
The paper prompt:
In the “Problema I †in Fear and Trembling, Johannes de silentio speaks of a “Teleological Suspension of the Ethical.†What is this teleological suspension of the ethical? Include a discussion of why Abraham is said to represent an exception to the ethical and why “tragic heroes†are not. And please explain what you take to be at stake in this discussion (i.e., what are the theological or ethical implications of this discussion).
The first part of this question I could answer in a sentence: It means prioritizing a particular goal above one’s ethical duties (as commonly conceived–Kierkegaard isn’t partial to any particular ethical system). I dislike it when people use big fat philosocrap words for things that really aren’t that hard to explain. But it’s the phrase Kierkegaard uses (or something like it; I mean, it’s a translation from Danish)…
Despite the apparent obscurity of the question, I really, really like Fear and Trembling. And I want to write this paper on it. But. I have so many questions, phrased so colloquially, that I don’t know how well I’ll be able to construct them into a three-page paper due tomorrow. I’ll probably end up writing my ten-page final paper on this book, too…
God Himself tells you to cut your child’s throat. Not for any greater good–not to save your town or uphold the law or defend your country as Jephthah or Brutus or Agamemnon (for the purposes of this argument) did. Because God told you to, and nothing else. Do you do it? Or do you tell God to f*** off?
What is it about faith that people admire so much, anyway? Anyone with half a brain, religious or not, will recoil in horror when a father murders his son. So why does Abraham get the praise and respect of not one, but THREE major religions? Every year whole sermons get delivered on this Bible story, all glossing over the fact that, while *we* know Isaac’s okay in the end, Abraham *doesn’t*. For three days, he as good as kills Isaac. Religion must fear this story, notwithstanding how much it lauds its protagonist.
Kierkegaard’s Problemata III extends the problem further. The question is whether it was ethical for Abraham to not tell Sarah, Isaac, or anybody else about what he was planning to do. Kierkegaard’s discussion points out that “God told me to” is not a valid argument. I don’t know if God told *you* to, but He certainly didn’t tell me! God is not something that works in communication.
The obvious extension of this problem is regarding *any* matter of faith, not just murdering children. Want to see how? Ask a bunch of Christians why they believe in God. I’ve heard a few bad arguments commonly used as answers to this:
“Because [so-and-so; often the Apostle Paul] became a Christian; if he could be so convinced as to convert, God must exist!” Great. You don’t believe in God. You believe in so-and-so. Your faith is that he was not mistaken, crazy, or lying–while all the other religions’ claimants to prophethood/conversion were wrong. Good luck with that.
“Because nature is so beautiful, etcetera.” Yes, flowers and stars are pretty. Science agrees very much! But there’s an awful lot of ugly things in nature, for example tapeworms and tsunamis. If the vague feeling of “beauty” is your only argument for the existance of a God (let alone the whole Jesus Christ/Ten Commandments/big honkin’ holy book baggage)… can I interest you in various forms of paganism?
Then you have the personal stories. Life-changing experiences, when you could just FEEL God walking with you. Visions, voices in your head, that sort of thing.
At that point, you have a sort of paradox. It is clear that the person you’re talking to has a logical reason to believe in God. Unless they have a history of mental illness or some other explanatory circumstance, they cannot be expected to discount their personal experience of God; otherwise, they’d have to doubt *all* the things their senses tell them! Their belief is logical–for them.
For you, the listener, on the other hand, you’re put in the same position as the believer in my first bad argument. If their testimony is going to have any logical impact on you, you’d have to put absolute faith in them, a fallible human being. That’s not something most people will (or should) do. There’s so many easier, more logical explanations for why they think that’s what they saw/heard/felt. Modern neuroscience is all about poking people’s brains and making them have out-of-body experiences and whatnot. While it can’t be proven that their prophetic vision was really a brain fart…which explanation are you gonna default to?
Faith is not a thing that can be communicated. It defies expression.
The most interesting Christians are those that dodge or refuse the question. They’ve already figured this out. What’s the point in trying, if it just opens you up to pity or ridicule without any chance of benefit?
