Notice the analogy of 'best.' The rich young ruler gave his 'best' but even more so did Abraham. Compare
the idea of best between these two and ask yourself who is really giving up his best. This leads directly
into a very important idea that you must carry with you throughout the rest of the text. K--gaard states,
"What is left out of the Abraham story is the anguish..." Compare the anguish in giving up money or
possessions versus giving up your long promised son.

On pg. 59, note the carry over of the comic-tragedy. We uphold Abraham in this story giving up his
best but then if someone in the church did the same thing, we would want to hold him/her accountable.
"Where did you get that idea to do that" asks the Priest,
The parishioner replies,"... from you on Sunday."
"You weren't supposed to take it that way and do it."
"Well then, why did you preach about it? I'm trying to be a great man like Abraham!"

On pg. 81, he defines the comic contradiction as, "The comic contradiction in the speaker's (Priest's) behavior
was that he made Abraham into something insignificant and yet would forbid the other from carrying on in
the same manner."
--
On page 60,

The theme is carried over and made explicit in the first complete paragraph, "What explains a
contradiction..." Read this paragraph and understand it, the content is very important. Notice how
the introduction of 'faith' changes things or appears to.
---
On page 61,

The first full paragraph contains how Kierkegaard would preach a sermon on Abraham. Pay
particular attention to the 'greatness' and 'appallingness' distinction. What is great about the deed
and what is appalling?
---
On page 62,

The last paragraph is very important. He is drawing another analogy here with Hegel. Hegel is an
extremely hard philosopher to understand, in fact, in many ways, is virtually unintelligible at points.
K-gaard notes this and where he is not sure if he has understood Hegel, he attributes it to Hegel's
lack of clarity. BUT, he then compares this task with understanding Abraham and he cannot
understand Abraham. To put it another way, K-gaard can understand the hardest of academic
scholarship but he is 'blown away' or annihilated by Abraham. He ends by saying that he can't
even get into Abraham's mind although he wants to badly.
---
On page 63,

First full paragraph, about 2/3rds of the way down, he states, "I am convinced..." This is hard to
understand but necessary to see what K-gaard is doing. He has God's love but he recognizes that
God's love is not commensurable or does not align with reality. They are two distinct things. He
has this strong subjective impression of God, yet that impression has nothing to do with his everyday
experience. This sets up a two world picture, something very similar to Platonism. There is the
reality of God and the reality of man--and they don't align. In fact, if we read incommensurable strongly
they are not even intelligible or understandable to each other.
--
On page 64,

To see further proof of this incommensurability, read pg. 64, first full paragraph, about 2/3rds of the
way down where he begins with, "But I also know..." He and God cannot talk together...

Roughly a few sentences after the previously mentioned quote, we are introduced to the idea of
'resignation.' Notice how Kierkegaard interprets the event differently; not as an act of faith, but as
one of being resigned to the death of his son.
-
On page 65,

Top paragraph, K-gaard makes a nice point. What about the repercussions afterwards? How can you
live your life after this event? What about the mental scars?

The first full paragraph needs to be read in detail, along with the next page. This needs to be contrasted
with the previous idea that I noted about Kierkegaard making a nice point. It goes something like this.
K--gaard makes the move the kill Issac, there is no turning back. We might as well consider Issac dead;
K-gaard is resigned to the fact of doing the act and the consequences of this movement. It is 'infinite'
because there is no bringing Issac back. He contrasts this with the 'actual' Abraham who believed
that the situation was so absurd that God would deliver Isaac one way or another. The difference is in
when they get Issac back. K-gaard can't recover from the act EVEN if God delivers Isaac from the
sacrifice; he is infinitely resigned or resigned without a choice of turning back on it. A finite resignation
would be one where you could change your mind. The actual Abraham never doubted God would
keep Issac one way or another. When Issac was given back to him, he DID recover and was even
more joyful.
--
On page 66,

The last sentence of the carry over paragraph from pg. 65 is puzzling. The 'it' can refer to many things.
What I think he is getting at is that K-gaard is an example of someone who loves God but has no
faith and reflects upon himself--remember the top paragraph of pg. 65. And, Abraham is a person
who loves God and has faith--and this means he no longer reflects upon himself and his own desires or
situation but only upon God.

In the last paragraph pay attention to the paradox mentioned in the second sentence.
--
On page 67,

The movements of faith are described in the long paragraph. At the end of the paragraph, he makes
an interesting claim. Objectively, the knight of infinite resignation and the knight of faith appear alike.
We may not be able to tell them apart, except when they do something contrary to faith. He looks
at the movements of faith and this is his guide. His claim is actually much stronger and it builds upon
the previous idea. When he brings in the idea of the 'bourgeois philistine.' The idea is that an uncultured,
person who portrays him/herself to be cultured based upon societal norms is analogous to the idea
to a Christian who portrays him/herself as acting in faith through organized religion. The movements
may be there, but there is no substance, specifically there is no faith nor infinite resignation. Bluntly,
they have no love of God. Pages 68 and 69 further develop this philistine position.
---
On pages 70-73

Read the story of the princess carefully, it will help you understand the knight of infinite resignation.

Top of page 73, "Everything is possible..." is an example of the two worlds idea.
--
On page 75,

Note how K-gaard put infinite resignation before faith. You must be resigned first, then faith follows, first
paragraph.. At this stage he formally introduces the knight of faith and runs it through the princess story.
--
On page 76,

We start getting into the heavy philosophical part of this chapter. All that can save the knight of faith
is the absurd and he grasps that by faith. Another way to think about this is that the knight of faith sees
the impossibility of the situation and yet believes something another impossibility to come out of it. In
Abraham's case, he is asked to sacrifice his son that he loves by a God he loves and yet he believes
God will bring Issac back to him.

He goes on to say that "Faith is therefore no aesthetic emotion but something far higher, exactly
because it presupposes resignation; it is not the immediate inclination of the heart but the paradox
of existence." We can read 'aesthetic emotion' = 'immediate inclination of the heart' to get an idea
what he is referring to. The paradox of existence is referring to the previous paragraph, admitting the
impossibility and at the same time believing in it and that it will be resolved. Or, the impossible is the
possible or the unresolvable is resolvable.
--
On page 77,

The first full paragraph gets to the crux of resignation and faith. Note the link between eternal
consciousness, love, and resignation. Faith goes beyond that or adds to it.
--
On pages 78 and 79,

The last paragraph on 78 that runs on to 79 needs to be read carefully. He comes back to the princess.
The princess story keeps you in a practical train of thought, or as close as you can to having one with
this subject.
--
On page 80,

The paradoxical movement of faith, I take it, is that to exercise faith, one must have faith but if faith is
an act like K--gaard believes, one cannot exercise it without having it. He then goes on to defend that
although he doesn't have faith he would be willing to do it. Notice who can get to infinite resignation and
notice who can't.
--
On page 82,

The last paragraph needs to be read to understand the next section of the book.