Personal Jesus’ –“reach out and touch faith”– one too many times that day), so that, if only for a moment, we stand humbled and awed by the limits, not of our current understanding, but by the limits of understanding itself. Humbled because it defines the human condition; awed because it points toward the Infinite. And this move, I think, is something that is done far too seldom in our attempts to understand the world, be it through philosophy, religion, science etc. By his, perhaps retrofitted, perhaps retro-omitted, retelling of the Abraham/Isaac story, he is recognizing the absurdity of the human condition. And by our listening to this retelling, along with a bit of Kierkegaard biography we can see a sort of double allegory of this, our human condition:A translator’s note tells us that Kierkegaard wrote in his journal the same year that Fear and Trembling came on the scene: “If I had faith I would have stayed with Regine.” Regine, it seems, is Kierkegaard’s Isaac from whom he broke off his marriage, presumably for ambitions higher than her petty finiteness. Is it possible that Kierkegaard’s regret informs–or, if you will, corrupts–Johannes de silentio’s faith that having Faith will reward one with one’s finite desires as well as reconciling one with the Infinite? As if unable to escape the torture of what he’d given up, he makes Faith an impossible move wherein it is possible to have one’s cake and eat it too. But then, who among us is free of doing such things?Despite said contentions, despite this being my first foray into the Kierkegaardian Canon, I have reason to believe that Søren is not so susceptible to such flaws in other works. In my quick search for an image, I came across so many superlative quotes that I’ve realized I’ve been going along with a Kierkegaardian shaped hole in my life; so now illumed, I’m determined to fill the void. And for that, one of those quotes to hold me (and perhaps you) over: “A fire broke out backstage in a theater. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that’s just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it’s a joke.”To me, being this serious and this funny at the same time is the mark of brilliance.

  • شهرزاد
    2019-07-21 03:29

    عنوان دیگر و دقیق تری که برای این کتاب میتوان انتخاب کرد: دیالکتیک ایماندر انتخاب مترجم برای خواندن این کتاب باید دقت بسیاری داشت!از متن:"ایمان دقیقا از همان جایی آغاز می شود که عقل پایان می یابد."

  • Sean Wilson
    2019-07-18 09:07

    I'll wholeheartedly admit that I don't completely understand everything in these kinds of philosophy books as I'm not a Kierkegaard scholar and I'm certainly not a philosophy scholar, but I do understand his messages, his profound messages hidden in a cobweb of philosophical jargon, Christian study, Greek mythology references, European fairy tales and some poetry sprinkled on top of it all.Fear and Trembling is his investigation into the paradox of faith, his complex analysis of Christianity and of human emotions. In this book, Kierkegaard looks into the anxiety of Abraham and the sacrifice of his son Isaac, his complete devotion to God and its dangerous paradoxical reality. His meditations on the individual self, infinite resignation and the knight of faith are sublime examples of existential thought, acute psychological insight and keen awareness of the human condition.What makes Kierkegaard different from other philosophers, however, is his wit, his irony, his brilliant sense of humour and poetic prose, which makes Fear and Trembling an immeasurably great work of philosophy as well as literature at its purest.(Brief thought: What if Søren Kierkegaard wrote novels? Hmm, interesting...)

  • Amin Dorosti
    2019-07-13 08:13

    بی تردید این کتاب از هر جهت کتابی فوق العاده است. کتابی ست که تو را با خود به لبه های پرتگاه انسان می برد، به مرزهای اخلاق، مرزهای دین داری، مرز های ایمان، و مرزهای انسانیت. کتاب حکایت ترس و لرز است، ترس و لرزی که به واقع سراپای هستی انسان را یک آن فرا میگیرد و انسان در می ماند، خشک و ناتوان. از آن دست ترس و لرزهایی که در زندگی هر کسی رخ نمی دهد!! ترس و لرزی که چه بسا باید ابراهیم باشی تا بتوانی بدان بترسی و به خود بلرزی، و البته اسماعیل (اسحاق)!این کتاب یکی از مهم ترین کتاب هایی ست که در سنت فلسفه هستی (اگزیستانس) جای میگیرد و آن را می توان به نوعی سرآغاز فلسفه هستی دانست. به دوستانی که این کتاب را میخوانند توصیه میکنم که ترجیحا ترجمه جناب رشیدیان را بخوانند که ایشان هم فلسفه میداند و هم زبان و هم اهل ادب ادبیات است و حقا که به خوبی از عهدۀ کار دشوار ترجمه چنین کتابی بر آمده است.توصیه دیگر اینکه پس از خواندن این کتاب فیلم نوح را هم تماشا کنیدخواندن این کتاب و دیدن این فیلم در کنار هم لذتهایی ست که خوب با هم جفت و جور می شوند؛ شاید به همان خوبی که ترس با لرز جور و جفت می افتد!