And yet… So many religious figures, particularly evangelical ones, put SO much emphasis on testifying: sharing one’s personal experiences with God. Lots of people see faith as an interpersonal thing, and believe it both can and should be built upon in a communal setting. Churches are social structures. What is their answer to Kierkegaard? He’s been around for almost 150 years…surely someone has come up with a viable counterargument? I’m honestly quite curious. This might be the focus of my final paper.
On a lighter note, when we read the Abraham story in the Genesis, I couldn’t stop thinking about the Holy Bibble version (starts here, or maybe here). Tee hee hee.
I had thought that, by getting up early, I would be able to give myself lots of time to explore Bern even after four hours’ train travel. Indeed, I was in Bern by noon. The problem was, the hostel receptionist wasn’t–lunch break was from 11 to 3. And I wasn’t going to get far in Bern with no map and lugging all my baggage around.
Despite the delay, I still had a good time in Bern. I had my picture taken with the fountain near the hostel with an ogre eating babies. Mmm, babies. I bought a crêpe with Nutella from a crêpe stand and then watched two old men play chess with oversized pieces on a public board in the ground, while a passel of other old men shouted advice and jeers in German. I visited Einstein’s house (not all that impressive, especially since everything’s labeled in German) and got a picture of
It was too late to visit the bear pits and I decided Gurten was too expensive, so then I arbitrarily decided to visit Rosengarten. I got there at sunset and it was AMAZING. So many roses, many still in bloom–it was much bigger than either the Scripps or the Swarthmore rose gardens. There were fountains, an old playground with a carousel, and a restaurant.
And the view! My God! Sitting on the wall, looking down at the entire old town wrapped in the river Aare with the soft orange of early twilight, and mountains on either side… who needs Gurten for such a view! The park was well-occupied while I was there: by two guys tossing a disc on the lawn; by cadres of young men, mostly dressed in black, puffing smoke from hand-rolled cigarettes and laughing; and by a lot of couples also admiring the view. Something about that light, as I watched it fall on the students sitting on benches with their sketchpads under the brown and yellow trees… It was heartbreaking. Perhaps the moment I most missed Nelson this semester.
The train ride from Zurich to Lugano was quite enjoyable. The mountains got taller and rockier and mistier as we chugged southward. I saw a few peaks with snow. Switzerland truly wins the Most Badass View award. I mean, one of those deep blue mountain lakes with some cottages nestled into the green hillside and the mountains robed in fall foliage, under a blue and white sky? It can’t be beat. Or if it can, it would be by those Swiss mountain streams falling out rocksides into nowhere. I had to be careful to ration my phototaking while I was on the train–I could have *easily* filled my camera up.
So now I’m sitting in front of the hostel waiting for the proprietor to come back from her lunch break. Which ends at 3 PM. The Swiss like their long lunches, I’ve noticed…
This was my first real view of Lake Lugano (the view from the train station the first day was misty and mostly obscured by buildings) and it just floored me. I took
The park was pretty, too, with green things and trees and sculptures. I keep forgetting that swans are a native species in Europe. It seems weird for something so fancy to just be there, like any old duck or pigeon or squirrel.
I had been planning to take the
I’m writing now from the top of Mt. San Salvatore. It’s still
When I first decided to visit Lugano, I was determined to have some gelato while I was there. And, this afternoon, indeed I did. I think I have been spoiled by Denmark, though. This was my first time visiting an establishment that served food on this trip (I’ve been living off of groceries) and I assumed (or hoped) they’d know a little English. Nope. Not the place I went to, anyway. And I don’t speak *any* Italian or German. Fortunately I managed to get my gelato fix through hand-pointing and such…and JESUSFISH was it worth the trip. Fifteen years down the road, I’m going to get pregnant and be like, “Honey, I need to go to the Ticino and get some melon gelato. NOW.” Actually, now that I think about it, I don’t think I even need to be pregnant and hormonal to crave that stuff. Yum.
That evening, I went exploring a bit in Zurich–went up and down Niederdorfstrasse and down by the river. Nelson and I were texting each other, and he suggested that we play a “text adventure game” where he said to /GO NORTH, /FIND FLASK, /GET FLASK. I did so, drinking the most expensive Coca-Cola in my life in the process. *So* worth it, though.
