Who said leap of faith

They certainly are part of the equation, but the other part is what do I desire — the emotive side. And this fits in with the great command to Love God, not just to have intellectual assent to doctrinal positions. Thank you very much. I am now not certain the place you are getting your information, however great topic.

I needs to spend some time studying more or working out more. Thank you for fantastic info I used to be looking for this information for my mission.

Kierkegaard emphasized a passionate, committed, thoughtful response to Christianity as […]. After much deliberation, he […].

People who were able to live life fully and happily, took a leap of faith and gave themselves a […]. Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. Home About Contact Contributing Guidelines. Share on Facebook. Tuesday, September 5, Kierkegaard's leap of Faith - explanation.

Kierkegaard offered the term "leap" to replace the Hegelian notion of mediation between two opposing elements. Kierkegaard's concept of leap points to a state in which a person is faced with a choice that cannot be justified rationally and he therefore has to leap into it.

It is always true that fathers should not kill their sons. Thus faith entails an openness to the possibility that the demands of common morality may be temporally suspended for a higher purpose. De Silentio is quick to point out that faith does not always imply killing—it occurs whenever someone resigns that which is right and good while at the same time believing this will be restored to them.

Indeed, like Abraham, they must remain silent. Then it will be read, translated into foreign languages as well. The requirements of faith are not completely in the power of the believer, but it is a dialogical event, an encounter with God and the gift of grace that transforms the sinner and restores his capacity for the truth.

The solution is therefore no act of will on the part of the believer, no voluntary leap, no mere decision without warrant, which would be sinful as it results from human autonomy, like knowledge.

The opposition of knowledge and faith seems to fit in a set of disjunctive relationships like objective-subjective; general-particular; cognitive-passionate; compelled-voluntary; possibility-necessity; reasonable-absurd; conclusion-resolution; logic-conviction; understanding-commitment etc. These pairs of contrary terms, that can be found throughout the Kierkegaardian authorship, remind of Hegelian dialectic, but they remain unresolved. SV VII, 99 Like Karl Marx, Kierkegaard insists, that the reconciliation of oppositions is by no means realized in our concrete historical situation although it is in thought.

According to Kierkegaard, Hegel forgets that he himself is an existing individual and should commit suicide as a consequence from his philosophy. SV VII, Whereas Kant tries to eliminate them, Hegel integrates them by dialectical movement and subsumes them within a higher unity.

A negative, cut-off, two-term dialectic without mediation leaves ruptures without resolution in thought. This type of paradox results from a careful and reasonable process of thinking, it is not nonsensical and unrelated to all types of arguments. Neither is the paradox generated by faith, but it prepares the question of a religious solution of intellectual failure. It signals the crisis of reason as an intellectual difficulty turns out to be an existential and religious problem so that a new mode, faith, has to take over.

As religious commitment does not follow as a matter of course from intellectual considerations even if they fail, something like a paradigm shift takes place. The eternal appears in a historical situation, under temporal conditions. This is not a formal or logical contradiction, as we do not know what it means to be God, neither do we know completely, what it means to be a human being.

The concepts that form the paradox are not clear, as the paradox arises in the experience of a reality our concepts cannot deal with. It reveals that the thinking individual has been on the wrong track as it tried to find a solution by mediating concepts.

When we cannot avoid contradictory descriptions of this event, this indicates our lack of conceptual equipment. The other possible reaction is faith: human intellectual resources fail and the believer allows to transcend them although he is not able to control this process.