  • Karl
    2019-06-24 09:26

    "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." "The most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one you'll never have." Such a happy guy. I think the old sitcom Family Ties got it right when the Dad was reading "Kierkegaard for Dads." He summed it up by saying that "no matter how depressed I am, he is even more depressed. I find that strangely comforting."Now somebody needs to write Kierkegaard for Dads.

  • Matt
    2019-07-14 04:08

    One of the most powerful examinatons of religious faith I have ever read. It is written deeply, exactingly, disturbingly. If you take it for what it is, it will give you an emotional tumble, a mental workout, and a spiritual shake by the shoulders.This is the kind of thing they keep a thousand miles from Sunday school. The real, raw, fucked-up aspects of believing in the Big Man Upstairs. This is one of the most influential Christian texts one can find in the modern era, and I originally had that word in quotes because I mean 90% of the books that use the term wouldn't have any idea how to stand up to its poetic, rigorous, existential theological onslaught.I mean, I reject Christianity, but this I respect even if I humbly disavow some of the theological points it necessarily takes from the Bible (and for granted, at that!).Kierkegaard wrote it from the perspective of the unbeliever, one of his many fictional counterparts, and this narrator is astonished by what he is describing, even as he describes it.It should go without saying that what is promulgated nowadays through Christian media etc. is animal crackers and cheeze wizz. This is thunder and roiling oceans, way beyond fire and brimstone, into real horror and logical explosion.The analytical, dialectical examination of the entire situation will knock you on your ass. I've read the damn thing five or six times (senior thesis in Philosophy) and it got to the point where I actually felt like I was (forgive me) Communicating with Kierkegaard, having gone over the arguments and the language again and again. Even then, it threw me for a loop...."Fear And Trembling" is the moment when Abraham brings Isaac to the mountain, having been called upon to sacrifice him by God. He doesn't want to do it, he's horrified to do it, but do it he must. It can't be explained, reasoned away, or retroactively justified, and anyone who tries to is missing the point entirely. It can't be explained, it can only be Represented. Marveled at, as Kierkegaard does. This is one of the few representations of that existential moment, also known as the Absurd- and the enormous, terrifying leap of faith that it requires- you will ever find."The teleological suspension of the ethical"- aka "morality don't mean shit when it comes to matters of faith" is a big, sticky, problem. We see it all the time in the news, and the nightmare logic touches on church/state, terrorism, visions, war, love, death....all the most important and provocative (in the literal sense of the word) issues of our time. These issues, of course, never EVER go away...there are so many uncomfortable parts of the fucked-up human psyche that this touches on that it seems like human beings can't overcome the Absurd even in what they think of as their deepest and most authentic actions. Nietzsche (whom I always suspected as having more in common with Kierkegaard than is usually imagined) once wrote that whatever occurs outside of love occurs beyond good and evil. That's a little taste of the kind of thing you're in for if you take on this story/tract/mediation/manifesto/prose poem.