I’ve seen four veggie-friendly places just in my limited exploration–a far higher concentration than in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, or Brussels. The oldest vegetarian restaurant in Europe, Hiltl, is in Zurich, too. Why? And why do they have a flash game called “Miss the Chicken” on
Zurich is also chock-full of fountains. Most aren’t all that pretty; they look rather old. Again, why? Something to do with Zurich’s Roman heritage, maybe…?
Still, being in the ghetto had some advantages. There were lots of affordable African and Middle Eastern restaurants around. The first night, we ate at Avenidas, a Moroccan seafood restaurant a block or two away from the hotel. The real fun part was Jeff, Dan, and I attempting to explain Meredith’s veganism and wheat allergy to our waiter, who spoke plenty of French but very little English. (Note to self: “farine” means “flour” in French.) Eventually, we mostly communicated everything; while the waiter misinterpreted Jeff’s “Pas de pain” to mean no bread for *anyone* at the table (and several of us ordered sandwiches!), sooner or later we acquired food and Meredith didn’t die. Yay!
On our first morning in Brussels, we went to the European Parliament to hear from a Danish Social Democratic MP, Dan Jørgensen. Despite his talk beginning with a “So, who are you guys? No, really,” it went pretty well. Dan was a charismatic, young-ish guy, so he knew how to communicate with us. You could tell he was really enthusiastic about the European Parliament and specifically their REACH Directive (a massive overhaul of chemicals regulation, requiring all chemicals on the European market to go through a battery of safety testing), which he was on the committee for. It would have been better if someone from DIS had told him earlier that we were taking a class on the EU, though–he went through a good deal of basic institutional information that we already knew.
After navigating the security checkpoint line, we also took a tour of the Parliament building. The tour guide spent a ridiculous amount of time talking about this sculpture in the Parliament’s atrium, which is supposed to symbolize the European integration process. I mean, her analysis of the sculpture made sense–all the different waves and bars coming together in different places, and that if you flick one of the bars the entire sculpture vibrates–but it was just rather long and involved.
After lunch, we had some free time. So we took
That evening, Dan, Bernadette, Jeff, Meredith, Erik, and I went to a Lebanese restaurant for dinner. Not only was the food tasty and inexpensive, and the menu an opportunity to practice my French, it was here that I discovered the most amazing tea in the world. Middle Eastern mint tea, unfiltered, served in tiny cute silver teapots. Meredith, Jeff, and I would return here the next night, just for the tea. Drinking it just makes the world seem like a better place.
In order to encourage socialization (and perhaps try to make up for our having a crappier hotel than the other politics group), our study tour leaders Mia and Beth organized a meeting that evening at Maxim’s, a bar on the central square, and offered to buy us each a drink. Well now. I didn’t recognize most of the items on the liquor menu, but Meredith recommended Grand Marnier. I trusted her judgment–her Bailey’s and amaretto liqueur on the rocks concoction at the Amsterdam hotel bar turned out to be scrumptious, like a liquid European truffle–and, indeed, it was tasty. Kinda like Blue Curaçao, only stronger. Hooray for school-funded alcohol experimentation!
We went on to explore Belgium, wandering down random streets, popping our heads in yet more chocolate shops, and huddling under a few common umbrellas when the rain came. Eventually we made our way back to the hotel, and after drying off, we congregated in Dan and Erik’s room. Dan, Erik, and Bernadette had stopped in a touristy beer shop that had like 100 different kinds of Belgian beer (“buy five get one free!”) and wanted to sample their finds. Bernadette was generous enough to let me have half of her cherry beer so she could try more than one, so I did end up trying the famous Belgian fruit beer. I’m still not a beer person…but it was actually pretty good. Brought beer up to about a “wine” level of tastiness, for me. And so we spent the evening lounging in the room, drinking good beer and eating white-chocolate Toblerone, watching a strangely amusing BBC program about elderly drivers. Good times.
