Contemporary Philosophy

Topic: Soren Kierkegaard on Fear and Trembling

The Individual and the Crowd

Before we proceed on the reflection of Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, it may be essential to discuss first
Kierkegaard’s idea of the Individual and the Crowd. According to this notion, Truth relies to the Individual or the Minority by
which he regards that the Minority is formed by the ones who have the opinion. Not so with the Crowd, whose strength is just
a mere illusion and is formed by a group that promotes their common interest. The Individual, for Kierkegaard cannot be
equally yoked with the illusion of the untruth; its individuality communicates to itself and thus is the truth. Meaning to say,
since the Individual communicate to itself, the truth can be attained through a personal relation to God. God is the mediator
of this term since He is nothing but the truth Himself, and this personal God can only be communicated or receive by the
‘single individual’. On the other hand, the Crowd which excludes God in this matter, has the power, influence, reputation, and
dominance. Although its is composed of single individual, it forms a group that rules and introduces power and dominance
among the single individual. With this, Kierkegaard argues that most often than not, individual finds the Crowd so
intimidating or shall I say overwhelming that we chose to live in conformity with them rather living our own single
individuality. Now, in this aspect, as Kierkegaard insisted that the individual is the truth because it has the ability to conform
himself to the Truth which is God, as the individual also cater the idea and participates itself to the Crowd, the Crowd can
now be recognized as the court of last resort in relation to ‘the Truth’. But when all is said and done, Kierkegaard stand firm
to his idea and believe that Truth always rest on the Minority, the ‘single individual’ who is stronger and has the opinion
compared to the Crowd.

On Fear and Trembling

Kierkegaard reflects philosophically on the biblical story of God’s command to Abraham by writing under the
pseudonym of “Johannes de Silentio”. Just a bit of an overview of the story in Genesis 22: 1-18, Abraham asked God to give
him a child and waited for years on God to fulfill His promise. As the promise was fulfilled, some time later God asked
Abraham to sacrifice his son named Isaac as a test of Abraham’s faith to God and that Abraham willingly do what God has
commanded him. For this, Abraham was considered as the Father of Faith.
Johannes suggests how incomprehensible Abraham's faith is. Abraham didn't question God, didn't complain or
weep, he didn't explain himself to anyone, he simply obeyed God's orders. With this comes the three questions, or to Johannes
‘the three problemata”. (1) Was Abraham's proposed action morally and religiously justified or murder? (2) Is there an
absolute duty to God? (3) Was Abraham justified in remaining silent?
For Kierkegaard (Johannes), on the first problem, this deals with morality in view of Abraham’s act which is
considered as murder. For him, the normative ethical consideration is to be set aside if this is confronted with a higher
purpose. For Abraham, through faith, it is the obedience to his God. Second, there is this so-called absolute duty towards God.
Abraham set aside his ethical obligation as a father to Isaac and as an individual bounded by the law of the land just to obey
what God has ordered him to do. In here, we can say that it’s actually a matter of Lordship and Obedience on Abraham
towards his God. Abraham must have weighed things out but then he is also conscious of the Lordship of God over
Abraham’s life and so, he finds himself fulfilling the command God. And Lastly, Abraham acted as a single individual. Him,
being silent on what he’s about to do isolates him from the Crowd or the universal. Maybe Abraham is aware that what he is
about to do irrational, so the disclosure of this act may hinder him from obeying the command of his God and with that he
chose to remain silent to free himself from the opinion of the people. Anyway, the command was given to him by God
personally and not for anybody else.

In this, Johannes conclude that Faith requires or necessitates experience. Faith is not something that we can just
learn. It is a paradox that cannot be understood by mere reason and morality. Faith must be grounded by experience or else we
may not understand it at all.