IndexThe position of Climacus: faith as paradoxFaith is not knowledgeFaith is not willThe relationship between philosophy and faithPossible tensions in Kierkegaard's argumentPossible objectionConclusionSoren Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments seek to show the limits of reason when it comes to knowledge of the divine. His work is a polemic against idealism, which states that only through pure reason and will can we have knowledge of the eternal. However, Kierkegaard argues that reason and will alone cannot reconcile the numerous paradoxes and contradictions that Christianity imposes, only faith can do so. Therefore, Kierkegaard argues that faith is neither knowledge nor will. He uses his pen name, Climacus, to illustrate the paradoxical nature of faith and remove his authority as an author and, in turn, facilitate the reader's subjectivity. His indirect communication to the reader is intentional as the purpose of his thought project is for the reader to think for themselves and take into account the limitations of human reason when it comes to understanding faith and Christianity. This article will first explain why Climacus claims that faith is paradoxical and how faith is neither knowledge nor will. Next, he will compare Kierkegaard's and Socrates' philosophical ways of thinking and their relationship to faith, and how it applies to the broader topic of what philosophy can tell us about faith. Then the possible tensions in Climacus' position will be revealed, mainly the role of the will both in our dependence on God for the condition and in our human action in faith. Finally, the author will consider an objection against his possible tensions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Climacus' Position: Faith as Paradox To first understand faith as paradox, one should first explain Climacus's notion of absolute paradox. God appeared as a humble human servant (Christ) to provide the condition for faith. Since God is eternal and the intellect cannot reconcile the eternal, God intervened in time and space and ultimately gave eternal importance to a historical moment. However, it is more difficult for the intellect to reconcile the eternal appearing in a historical moment than to grasp the eternal. Climacus argues that to reconcile this paradox and misalignment with our reason and understanding, we must appeal to faith. Therefore, the god himself must provide the condition; otherwise the student is not able to understand anything: «only he who personally receives the condition from God (which fully corresponds to the need to renounce the intellect and on the other hand is the only authority that corresponds to faith), only that person believes. Furthermore, faith is not something that has to do with historical accuracy and closeness to the events of Christ. In fact, being a disciple and knowing every action and move of Christ does not make you have faith in Christ. Therefore the historical is not the prerequisite for faith; rather, God provides the conditions for faith to occur. However, this means that faith is just as paradoxical as absolute paradox. It is equally a wonder and a paradox when God gives us the eternal condition for faith, for faith is essentially a “wonder [in which] the eternal condition [gives] in time.” Furthermore, it is not something we can define with our understanding since any attempt to explain faith through reason will ultimately fail. However, when we understand and accept that faith is as paradoxical as the absolute paradox, it becomes easier to understand that we cannot understand the paradox becauseClimaco asks us not to “understand the paradox but [only] understand that this is the paradox'. It is impossible to understand the paradox since this would presuppose that our reason can think through eternal and historical coexistence, which is philosophically impossible for Climacus. Instead, we must not try to understand the paradox, but recognize that the paradox is precisely that. The paradoxical nature of faith reconciles when the intellect is suspended, since faith occurs "when the intellect and the paradox meet happily in the moment in which the intellect steps aside and the paradox gives itself." However, the paradoxical nature of faith "unites all contradictory things, it is the eternity of the historical and the historicization of the eternal." Faith is not knowledge The main opinion of Climacus is that God's truth is not knowledge that a human being can know. Contrary to Hegelian idealism, which states that human beings can think something into existence and necessity, Climacus wants to argue that knowledge of the eternal cannot be found through reason and will. Faith is not a form of knowledge, since "all knowledge is either knowledge of the eternal [...] or it is purely historical knowledge". Since faith reconciles the paradox of the eternal and historical clash, "no knowledge can have as its object this absurdity that the eternal is the historical." However, the object of faith is not the teaching but the teacher (God appears as a humble servant), since faith simply cannot replace knowledge. Climacus provides multiple examples of contemporaries living at the same time as Christ, where they maintain great historical accuracy of Christ and have memorized every syllable he ever uttered. However, he argues that these contemporaries still would not have faith. Faith is something more than knowledge and historical accuracy, it is something beyond our understanding. If faith were something