Afterward, I went to a Belgian sandwich shop and ordered myself a bona fide croque monsieur in French. I felt like my six years of high school French classes were vindicated.
Two hours in, we had to get off the bus and take a ferry across from Sjælland to Germany. I’d been on ferries before, at Lake Michigan or Madeline Island, but this one was not only huge–it had a duty-free shop. And when your VAT is 25% (not including vice taxes)…it matters. Or, well, it matters to some people. I got a bar of Toblerone and that was all, but plenty of other ferry passengers were getting their liquor, cigarette, perfume, and jewelry shopping done. Apparently some people will ride the ferry exclusively for that purpose–they just turn around and come back as soon as they arrive in Germany.
Finally in the evening we arrived in Amsterdam, hauled our luggage up some
The next day we visited the Van Gogh Museum. For some reason, I’d always assumed that Van Gogh was French, his name notwithstanding. While he did most of his painting in France, he was in fact Dutch and he first started his ten-year painting career in the Netherlands. The museum had plenty of Van Gogh’s most famous paintings (Sunflowers, The Bedroom, Wheatfield With Crows, etc). That in itself was cool just because you’re walking along and suddenly it’s like, whoa, there’s the real live thing that I’ve seen a million reproductions of!
We had lunch at a fancy French restaurant, for which I was most certainly underdressed, and I had the best tomato soup in existence. For some reason, every meal we had on DIS’ tab (except the Thai food) served tomato soup for a first course. Odd.
Then we went to Central Station, rented bikes, and went on a guided bike tour of the city, passing historic buildings, cute bridges, and lovely canals. The frequent smell of pot brought back memories of my high school days and the disgusting bathrooms in which my classmates smoked. We stopped in Vondelpark, a sort of European Central Park, to get a drink and take a rest. It’s a pretty park; I highly recommend it.
Of course we walked through the red light district. It was…amusing and disturbing at the same time. Normally when I think of prostitution, I think of it in terms of being a “streetwalker.” Not so in Amsterdam. The women rent these exorbitantly-priced “boxes,” tiny rooms with huge glass windows facing the street, and then pose under the red light and blacklights waiting for someone to knock on the glass. The jobs pay pretty well–just meeting the hooker will cost you 50 euro; actually doing anything will cost you much more–but really the people who make the most money off the trade are the landlords who own the boxes. With the exploitative rent and the whole concept of women in cages, it’s hard for me to argue that prostitution is female-positive. I still think it’s better that it’s legalized, so that the prostitutes both have some protection under the law and are subject to health regulations. And I can respect the women who do it, whether they want to or have to–I read
The next day, our horde of widely hung-over, somewhat pot-headed, possibly be-hooker’ed (I heard rumors… !?!), and certainly reluctantly suit-clad DIS students dragged itself out of bed and onto a bus for the Hague. We went first to the Peace Palace, home of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and International Court of Justice. I’ll get to that later. But first, the Peace Palace might be the most beautiful building I have ever been in. The interior is AMAZING. The palace was built with contributions from all the PCA member countries: French tilework, the Japan Room covered in silk tapestries, Hungarian vases by the door, British stained glass, American oakwood, an Iranian rug in the ICJ room worth millions of dollars… Italy donated as much marble as the palace planners wanted, so of course like half the damn palace is made out of marble. The stall separators in the bathroom are marble. Jesus.
Unfortunately, despite all of these lovely things (or maybe because of them), we weren’t allowed to take pictures inside the Peace Palace. So I took a picture of the bathroom. Not the best decoration the palace had to offer (though it was probably the nicest bathroom I’ve ever been in) but oh well.
The PCA is utterly powerless. They don’t have any ability to make anyone adhere to its decisions. It doesn’t even *make* the decisions–the parties choose the arbitrators! All it is is a forum, a resource for legal scholarship, archiving, translation, and other bureaucratic needs. Yet nations (and others) choose to use it and they usually abide by the decisions found there. Even though there are obviously lots of conflicts in the world where the PCA is not used, when it is used it works, and has worked. The idea that there can be peacemaking even in an anarchic international system, a system built for war… I find that profound.