It interests me that so many authors that we have read have written concerning the universal law, and stepping over it. Kierkegaard speaks of the man of faith who can overstep the universal law at the command from his God; Dostoevsky presents Raskolnikov who tries to step over these bounds like Napoleon, but whose action results in epic failure; and Nietzsche who presents the idea of the superman who he believes should not be ashamed to express his uniqueness and cross over the lines of the "supposed universal law." The main question comes up of the importance of the ethical, and when/ whether or not these bounds should be crossed? Or, for Nietzche the question even arises of the validity of such a universal law, or if such a law even exists at all.
It is interesting that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky seem to come to different conclusions about the ability of a person to overcome the universal law, despite the fact that both are christian men. For, Raskolnikov, in his attempt to trespass the universal law, fails and in the end accepts it. Whereas Kierkegaard presents Abraham as a wonderful example of how one can enter into the mystery of faith and nobly transcend above the universal law. Perhaps a closer look at the circumstances surrounding Abraham and Raskolnikov would provide a better understanding as to why the authors came to such different conclusions. Maybe they were focusing on different aspects of the same topic....
I commented on Jamie's God and Science
I think you're right on the money. At the same time, I don't think they contradict each other. The focus is on the first word of this topic: Teleological. The question that arises is "Did Raskolnikov have a divine purpose like Abraham did?" Just something to think about.
ReplyDelete