  • Cap
    2019-06-20 01:06

    I first read this piece in a philosophy class devoted entirely to Kierkegaard. At the time I wasn't overly enthralled with his work. I think I was partly turned off by the know it all sophomore in the graduate level class who insisted on being smack dab in the middle and dominating every conversation. In the years since, however, after reading other existentialist authors, and seeing K's influence on them, I've gone back to some of his more accessible works. I especially like that most of his philosophy is based in Christianity and biblical passages. The upshot is that you don't need to know generations of philosophers that came before in order to understand what's going on, as long as you've got some background in scripture. I guess the other side of that coin is that if you don't, it seems like he's talking about the same thing for hundreds of pages instead of myriad facets of that thing. Fear and Trembling, in the end, is about faith. Not just belief, but what Kierkegaard saw as the foundation of a religious life. The belief that comes despite all indications to the contrary. In opening up his lecture, he starts with several versions of the way the Abraham and Isaac story could have gone, and in each of them, he fails the test of faith. K is trying to show what a crazy hard thing real faith is to attain.It's a difficult read. I have to take it in little pieces and occassionally throw in another book to keep myself sane. But if you're struggling with the concept of belief and devotion to something greater than yourself (something I've never figured out), it definitely raises useful questions.

  • نرگس
    2019-06-26 08:14

    حالا که دارم بیماری به سوی مرگ رو می‌خونم این کتاب برام شکل جدیدی پیدا کرده. و راستش فکر می‌کنم این اختلاف چندین ساله در خواندن این دو کتاب برای من بسیار مناسبت داشته. ترس و لرز رو در اوایل دهه‌ی بیست زندگیم خوندم، وقتی سر بسیار پرشوری داشتم و بهترین توصیف برای من "ایده‌آلیست" بود. سرخوردگی ناشی از مواجهه‌ی تدریجی با واقعیت اما داشت تلخی غریبی رو به ذهنم تحمیل می‌کرد. در اون وقت خوندن ترس و لرز مثل بازیافتن یک ایمان از دست رفته بود. نوعی ایمان اومانیستی به خودم. ایمان با این کتاب برای من سر و شکل جدیدی پیدا کرد، و در خیلی از اوقات سخت بعد از اون تا الان موجب آرامشم شد. حتما بعد از تمام کردن بیماری به سوی مرگ دوباره ترس و لرز رو خواهم خوند تا ببینم این مسیحی تمام قد برای من باز چه در چنته داره.

  • Melika Khoshnezhad
    2019-06-21 08:27

    برای من فلسفه ی کیرکگارد شاید خلاصه بشه در داستان ابراهیم و برتری ساحت ایمان نسبت به ساحت اخلاقی. وقتی کیرکگارد داستان ابراهیم و اینکه حاضر میشه اسحاق رو چون خدا گفته قربانی کنه تعریف می کنه مو بر تن آدم سیخ میشه. اما علاوه بر اون باعث میشه که آدم وحشتناکی اینو بفهمه که ایدئولوژی باعث میشه چه کارهایی از آدما سر بزنه. همین که حاضر باشیم اخلاق رو به اسم خدا، مذهب یا هر عقیده ی دیگه ای کنار بگذاریم باعث شده هم در طول تاریخ هم الان جهان انقدر وحشتناک شه و درسته که منظور کیرکگارد دقیقا همین نبوده ولی وقتی خودشم میگه ابراهیم رو درک نمیکنه، چرا باید اصلا از برتری ساحت ایمان نسبت به اخلاق حرف بزنه؟

  • Tanuj Solanki
    2019-07-14 04:21

    The Grand Leap of FaithFirst published in The New Indian ExpressI hope it is still in vogue among college-going folk to discuss not just the important matters of the day, but also vain philosophical question like, ‘What is the meaning of life?’ Or: ‘Is there a God, and if there is a God, how are we to act?’I remember discussing such things with friends in the wee hours of hostel rooftop parties. Although the arguments never resolved, they made us feel the need to be better prepared. Anyone who could quote Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, or any of the other famous philosopher-writers, usually had an edge. Thus, reading became a necessity to be able to prove a point—at least the more objective of us felt so.Out of nostalgia or otherwise, some of the habits have persisted in me. With close friends, I still seek out opportunities to promote discussion on such quandaries. And I read philosophy to get a better understanding of how individuals more intelligent than me have thought of these questions.One of the names I have found myself quoting more frequently these days is Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a Danish theologian and philosopher in the 19th century, whom later philosophers labeled a ‘Christian existentialist.’ This is to say that he pondered the same question that existentialists do—human conduct in the face of the meaninglessness of life—but gave a Christian solution to it.Among his earliest works, the slim ‘Fear and Trembling’ is considered a masterpiece. In it, Kierkegaard complicates the Biblical story of Abraham, who was instructed by God to sacrifice his dear son, Isaac, atop a mountain. There is a three day journey between the instruction and the scheduled sacrifice. Kierkegaard brings our attention to this period, forcing us to consider Abraham’s state of mind. What drove Abraham? What made him carry out an instruction that must have, at times, appeared harsh and absurd even to him?Kierkegaard posits that since Abraham fulfills an absolute duty to God, of obedience, the ethical paradigm—which makes killing Isaac a crime—is suspended in his case. Note that this absolute duty isn’t a transaction: Abraham isn’t offered any virgins in paradise as compensation. For Kierkegaard, Abraham’s faith is in fact a faith in the strength of the absurd—that God, whose will is not to be questioned, will also somehow make things right. Kierkegaard thus considers faith a supremely difficult task. “Faith…is not the immediate inclination of the heart but the paradox of existence.” To be faithful is to lead an absurd life and yet have the courage to grasp what is bound to appear an even larger absurdity: the idea of God.

