Exploring the Limits of Free Will: Kierkegaard, Kant, and the Philosophy of Choice

Abstract

[Name] Introduction Analyzing an issue and understanding it as intended calls for proper consideration of different authors’ arguments on the same issue. To this effect, philosophers serve as potential source of information on issues that are of relevance to human existence. For this reason, this essay aims at analyzing three philosophers argument on individuals’ inability to control their thoughts and decisions as attributed to their beliefs and faith, which define superpowers to rely upon in any given situation. Starting with Soren Kierkegaard arguments on stupidity that Abraham expressed in response to his urge to please his God, Kant argument on the meaning of enlightenment serves as a clear remedy that would Abrahams from faith slavery. Saint's opinion on why people commit crime summarizes Kierkegaard and Kant’s view on the extent to which an individual's inability to control their understanding led them to engage in acts that might cost them their happiness and peace later in life. Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and trembling Soren Kierkegaard philosophy on an individual's inability to control their thoughts as attributed to faith and belief in a superior controlling force is coined around Abrahams desire to please his God through giving in to a trial of his love towards the same God. “Thou shall not kill” is a commandment given by the same God that Abrahams faith remained unquestionable. However, based on Kierkegaard, Abraham deserved to be condemned for giving in to a trial that would expose him to sin regardless of the power controlling his reasoning and thoughts. Ethically, Abraham would be defined as a murderer if his sacrifice to God was successful irrespective of the faith that would dilute his action to a sacrificial act to his creator. As Kierkegaard puts it, “The ethical expression for what Abraham did is, that he would murder Isaac; the religious expression is, that he would sacrifice Isaac; but precisely in this contradiction consists the dread which can well make a man sleepless, and yet Abraham is not what he is without this dread” (66). Arguing from Kierkegaard point of view, one can ascertain that faith and belief, to some extent, make people sound stupid not only to them but also to the power that is controlling them. The fact that Abraham aimed at pleasing his God does not justify that he was comfortable sacrificing his sons’ life and happiness for the sake of the divine power that gave him the same son. But due to the inability to control his thinking, abilities, and decision as attributed to forces governing his belief, Abraham remained vulnerable to the trial, not knowing what else he could do to ensure harmony with his maker. According to Kierkegaard, the faith paradox asserts that the ethical is universal, and as such, it is again the divine that leaves many people torn in between what is right and wrong (130). The fact that Abraham had spent most of his life without a child would have given him a second thought upon being asked to sacrifice the only old age child he acquired. On the other hand, God gave him Isaac at old age gave him no reason not to offer him back to the same divine power expecting more miracle in his life upon fulfilling the divines desire as attributed to his love for his maker. As Kierkegaard sums it up, “for in fact it is this love for Isaac which, by its paradoxical opposition to his love for God, makes his act a sacrifice (140)”. Abraham remains a potential icon of faith representative, which limited his authority and freedom. He relied so much on powers from above which Kant associate with minority as he explains his understanding of enlightenment. Enlightenment by Emmanuel Kant Just as Kierkegaard described Abraham as a person whose faith denied him authority and freedom of his decision, Kant emphasizes the need for human beings to come out of their cults and beliefs and enjoy the freedom of their self-control. In defining enlightenment, Kant attributes human inability to control their understanding without relying on direction from others as a mistake that hinders them from attaining their freedom, thus the...