Sample Solution

his child, and yet he accepts that God will keep Isaac alive. By such solid confidence despite extraordinary anguish and nervousness, Abraham got as opposed to lost: ‘However it takes a confusing and humble mental fortitude to get a handle all in all domain by uprightness of the silly, and this is the boldness by confidence. By confidence Abraham didn’t repudiate Isaac, yet by confidence Abraham got Isaac.’ (FT, p. 49) This statement shows that, similar to Sartre, Kierkegaard accepted that the sentiment of anguish is all the more a positive than a negative. Setting such solid confidence in God in an outrageous circumstance loaded up with anguish appears to cement one’s ‘outright connection to the supreme.’ If one feels anguish, that implies he is attempting to consummate his association with God, which is a definitive objective of a Christian. Likewise, like Sartre’s way of thinking, anguish uncovers to an individual that he is absolutely free and in charge of his own life, with the ability to characterize himself through his activities. Being in anguish raises man to a more significant level of unsure reflection, and this leads him to comprehend his ‘self’ as being isolated from this world as in he isn’t an item, yet something higher.

I will finish up by clarifying how the two savants contrasted as far as characterizing anguish. Sartre asserts that anguish is an aftereffect of our acknowledgment that we are committed to browse boundless conceivable outcomes with no information on what the results will be. However, we should assume full liability for the outcomes realizing that whatever we pick impacts ourselves separately, yet the entirety of humankind. For Kierkegaard, anguish results from openly picking despite vulnerability, tolerating the hazard and obligations of our activities, and having confidence in God that things will work out to improve things.