In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard (under the pseudonym Johannes de Silencio - although he is quite opposite of the meaning given by its Latin name), shares its quite long version of the story of Abraham. Kierkegaard ultimately decides that Abraham is either lost and cannot be mediated, or that he is then a knight of faith. According to Kierkegaard, Abraham left the universal to enter the absurd, thus leaving any chance of being understood completely demolished. To support this claim, he explains the paradox of faith and Abraham's contrasting views that ultimately led to his downfall. It also covers opposing modes of existence while explaining ethics and aesthetics. To further prove his point, he cites several different examples of what prevents Abraham from being understood in the moral dilemma he faces; however, the entire book is based on the premise that there is a paradox of faith that renders Abraham "lost." The paradox of faith involves “the unique individual as a particular standing in an absolute relationship with the absolute.” Thus, Kierkegaard offers two options: Abraham illustrates the paradox of faith or Abraham is incapable of being socially understood. He presents this as an either/or statement, leaving no room for other possible narratives or counterarguments. This works for several reasons that Kierkegaard explains throughout his work. This statement by Kierkegaard is not a false dilemma because to consider the story of Abraham as an act of faith, one must consider the situation as a teleological suspension of ethics. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The first alternative to counter Kierkegaard's thesis is that Abraham could be considered a tragic hero; however, this is impossible by definition of a tragic hero. The story of Abraham begins when Abraham receives a message from God asking him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham leaves with his son towards Mount Moriah where he plans to kill him. At the last minute, just before he murders his own son, an angel of the Lord comes to him and stops him, saying, “Now I know that you fear God.” There are many reasons drawn from this situation that prevent Abraham from being called a “tragic hero.” First, a tragic hero is a character who faces a moral dilemma. He must sacrifice something for the ultimate benefit of the common good, even if it results in his own suffering. Abraham, of course, is called to make a decision with only two devastating options: kill his son or defy God. Although he faces a moral dilemma, he is incapable of being a tragic hero because his decision was not for the greater good. This leaves his action unjustified and is what makes him a knight of faith. This is also where the paradox of faith comes into play. Abraham believed that by sacrificing his son, his son would at the same time be restored. These are two opposing views that cannot be mediated. The actions of a true tragic hero may be justified or understood by the general public and even benefit them. In the case of the tragic hero Brutus, he sacrificed his two sons who were plotting against the state to save the Roman republic. Looking at the story of Abraham, if he had killed his son, he would go home and chop wood (whatever they were doing at the time) and life would have continued quite normally, without anyone takes advantage of his bad deed. In the story of Brutus, his entire civilization benefited, while in the storyof Abraham, not only did no one benefit, but it caused much suffering. The two qualities that make up a tragic hero, the benefit of the common good and the capacity for mediation, are lacking in Abraham and in this whole ordeal like almost murdering his son; Kierkegaard is therefore right to pose a dilemma to the reader. Abraham cannot be a tragic hero; he is either a knight of faith or lost. Besides the tragic hero argument, it is also common to wrongly compare Abraham to an aesthetic hero. Kirkegaard in his work covers two different modes of existence: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics involves the outside. A person who resides in ethics can be understood by everyone while one who lives in aesthetics will never be understood. As for the aesthetic mode, everything is based on appearance and also lacks real commitment. This is a superficial lifestyle that cannot be ethically justified. When it comes to Abraham as a potential aesthetic hero, several problems arise. To begin with, Abraham cannot be an aesthetic hero because he does not lack commitment. As shown by his willingness to sacrifice his son for the absolute, Abraham is full of commitment, which completely contradicts the aesthetic mode of existence. Furthermore, Abraham does not base his decisions on how things appear. For an aesthetic hero, beauty is a deciding factor when pursuing something. This does not apply to Abraham because beauty and appearance do not enter into his decision-making process. Between Abraham and the tragic hero, the only thing they have in common is not being ethical. Furthermore, Abraham contradicts the very definition of an aesthetic hero. Since both the tragic hero and the aesthetic hero are easily excluded by Abraham's salient characteristics, Kierkegaard is right to leave only two options. The last option proposed to counter Kierkegaard is perhaps the most difficult: the knight of infinite resignation. The knight of infinite resignation is best described by Kierkegaard's example of the pauper and the princess. There are obviously social restrictions and their union is impossible. A knight of infinite resignation, the man abandoned his world and devoted his life to his love for the princess. The Knight of Infinite Resignation would never give up on something he devoted himself to. The knight of infinite resignation is self-sufficient and needs nothing outside himself to support him. At a given moment, he also enters into eternal consciousness: he expresses spiritually what is impossible for him in the finite world. This often results in eternal sorrow. The very principle of the knight of infinite resignation is that he is ready to give without receiving anything. Abraham, although willing to sacrifice himself, ultimately hopes for restoration. Abraham's belief in two opposing viewpoints is what specifically makes him a knight of faith. He cannot be a knight of infinite resignation because he only gives with the intention of recovering what he sacrifices. With all three options of the tragic hero, the aesthetic hero, and the knight of infinite resignation refuted, only two options remain, as Kierkegaard noted: either Abraham is a paradox of faith, or he is lost. Keep in mind: This is just a sample.Get a custom paper from our expert writers now.Get a custom essayIn Abraham's situation, there are only two possible conclusions to draw: he is a knight of faith or he will never be understood. By saying that Abraham is “lost,” Kierkegaard means that his actions can never be justified; socially it cannot be understood. Saying that if he isn't.