Kierkegaard is well-known as a philosopher who stresses the meaning of individual human existence. However, in The Sickness unto Death he argues that the human self exists as “spirit,” and spiritual life is essentially relational life. The significance of this is sometimes missed because readers assume that the “other” to which humans must relate is God, and a God-relation does not seem genuinely social. This view is doubly mistaken, and this can be seen if the relationship between the two parts of the book are understood. First, it is not true that Kierkegaard thinks that God is the only “other” by which the self can be defined. Human beings continually seek to ground their identity in many “others” and human persons and groups are the major way this happens. Kierkegaard believes this is the source of numerous pathological forms of selfhood; far from being impossible, grounding the self in something other than God is ubiquitous. Second, the relation to God is for Kierkegaard a genuinely social relation, since God is viewed as one who has the authority to give human lives meaning by assigning meaningful vocations to humans and holding them accountable for fulfilling those vocations.
The rocky shores of the north-east Atlantic have been long studied. Our focus is from Gibraltar to Norway plus the Azores and Iceland. Phylogeographic processes shape biogeographic patterns of biodiversity. Long-term and broadscale studies have shown the responses of biota to past climate fluctuations and more recent anthropogenic climate change. Inter- and intra-specific species interactions along sharp local environmental gradients shape distributions and community structure and hence ecosystem functioning. Shifts in domination by fucoids in shelter to barnacles/mussels in exposure are mediated by grazing by patellid limpets. Further south fucoids become increasingly rare, with species disappearing or restricted to estuarine refuges, caused by greater desiccation and grazing pressure. Mesoscale processes influence bottom-up nutrient forcing and larval supply, hence affecting species abundance and distribution, and can be proximate factors setting range edges (e.g., the English Channel, the Iberian Peninsula). Impacts of invasive non-native species are reviewed. Knowledge gaps such as the work on rockpools and host–parasite dynamics are also outlined.
In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, the pseudonymous author, Johannes de silentio, argues that either it must be true that religious faith can justify Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac on God’s command (as described in the biblical story in Genesis 22) or else Abraham is a murderer. The conclusion silentio defends has a disjunctive character, and he frequently admits that a person can reasonably deny that it could ever be right to kill one’s child, even if God commanded the act. However, such a person must, on pain of inconsistency, condemn Abraham. For example, in considering Problem I (whether there is such a thing as a teleological suspension of the ethical), silentio admits the possibility that Hegel is right in claiming that the individual who as an individual puts himself above “the universal” thereby does wrong. However, silentio argues that consistency requires that in making such a judgment, Hegel condemns Abraham’s action in being willing to sacrifice Isaac, since such an action is surely not something that can be seen as universal. Hegel’s view implies that Abraham “ought to have been remanded and exposed as a murderer” (FT 47/SKS 4, 149).
It appears then that silentio wants to put some of his readers, namely Jews and Christians who revere Abraham as the “father of faith,” in a difficult spot. If they regard Abraham as an exemplar of faith, someone to be imitated, as did the writer of Hebrews, who describes Abraham as one of the heroes of faith, then it appears they must be willing to judge that Abraham acted rightly in being willing to sacrifice Isaac at the command of God. However, if Abraham was right in his actions, consistency seems to demand that the same judgment of approval be given to a hypothetical contemporary who has received a similar command from God. Of course secular readers may feel no strain here; many will unhesitatingly judge both that Abraham was wrong in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac and that a contemporary who intended such an action would be morally in the wrong. However, the choice is not so easy for those still committed to a religious tradition that venerates Abraham. Silentio in effect challenges such readers either to give up their admiration for Abraham or else admit the possibility that genuine faith might require a person to sacrifice a child.