that could be easily knowable with historical accuracy, then would it really be faith? If we view faith as something objective and knowable, then there seems to be no point in appealing to faith. We have faith because we recognize the limits of our reason and understanding, and we appeal to God to reconcile these paradoxes that our reason presents to us. If faith were knowledge, then it will be purely Socratic. The condition would already be present in humans and would simply be a matter of remembering. Climacus says "if we don't assume the moment, then we return to Socrates, and we wanted to say goodbye to him to discover something". However, it is important to note that Kierkegaard is not against reason and the Socratic doctrine of remembrance; rather, he wants to show that the highest and most appropriate use of the Socratic doctrine is always between humans, not between humans and God. Faith is not will Climacus also explains that faith is also not an act of will. Since God must provide the condition for the student, faith cannot be an act of will. If we did not need the condition of God, then we would return to the Socratic philosophy of recollection. Socratic philosophy comes back to the fact that the student has the condition in himself with the teacher simply reminding him of what is already there, but ultimately it is the student who wants that memory. Therefore, the teacher can be excused when the pupil comes to this memory. However, in Christianity, when it comes to faith, God is not simply eliminated. Kierkegaard instead wants to base himself on Socratic philosophy. It may be the highest relationship between human beings, but it does not explain our relationship with God. God must give us the condition, and it is not only through pure will that we can obtain it. Consequently, without the condition, the will is useless. Asour reason and our will are put aside so that faith can enter: “Let no innkeeper or professor of philosophy think that he is such an intelligent man as to be able to discover something unless God himself gives him the condition. No matter how smart or intelligent, every individual is equal in faith in terms of God giving the condition. Faith is not something that needs to be understood and it is not something we can boast about as we would when describing historical events. Every human will depends on a condition, and the condition of faith must come from paradox; therefore, the paradox deepens this happy passion called faith. The Relationship Between Philosophy and FaithFrom a broader perspective, philosophy and faith can help us understand how to reconcile the paradoxes of eternity and time. Kierkegaard finally argues that philosophical reasoning alone cannot explain how God, an eternal figure, can appear in a historical moment. Therefore, faith is philosophically impossible because of how trapped it is in paradoxes. However, Kierkegaard does his best to indirectly communicate the limitations of our reason using Socratic philosophy. He essentially uses some reason to dispel reason, in which he argues that since Socratic is the highest relationship between him and the reader, there must be a different kind of relationship between humans and God. The philosophies of Kierkegaard and Socrates are intrinsically similar but different. when it comes to the eternal. Both Socrates' and Kierkegaard's rhetoric are based on the subjectivity of the individual. Socrates' constant use of questions to lead students out of their comfort of ignorance is comparable to Kierkegaard's use of paradoxes to lead us to faith. This form of indirect communication allows the student to think for themselves and take responsibility for their knowledge claims (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Therefore, Kierkegaard's argument depends entirely on recognizing the limitations of human reason and how faith cannot be explained philosophically. The absolute paradox, God in the form of a humble servant, is not something that can be grasped with our understanding. Therefore, Kierkegaard's use of indirect communication allows us to think about paradoxes on our own. The relationship between the reader and Kierkegaard's writing is still purely Socratic; therefore, Kierkegaard can only help us think for ourselves. We cannot give each other faith since God can only provide the condition, so Kierkegaard provides the right amount of knowledge that is consistent with his position that the highest relationship between humans is Socratic. Possible tensions in Kierkegaard's argument Kierkegaard argues that faith is not an act of will, but then says that "faith is not knowledge but an act of freedom, an expression of will." There is therefore a tension between faith as an expression of will and faith not as an act of will. Could it be that faith in God could be an expression of will? However, we do not think that faith as an expression of will is consistent with Kierkegaard's position of faith and not as an act of will. As mentioned above, faith is not an act of will because it is set aside so that faith can come in and God can give us the condition. If then faith were an act of will, then we would not need the condition of God. We therefore turn to the Socratic doctrine that Kierkegaard argued against in explaining our relationship with the eternal. The tension between will and faith can also be applied to the relationship between reason and faith. I believe that Kierkegaard did not sufficiently demonstrate the role of reason in faith. The reason comes.