Sorry if this is silly, but I really don't think we've gotten to the bottom of that line at the end of page 44. Jack said at the end of class that it's implied to be from the PoV of the man being discussed (the man who does not understand Hebrew, who has faith but is not a thinker), but I'm not sure about that. At the end of the Attunements, there is again mention of the man, and he has a thought conveyed directly to us as a thought of his, -- "who can understand Abraham?" And this to me suggests that the man doesn't believe anyone can. Also, the fact that it comes after the four variations does not immediately suggest to me that it is chronologically later than the end of p44, just that the author (Silentio, whom I really don't think we need to mystify too much, as the pseudonym seems to be merely an aesthetic/artistic touch of Kierkegaard's) wishes to present it later. The end of p44 does not seem like it must come before the attunements are thought out.

Furthermore, I don't buy the note about Hebrew being one of cultural closeness. As I mentioned, the original story was not in Hebrew, moreover, if the man of faith is indeed riding into Moriah time and again to 'accompany' Abraham on his journey, that seems more "close" to the original story than any understanding of original language could bring you.

Anyway... I just think there must be something to this paragraph at the end of page 44 other than the simple declaration that the man is not exceptionally well-studied (as this would be better accomplished in a single sentence in the first paragraph of page 44). Any thoughts, anyone?

Oh—and a note regarding the question of "will someone read [a story] passionately"...

I think it depends a lot on a story. Some stories just don't have the means to keep a reader occupied with them, they don't get their teeth and nails into the reader. Sometimes something is badly written. Kierkegaard was a language snob, so he must have sympathized with this kind of line of thinking. Unfortunately he was even more of a religion snob than a language snob and it seems his blind faith in blind faith has caused him to ignore the faults in the writing of Genesis in favor of lampooning the generic reader for not being more attentive to its story.

Also, I find it hilarious that his schtick essentially comes down to 'bitches need to pay attention to the word of God' when no one really has any means of doing that without first establishing a solid metaphysics... without the certainty that the word of a holy text is not a mere illusion, not a product of our own minds, how can we listen to it as the word of a deity?

1831, 25 April, "Kierkegaard takes the first part of the first-year university exam (with distinction in Latin, Greek, HEBREW [!!!], and history, and exceptional distinction in lower mathematics), and on 27 October the second part (with exceptional distinction in all subjects: theoretical and practical philosophy, physics and higher mathematics).

This was the year that Hegel, whose influence on Danish philosophy provoked K's later onslaught of Hegeliansim, died."

So he was better at philosophy, physics, and math than he was at foreign language. Hmmmmmmmmm...

Thanks Jack =)

Michael--

I will primarily respond to the following statement:

“ . . . No one really has any means of [paying attention to the word of God] without first establishing a solid metaphysics... without the certainty that the word of a holy text is not a mere illusion, not a product of our own minds, how can we listen to it as the word of a deity?”

Before I begin, I should say that while you and I may, in a sense, resist the word of God while we lack any certainty of the holy text, we also should not forget what may drive any others to accept it anyway (because, as we know from our religious surroundings, people do indeed have the means of paying attention to the word of God without first establishing a solid metaphysics).

So I’m not sure that we can say, as you say, that a solid metaphysics is necessary to everyone’s attention to God. In fact, I will argue that it is because we do not have a solid metaphysics on the course of our lives that we reach for religion. We seek the promise of life in religion.

Freud himself spent a lot of time regrounding the purpose of religion as primarily and universally therapeutic rather than a step-system to Heaven, to morality, to respect, and so on.

What Freud would have us consider is, “What is the difference between religious belief and madness?” Freud would suggest that the principle difference is that religion is a shared madness: other people have the same delusion. In the obsessive ritual, in the psychological comfort that it provides, religion works just as other forms of defense mechanisms.

Religion also reproduces the attitude of the infant towards the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good parents (you just carry that into adult life). Freud traces divinity to versions of parental figures (e.g. We even refer to God as “Father,” then we have the holy mother, the holy family, etc. - projection of a human family).

For Freud, there are certain functions in society that can then tail on religion:
1. For one, it helps to enforce morality.
-Which, in Freudian terms, means it provides us with strength to our instincts, since it imposes restraints on instinctual gratifications
2. Religion helps elites hold society together and keep the masses in check.
-Helps in the process of social control
Politicians need to represent religion to invoke the support of people at large.

Religion gives people a sense of being able to, in some way, influence the natural world. Freud would suggest, instead, to bring everything to consciousness and deal with it.

[Freud was born the year after Kierkegaard died].

There is no origin -- an original -- from which the rest of these attunements deviate. There will always already be a deviation. Kierkegaard's multiple stories perform that argument. While Kierkegaard claims that this man on page 44 might have been able to achieve a better understanding of the story in Hebrew, Kierkegaard, in a way, collapses that argument with a simultaneous employment of the attunements. Translation is just another variation. Remember, this is an event, which is not inherently inscribed in language.

Karena, tThanks for the thoughts -- to clarify, my comment regarding metaphysics was intended along the lines of "you only get the word from a book, and who's to say that book is real/true/etc."... I guess if one has no doubt at all in the first place, it's not a problem, but the attitude seems to be one of "well, I believe it, so _THERE_."

Anyway, I look forward to this Freud guy.