  • Yann
    2019-06-30 08:26

    Encore une fois, je suis fâché de ne pas connaître assez Hegel : tant d'auteurs qui se liguent contre lui, et je ne comprends jamais vraiment pourquoi! Dans cet ouvrage, Søren Kierkegaard, un philosophe danois du XIXème siècle nous propose d'examiner quelques paradoxes afin d'éprouver la relation entre la foi et la raison. Pour ce faire, il part à la racine de la foi monothéiste, l'histoire d'Abraham, dont le moment clef est l'épreuve que Yahvé lui impose en lui demandant de sacrifier l'un de ses fils. Abraham s'exécute, et n'est finalement arrêté fort peu de temps avant l'instant fatal par le truchement d'un envoyé. L'auteur nous invite à évaluer les actes d'Abraham, est-il un héros de la foi ou un simple meurtrier ? Pour l'auteur, on se trouve face à un mystère qui mérite d'être examiné soigneusement. Et à vrai dire, j'ai été très intéressé par son ton personnel et franc, qui avec honnêteté et sans concessions, ne se contente pas de clamer une foi superficielle, mais en examine toute les conséquences, et en particulier les plus désagréables. Oui! Ces histoires bibliques, qu'elles viennent de l'ancien ou du nouveau testament sont envoutantes et fascinantes, c'est un héritage riche dont on ne finira jamais de se nourrir. On n'a guère le sentiment avec Kierkegaard d'avoir affaire à un imposteur qui cherche à en imposer à son auditoire pour la gloriole, mais plutôt à une âme inquiète et exaltée en quête de vérité. Pour autant, en dépit de ces bonnes recommandations, il est difficile de le suivre au bout de ses raisonnements. Il voit dans la conduite d'Abraham une attitude à la foi contraire à l'éthique et conforme à la foi. Quand j'avais lu dans Philon cet épisode, j'avais été un peu secoué, surtout par la réaction enthousiasmée de l'auteur qui m'avait stupéfait. Mais éthique, cela signifie conforme aux habitudes, suivant le grec, la même étymologie que moral en latin. Abraham aurait vécu il y a près de 4000 ans. Nous savons qu'à cette époque, les sacrifices humains faisaient partie des mœurs de ses voisins, adorateurs de Ba'al et d'Astarté. A la même époque, Agamemnon sacrifiait sa fille Iphigénie. Il y a deux mille ans, en Gaule, d'après Caïus César, les Celtes perpétraient des sacrifices en brulant de gigantesques prisons d'osier de forme humaine remplies de malheureuses victimes. Il y a cinq siècles, les Aztèques sacrifiaient des milliers de prisonniers, car leurs prêtres les avaient convaincus que cela était nécessaire à la rotation du soleil. Au seins de ces peuples, il aurait été difficile de trouver des détracteurs à ces pratiques, sauf à prendre des hommes qui raisonnent et qui pensent, lesquels sont rarement en majorité. A mon avis, il n'y a donc pas lieu de croire qu'Abraham ait pu avoir le sentiment de violer l'éthique de son temps en accomplissant l'ordre qui lui fut intimé. Un autre source du paradoxe consiste à considérer que Yahvé est parfaitement bon, un peu comme la divinité philosophique de Platon, et surtout qu'Abraham le savait. Comment Yahvé a-t-il pu former le projet de tenter (ἐπείραζεν) Abraham? Comment Abraham a-t-il pu suivre un ordre cruel sans manifester la moindre mauvaise volonté ? Or il me semble que la divinité de l'ancien testament est très semblable aux dieux païens, à ce Zeus qui dit-on avait deux jarres