In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard (under the pseudonym Johannes de Silencio, despite being exactly the opposite of the meaning given by his Latin name) , shares his rather lengthy interpretation of the story of Abraham. Kierkegaard ultimately decides that Abraham is either lost and cannot be mediated or is therefore a knight of faith. According to Kierkegaard, Abraham left the universal to enter the absurd, leaving any possibility of being understood completely demolished. To support this statement, he explains the paradox of faith and Abraham's conflicting opinions that ultimately lead to his fall. It also covers the opposing modes of existence while explaining the ethical versus the aesthetic. To further prove his point, he cites several examples of what disqualifies Abraham from understanding the moral dilemma he faces; however, the entire book is built on the assumption that there is a paradox of faith that makes Abraham "lost." The paradox of faith involves "the single individual as a particular in an absolute relationship with the absolute". Kierkegaard therefore offers two options: Abraham exemplifies the paradox of faith or Abraham cannot be understood socially. He presents this as an either/or statement, leaving no room for other possible accounts or counterarguments. This works for several reasons that Kierkegaard explains throughout his work. This statement by Kierkegaard is not a false dilemma because to dissect 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 Shouldn't 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 tragic hero. The story of Abraham begins with Abraham receiving a message from God asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham leaves with his son towards Mount Moriah where he intends to kill him. At the last minute, right before he kills his son, an angel of the Lord comes to him and stops him stating, "now I know that you fear God." There are many reasons drawn from this situation that disqualify Abraham from being nicknamed “tragic hero”. First, a tragic hero is a character who faces a moral dilemma. He must sacrifice one thing for the ultimate benefit of the greater good, even if it ends in his own suffering. Abraham, of course, is faced with a decision with only two devastating options: kill his son or defy God. Although he faces a moral dilemma, he is unable to be a tragic hero because his decision was not for the common good. This leaves his action unjustified and is what makes him a knight of faith. This is also when the paradox of faith comes into play. Abraham believed that by sacrificing his son, his son would at the same time be restored. They are two opposing visions that cannot be mediated. The actions of a true tragic hero can be justified or understood by the general public and even benefit them. In the case of the tragic hero Brutus, he sacrifices 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 have gone home and chopped some wood (whatever they did back then) and life would have gone on completely normally, with no one benefiting from his evil deed. In the story of Brutus the entire civilization benefited, while in the story of Abraham not only did no one benefit, but it caused much suffering. The two qualities thatmake up a tragic hero, the benefit of the greater good and the ability to be mediated, are missing in Abraham and his son's whole sort of quasi-murderous ordeal; therefore Kierkegaard is right to pose the reader a dilemma. Abraham cannot be a tragic hero; he is either a knight of the faith or lost. Aside from the tragic hero argument, it is also popular to mistakenly compare Abraham to an aesthetic hero. Kirkegaard in his work covers two different modes of existence: the ethical and the aesthetic. The ethical involves the outside. A person who lives in ethics can be understood by everyone while a person who lives in aesthetics will never be understood. As for the aesthetic mode, it is all about appearance and also lacks real commitment. It is a superficial lifestyle that cannot be ethically justified. Regarding Abraham as a potential aesthetic hero, there are several problems. To begin with, Abraham cannot be an aesthetic hero because he does not lack commitment. As demonstrated 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 decisive factor when pursuing something. This does not apply to Abraham because beauty and appearance do not take part in his decision making. Between Abraham and the tragic hero, the only thing they have in common is that they do not have an ethical character. Beyond this, Abraham contradicts the very definition of an aesthetic hero. Since the tragic hero and the aesthetic hero are both easily excluded from Abraham's prominent characteristics, Kierkegaard is right to leave only two options. The last option offered to counter Kierkegaard is perhaps the most forced: the knight of infinite resignation. The knight of infinite resignation is best described by Kierkegaard's example of the pauper and the princess. Clearly there are social restrictions and their union is impossible. As a knight of infinite resignation, the man renounced his world and dedicated his life to his love for the princess. The knight of infinite resignation would never give up something to which he has dedicated himself. The knight of infinite resignation is self-sufficient and needs nothing outside of himself to sustain him. At a certain point he also enters eternal consciousness: he spiritually expresses what is impossible for him in the finite world. This often results in everlasting pain. The whole premise of the knight of infinite resignation is that he is ready to give, without receiving anything. Abraham, although ready to sacrifice, ultimately expects restoration. Abraham's belief in two opposing views is what specifically makes him a knight of faith. He cannot be a knight of infinite resignation because he gives only with the intention of obtaining in return what he sacrifices. Having refuted the three options of the tragic hero, the aesthetic hero and the knight of infinite resignation, only two options remain, as Kierkegaard noted: either Abraham is a paradox of faith or he is lost. Please note: this is just a sample. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In 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. By saying that if he is not lost he must be a knight of faith, this means that he exemplifies the paradox of faith; he believes in two conflicting points of view (killing his son to restore him). These are the only two viable explanations for Abraham. The argument that he was a hero.