Table of contentsClimacus position: faith as paradoxFaith is not knowledgeFaith is not willThe relationship between philosophy and faithPossible tension 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, according to which, thanks to reason and will alone, we can know the eternal. However, Kierkegaard argues that reason and will alone cannot reconcile the many paradoxes and contradictions imposed by Christianity, only faith can. Thus, Kierkegaard argues that faith is neither knowledge nor will. He uses his pseudonym, 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 with the reader is intentional because the goal of his thought project is for the reader to think for himself and consider the limits of human reason when it comes to understanding faith and Christianity. This article will first explain why Climachus argues that faith is paradoxical and how faith is neither knowledge nor will. Next, it will compare the philosophical ways of thinking of Kierkegaard and Socrates and their relationship to faith, and how this applies to the broader theme of what philosophy can tell us about faith. Next, reveal the possible tensions in Climacus' position, primarily the role of the will in both our dependence on God for condition and in our human action in faith will be revealed. Finally, the author will consider an objection to its possible tensions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Climacus's Position: Faith as Paradox To first understand faith as a paradox, we must first explain Climacus' notion of absolute paradox. God appeared as a humble human servant (Christ) to provide the condition of faith. Since God is eternal and understanding cannot reconcile the eternal, God intervened in time and space and ultimately made a historical moment matter eternally. Nevertheless, it is more difficult for the understanding 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. So the god himself must provide the condition; otherwise, the learner is not capable of understanding anything: "only the person who personally receives the condition of God (which entirely corresponds to the requirement to renounce understanding and on the other hand is the only authority that corresponds to faith), only this person believes.” Moreover, faith has nothing to do with historical accuracy and proximity to the events of Christ. In fact, being a disciple and knowing every action and movement of Christ does not mean having faith in Christ. So, it is not history that is a prerequisite for faith; Rather, God provides the condition for faith to occur. However, this means that faith is just as paradoxical as absolute paradox. It is as much a wonder and paradox when God gives us the eternal condition for faith, since faith is essentially a “wonder [in which] the eternal condition [gives] in time.” Nor is it something we can define by our understanding, because any attempt to explain faith by reasonwill ultimately fail. However, when we understand and accept that faith is just as paradoxical as the absolute paradox, it becomes easier to understand that we cannot understand the paradox since Climacus asks us not to "understand the paradox but [only] to understand that is the paradox.” paradox'. It is impossible to understand the paradox because it would suppose that our reason can reflect on eternity and historical coexistence, which is philosophically impossible for Climacus. Instead, we need not try to understand the paradox, but to recognize that it is indeed the paradox. The paradoxical nature of faith is reconciled when understanding suspends itself, just as faith arises “when understanding and paradox meet joyfully in the moment, when understanding moves aside and paradox is given.” Nevertheless, the paradoxical nature of faith “unites all contradictions, is the eternalization of the historical and the historicization of the eternal.” Faith is not knowledge Climacus' main point is that God's truth is not something a human can know. Unlike Hegelian idealism, which asserts that humans can think that something exists and is necessary, Climacus wants to assert that knowledge of the eternal cannot be found through reason and will. Faith is not a form of knowledge, because “all knowledge is either knowledge of the eternal […] or purely historical knowledge.” Since faith reconciles the paradox of the eternal and the historical shock, “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 appearing as a humble servant), because faith simply cannot replace knowledge. Climacus gives multiple examples of contemporaries living at the same time as Christ, where they held great historical accuracy of Christ and memorized every syllable he ever uttered. However, he affirms that these contemporaries would still 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 known with historical accuracy, would it really be faith? If we view faith as something objective and knowable, then there seems no point in appealing to faith. We have faith because we recognize the limits of our reason and our understanding, and we appeal to God to reconcile these paradoxes that our reason presents to us. If faith were knowledge, then it would be purely Socratic. The condition would already be present in humans and it would simply be a matter of memory. Climachus says: “if we do not accept the moment, then we return to Socrates, and it is precisely from him that we wanted to take leave in order 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 Socratic doctrine is always between humans, and not between humans and God. Faith is not will. Climacus also explains that faith is not an act of will either. Since God must provide the condition for the learner, 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 remembrance. Socratic philosophy comes down to the learner having the condition within themselves, the teacher simply reminding them of what is already present, but ultimately it is the learner who desires that memory.So the teacher can be excused when the learner returns to that memory. However, in Christianity, when it comes to faith, God is not simply dispensed. Kierkegaard instead wishes to rely on Socratic philosophy. It may be the highest relationship among humans, but it does not explain our relationship with God. God must give us this condition, and it is not by will alone that we can obtain this condition. Consequently, without this condition, the will is of no use. Thus, our reason and will are put aside so that faith can come into play: "let no innkeeper or professor of philosophy imagine that he is a man so intelligent that he can detect anything if God he himself does not give the condition. No matter how intelligent or intelligent, each individual is equal to faith in terms of God giving the condition. Faith is not something that must be understood and 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 illuminates this happy passion called faith. The relationship between philosophy and faith From a broader perspective, philosophy and faith can help us understand how the paradoxes of eternity and time can be reconciled. Kierkegaard ultimately argues that philosophical reasoning alone cannot explain how God, an eternal figure, can appear at a historical moment. Thus, faith is philosophically impossible because of its tangle of paradoxes. However, Kierkegaard does his best to indirectly communicate the limits of our reason using Socratic philosophy. He basically uses some reason to dispel reason, in which he argues that since the Socratic is the highest relationship between him and the reader, there must be a different type of relationship between humans and God. The philosophies of Kierkegaard and Socrates are intrinsically similar but differ. when it comes to the eternal. The rhetoric of Socrates and Kierkegaard relies on the individual's own subjectivity. Socrates' constant use of questioning to bring learners 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 learner to think for themselves and take responsibility for their assertions about their knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Thus, Kierkegaard's argument depends entirely on recognizing the limits of human reason and the fact that faith cannot be explained philosophically. The absolute paradox, God in the form of a humble servant, is not something that can be comprehended by our understanding. Thus, Kierkegaard's use of indirect communication allows us to think about paradoxes for ourselves. The relationship between the reader and Kierkegaard's writing is still purely Socratic; thus, Kierkegaard cannot go further in helping us to think for ourselves. We cannot give ourselves faith since God can only provide the condition, so Kierkegaard gives just 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 he says that "belief is not knowledge but an act of freedom, an expression of will." There is therefore a tension between belief as an expression of the will and faith not as an act of the will. Could it be that the.