devant lui, l'une de remplie de biens, et l'autre remplie de maux, et qu'il les distribuaient aux hommes suivant sa volonté. Cette nature ambivalente de la divinité, elle est à l'image de la nature, qui d'un côté nous offre la vie, les biens, les plaisirs, mais d'un autre côté nous frappe avec la mort, les maladies, et les catastrophes. Ce caractère arbitraire de la nature, les hommes du passé l'ont appliqué à l'esprit qu'il lui prêtaient, et ont cherché naturellement à se la concilier par de bons offices et des flatteries, comme on apaise un puissant fou et chaotique. C'est ainsi que Yahvé, après avoir englouti la terre sous les eaux, se repent, et en sentant le bon fumet qu'exhale les sacrifices de Noé, se promet d'épargner la terre à l'avenir, acheté comme n'importe quel dieu païen par des odeurs de grillades. Ce n'est pas la nécessité fatale que l'on peut fléchir par une corruption obséquieuse, de flatteries et des cadeaux, c'est une âme inquiétante et familière, que l'on aime et que l'on craint à la fois, pour le bien et le mal qu'il dépend d'elle de nous prodiguer. Μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἱς πειρσαμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. On raconte que l'empereur Caligula riait un jour subitement lors d'un banquet. A ses parasites qui lui demandaient la raison de sa gaité, il leur répondit que c'était la pensée qu'un simple signe de sa tête pouvait signifier leur mort à tous. Malheur à celui dont le destin dépend d'un pareil tyran! Mais n'est ce pas l'état de l'homme primitif, livré aux aléas d'une nature tout à la fois prodigue et hostile, dont il ne perce pas les desseins, mais dont il dépend entièrement, lorsque la science et la technique ne lui on pas encore donné les moyens de s'en rendre maître ? Quelle soulagement s'il peut au moins s'attirer sa bienveillance!Mais est-ce que Kierkegard nous parle de cette divinité naturelle primitive? Ou est-ce qu'il nous parle du dieu des philosophes, du dieu de Platon, d'un dieu éthéré, purement idéal et sans défauts que Philon d'Alexandrie a transposé dans sa religion, en commentant le pentateuque dans le sens métaphorique plutôt que dans le sens obvie, et que les chrétiens ont repris ? Platon était choqué par la superstition de ses contemporains, par les récits des poètes qui prêtaient aux divinités des comportements amoraux, et qui recevaient ensuite des dévotions. Il lui semblait plus utile qu'une divinité soit parfaitement bonne. Qu'ont en commun la divinité naturelle et la divinité philosophique ? Bien peu de choses, mais pour celui qui les identifie, toutes les difficultés qui surgissent, lorsqu'il en examine les conséquences, deviennent autant de mystères qui l'embarrasseraient, si sa présomption ne lui dictait de considérer comme un triomphe d'avoir par sa foi confondu la raison, et de mépriser la torpeur tranquille des paresseux étourdis. Ceux-là ne se donnent même pas la peine d'éprouver leurs opinions au feu des paradoxes. Mais si on ne les confond pas, on retombe sur la bonne vieille question: y'a-t-il un absolu moral ? Et où faut-il le chercher ? Du côté de l'individu ou du général ? Je ne sais pas, et je ne vois pas où Kierkegaard veut me mener. Et s'il n'y en avait pas, pourquoi devrais-je être désespéré ? Bref, un livre stimulant, mais qui laisse également perplexe...

