Religious Life Kierkegaard example essay topic

A clear understanding of what Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) meant by the 'suspension of the ethical' can be achieved upon careful study of his wider philosophies on stages or aspects of an individual's life. In this short text I will examine these philosophies, exploring what Kierkegaard meant by each one. I'll then put into context these stages of life by looking at them in relation to that which Kierkegaard's text 'Fear and Trembling' (in which he introduces the concept of a teleological suspension of the ethical) is based on: that being the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. Finally, I'll examine the problems of his theory and explore some of the presumptions and pre-requisites it necessitates. Firstly I find it necessary to understand the context in which Kierkegaard wrote and believed the philosophies we now explore. Kierkegaard's writings were not without a purpose or agenda.

His own life was the source by which he details his wider more abstract theories on life in general. He is intrinsically linked to the Christian faith, and he writes with that in the forefront of his mind. Indeed, 'Fear and Trembling' itself is based upon a passage of scripture which Kierkegaard examines and bases his points upon. The point Kierkegaard is making ultimately is that he believes that the 'religious's tage of life (one of three he feels he has discovered) is the one that means the most and should be desired. Kierkegaard identifies an existential progression between these stages which is, on initial study, contradicted by the passage of scripture he tackles.

It is by examining these stages that the answer to the question set can be revealed. The first of these stages is the aesthetic. For Kierkegaard, this is the lowest for of being. For a particular human being to lead an aesthetic existence would require him to indulge purely in sensuous pleasures. The implication in the aesthetic is that only the external provides value. However, Kierkegaard's suggestion is that this level of being lacks anything outside of itself.

Its value, he submits, is void of meaning and direction and those who inhabit this existence simply pass from one meaningless gratification of the senses to the next with no real purpose. There is, according to Kierkegaard, a progression of sorts to a higher stage of life. A transition to a level being in which the particular is subsumed, that is transported and incorporated by, the next in the level of existence, the ethical. At this stage, an individual is living in accordance with what he describes as the 'universal good' and in this the ethical is senseless.

What I mean by that is that the ethical requires the abdication of the individual in accordance with the universal good. Yet the ethical cannot exist without the individual to give it form. The individual turns inward and considers the aim of life in respect to himself. In one sense it empowers the aesthetic with value and meaning, thus the gratification of the senses can become the appreciation of beauty. However, Kierkegaard regards the religious stage of life not only to be the highest, but also imperative in giving the ethical meaning and direction.

By 'religious life' Kierkegaard is referring to the encountering and acceptance of his, the Christian, God. It isn't clear if the 'religious' is confined only to his God, or whether differing personal beliefs have a place within Kierkegaard's definition of this level of being. The 'religious' makes sense of the ethical, according to Kierkegaard. Apparently inferring that doing good for the sake of good is meaningless and closer to an egoistic sense of aesthetic gratification then meaningful existence, Kierkegaard looks to the religious to give life direction and telos, that is purpose. For the benefit of 'Fear and Trembling', Abraham is this 'religious' man. In the biblical story, Abraham is required by God to premeditate the sacrifice of his son as a sign of his faith to God.

This presents Kierkegaard with a problem, as although the 'religious' life is a distinct and separate level of being from the 'ethical', the transition is a subsumption. That is, the religious provides the ethical with an additional depth rather then a complete reversal of values. It appears that there is a contradiction here, as in what is universally good (that being, in this case, not killing your own child) is abandoned by the very religion or God that provides it with meaning and purpose. To provide for this contradiction, Kierkegaard identifies the telos of God. In this situation, God requires a sign from Abraham that he is faithful to him. That is God's purpose in asking this of Abraham.

The ethical, far from being removed from Kierkegaard's equation, is merely suspended so that the purpose; the end result; the telos of God, can be achieved. This is what Kierkegaard means when he refers to the 'teleological suspension of the ethical'. There are a number of problems with this though. The first is the apparently complete distinction between the 'religious' and 'morality'. The nature of the goodness of God can surely be called into question if a teleological suspension of what is morally good is required, even for just a fraction of time, in order to follow the will of God.

Further more, if God's purpose involves a suspension of the universal good, then Kierkegaard's theories seriously falter. For how can the ethical be defined, as Kierkegaard defines it, as an alignment with the universal good, if that good can be suspended on account of a 'higher good', that is the telos of God Is Kierkegaard suggesting that there are two levels of good, perhaps, and that when one reaches the 'religious' it is on occasion necessary to act in accordance with the higher good and deny the good by which those living by the 'ethical' live their lives Kierkegaard seems short on answers when one considers the inevitable confrontation between these to conflicting sources of 'goodness', which lead to an apparent potential contradiction of the 'highest good' which Kierkegaard has identified. Of course, in the example of Abraham and Isaac, the suspension of the ethical for the purposes of the religious did not result in this conflict between goodness (discounting the premeditation involved in the mind of Abraham) for God stopped Abraham before he ended his child's life. Therefore in this case the implication is that the telos of God was to observe a demonstration of obedience in Abraham and not to kill Isaac.

However in the very suspension of the ethical, God contradicts himself and the philosophy of Kierkegaard in this respect requires further explanation. For God must be the constant in order for the stages of life to work. It is impossible for God to override himself yet that is apparently what has happened here - God has contradicted himself in order for his purposes to be fulfilled. The only way God could not have contradicted himself is if there was no suspension of the ethical, which is a real possibility. For if it was not a command of God to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and it was merely a test of Abraham's faithfulness, then God did not override his own commands and nature, as there was no commandment that Isaac should die.

In this sense, in as much as there was no command, there was also no suspension of the ethical. In conclusion, to suggest that there is any kind of suspension of the ethical, in as far as Kierkegaard describes the ethical, is to deny the very notion of the religious and its place within leading a good life. For the ethical is the attunement of life to the universal good. And for God to suspend this good in order to fulfil a purpose which by logic would not include the good it usually would is to deny the very notion that this good was truly 'good' in the first place.

The idea that God would use the unethical - put into action a sequence of events that is contrary to the universal good - to appropriate his purpose not only calls into question the value of God, or of the universal good, but also leads to misinterpretations of God whose manifestations are violence and wars. The only reasonable explanation, if God is to be upheld and Kierkegaard's philosophies are to be believed, is that there was no suspension of the ethical at all; that God remained consistent and his suggestion to Abraham that he kill his own son was a test of Abraham's obedience and nothing more. Further questions regarding the morality of a God that would use such apparently hideous ways to 'test' his worshipers also lead us to call into question the 'good' that one empowers this figure with, all leading to the conclusion I make the these stages Kierkegaard present us with, in connection with this passage of Scripture, require further attention.