ed1983

Here's a question. According to Kierkegaard, a Knight of Faith remains absolutely faithful to his defining commitment, even if that commitment goes against the ethical. Abraham was an example. He was technically a murderer, yet he was willing to sacrifice Isaac because he had faith (or something like that...). Could Hitler also be considered a Knight of Faith, since he too remained faithful to his defining commitment until the end (and he didn't need to justify it)???

Amos

Except for that Abram raised the ax to kill his own son which really was his ego identity and hence the name change form Abram to Abraham.

Hither was opposite to this and was just another reformer.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

pug846

No, Kierkegaard would not consider Hitler a Knight of Faith. You’ve reduced something Kierkegaard spent pages and pages explaining as one simplistic idea. It took more than staying faithful to your “defining commitment” to count as a Knight of Faith. You should try re-reading F & T to get a better idea of what exactly a Knight of Faith was.

On the other hand, there is a very strong case to be made that the hijackers on 9/11 were all Knights of Faith. They fit it to a tee, IMO.