  • Mohammad Mahdi Fallah
    2019-07-19 07:24

    ترس و لرز هرچند ظاهری شاعرانه دارد ولی به تمام معنای یک اثر کلاسیک فلسفی است؛ پر از ایده‌های بکر و ظرایف فلسفی که فقط می‌توان با خواندن مکرر در مکرر متن از آنان پرده برداشت. شاید لذت‌بخش‌ترین بخش متن، موقعیت کیرکگور در نسبت با ابراهیم است: موقعیت سخن گفتن از تجربه «امر سخن‌ناپذیر» دیگری؛ شخصیتی که کیرکگور برای خود در ابتدای کتاب ترسیم می‌کند شاعر و سخنور این شهسوار ایمان است، هرچند که در متن دارد که متن شاعر نیستم ولی جز به این طریق، به چه شکلی می‌توان موقعیت او را در نسبت با ابراهیم توضیح داد؟ شاید از اساس فهم فیگور خود کیرکگور است که امکان جدیدی برای دین‌داری را در عصر ما فراهم می‌کند و نه الگویی که ارائه می‌کند که از قضا ایمان از خلال آن ناممکن می‌شود. در عصری که در آن از همان ابتدا ایمان در اولین گام رخت برمی‌بندد و پارادوکس آن قابل فهم نیست، چگونه می‌توان مؤمن بود؟ شاید برخلاف کیرکگور باید از تلاش برای فائق آمدن بر عصر کنونی گذر کنیم و از قضا، موضع غیرقابل فهم بودن ایمان ابراهیم را وضع مستقر خود قلمداد کنیم.پ.ن: مدت ها بود که با کتابی نگریسته و نخندیده بودم؛ این کتاب برای من حیات یک زندگی بود.

  • علی‌رضا میم
    2019-07-07 02:32

    تموم شدنش مصادف شد با شب تاسوعا،و این بیت که آخرش میگهکه ابراهیم وعده کرد و حسین به جا آورد

  • Crito
    2019-06-27 02:05

    Kierkegaard's aim is to explain a paradox, the act of which is a knowing paradox unto itself. And since it's a work of irony and contradiction, it gives him a pretty good critical angle in exploring the contradiction in ethics, aesthetics, theology, and elsewhere. It's a fairly original piece, and his embrace of the absurd is a pretty clear cut prelude to existentialism. However with the originality comes its paradoxical incommensurability, beyond the critiques it intends itself almost as more of an aesthetic expression, and its ethical thesis is a half ironic half lyrical suggestion which turns ones everyday choices into Borges' Garden of Forking Paths. The exploration of paradox is the real meat here, and puts it in a niche place where I can't see myself returning to this work for any particular reason or clarification. It gives the feeling that his other works are comparatively more fleshed out. It was fine though, I'd recommend it.

  • kaśyap
    2019-06-29 07:24

    Søren’s pseudonymous author Johannes de Silentio here is trying to come to grips with faith.Johannes de Silentio himself doesn't seem to understand faith. He is filled with awe and admiration for Abraham but cannot understand him.Is Abraham a tragic hero? Or is he just a murderer? Or is he a knight of faith?Abraham here is a knight of faith because he is not just resigned to the fact that he needs to sacrifice his son but he believes that he will not lose Isaac on the strength of absurd. He has made a movement of faith here. This movement of faith is absolutely relating oneself to the absolute. Faith here presupposes resignation. Resignation is overcome by taking the leap of faith. So faith comes after reason and not before. It begins exactly where reason ends.There’s an interesting part at the end where he mentions the only words that Abraham spoke. When Isaac asks Abraham where the lamb for the burnt offering is, Abraham replies " My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering"If Abraham wasn't a knight of faith, he would have answered in a bitter and different way like "I do not know" as he was only filled with resignation.Why should we try to understand Abraham? Why can't we just call him a murderer and move on? Trying to understand Abraham will help other anguished and isolated souls. De Silentio gives us other examples of these anxious souls, the knights of resignation. Most of them involving romantic love.Translator somewhere mentions that at some point while writing this book, Søren wrote in his diary that if he had enough faith, he would have stayed with Regine.So it seems here that Søren himself was a knight of resignation, his movement of infinite resignation being the break-up of his engagement with Regine and he was trying to make the movement of faith.What an intense and passionate man.This was an amazing read.