Kierkegaard, Søren

From New World Encyclopedia
(Use new "credits" template (for testing))
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{epname}}{{Contracted}}{{Status}}
+
{{Ebcompleted}}{{2Copyedited}}{{epname|Kierkegaard, Søren}}{{Status}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Paid}}{{Copyedited}}
 
{{Infobox_Philosopher |
 
{{Infobox_Philosopher |
  <!-- Scroll down to edit this page —>
 
  <!-- Philosopher Category —>
 
 
   region          = Western Philosophers |
 
   region          = Western Philosophers |
   era            = [[19th-century philosophy]] |
+
   era            = 19th-century philosophy |
 
   color          = #B0C4DE |
 
   color          = #B0C4DE |
 
  <!-- Image and Caption —>
 
 
   image_name      = Kierkegaard.jpg |
 
   image_name      = Kierkegaard.jpg |
 
   image_caption  = Søren Kierkegaard |
 
   image_caption  = Søren Kierkegaard |
 
+
   name            = Søren Aabye Kierkegaard |
  <!-- Information —>
+
   birth            = May 5, 1813 ([[Copenhagen]], [[Denmark]]) |
   name            = Søren Kierkegaard |
+
   death            = November 11, 1855 (Copenhagen, Denmark) |
   birth            = [[5 May]], [[1813]] ([[Copenhagen]], [[Denmark]]) |
+
  school_tradition = [[Continental philosophy]],<ref>This classification is anachronistic; Kierkegaard was an exceptionally unique thinker and his works do not fit neatly into any one philosophical school or tradition, nor did he identify himself with any. However, his works are considered precursor to many schools of thought developed in the twentieth and twenty-fitst centuries. See "20th century receptions" in ''Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard.''</ref><ref name="CambComp">Alastair Hannay and Gordon Marino, (eds). ''The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard.'' (Cambridge University Press 1997, ISBN 0521477190)</ref>Danish Golden Age Literary and Artistic Tradition, precursor to [[Existentialism]], [[Postmodernism]], [[Poststructuralism]], Existential psychology, Neo-orthodoxy, and many more |
   death            = [[11 November]], [[1855]] ([[Copenhagen]], [[Denmark]]) |
+
   main_interests  = [[Religion]], [[Metaphysics]], [[Epistemology]], [[Aesthetics]], [[Ethics]], [[Psychology]]  |
  school_tradition = Precursor to [[Existentialism]] |
+
   influences      = [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]], [[Abraham]], [[Martin Luther|Luther]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], [[Johann Georg Hamann|Hamann]], [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing|Lessing]], [[Socrates]]<ref>The influence of Socrates can be seen in Kierkegaard's ''Sickness Unto Death'' and ''Works of Love.''</ref> (through [[Plato]], [[Xenophon]], [[Aristophanes]]) |
   main_interests  = [[Religion]], [[Metaphysics]], [[Epistemology]], [[Aesthetics]], [[Ethics]]  |
+
   influenced      = [[Karl Jaspers|Jaspers]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein]], [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]], [[Gabriel Marcel|Marcel]], [[Martin Buber|Buber]], [[Dietrich Bonhoeffer|Bonhoeffer]], [[Paul Tillich|Tillich]], [[Karl Barth|Barth]], [[W.H. Auden|Auden]], [[Albert Camus|Camus]], [[Franz Kafka|Kafka]], [[Simone de Beauvoir|de Beauvoir]], [[Rollo May|May]], [[John Updike|Updike]], [[Walker Percy|Percy]] and many more|
   influences      = [[Abraham]], [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]], [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing|Lessing]], [[Socrates]] (through [[Plato]], [[Xenophon]], [[Aristophanes]]) |
+
   notable_ideas    = Regarded as the father of [[Existentialism]], [[dread|angst]], existential despair, Three spheres of human existence, knight of faith.
   influenced      = [[Karl Jaspers|Jaspers]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein]], [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]], [[Martin Buber|Buber]], [[Paul Tillich|Tillich]], [[Karl Barth|Barth]], [[W.H. Auden|Auden]], [[Albert Camus|Camus]], [[Franz Kafka|Kafka]] |
 
   notable_ideas    = Regarded as the father of [[Existentialism]], [[angst]], [[existential despair]], Three spheres of human existence, [[knight of faith]], ''Subjectivity is Truth'' |
 
 
}}
 
}}
  
'''Søren Aabye Kierkegaard''' ([[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]: {{IPA|[ˈsœːɔn ˈkʰiɔ̯g̊əˌg̊ɔːˀ]}}) (5 May, [[1813]] &ndash; [[11 November]], [[1855]]), a 19th century [[Denmark|Danish]] [[philosopher]] and [[theologian]], is generally recognized as the first [[existentialism|existentialist]] philosopher. He bridged the gap that existed between [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegelian]] philosophy and what was to become Existentialism.  Kierkegaard strongly criticised both the Hegelian philosophy of his time, and what he saw as the empty [[ceremony|formalities]] of the [[Church of Denmark|Danish church]].  Much of his work deals with religious problems such as the nature of faith, the institution of the [[Christian Church]], Christian ethics and theology, and the [[emotion]]s and [[feeling]]s of individuals when faced with existential choices. Because of this, Kierkegaard's work is sometimes characterized as [[Christian existentialism]] and [[Existential therapy|existential psychology]].  Kierkegaard's work resists definite interpretation, since he wrote most of his early work under various [[pseudonyms]], and often these pseudo-authors would comment on and critique the works of his other pseudo-authors. This makes it exceedingly difficult to distinguish between what Kierkegaard truly believed and what he was merely arguing for as part of a pseudo-author's position.  [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] remarked that Kierkegaard was "by far, the most profound thinker of the nineteenth century" ([http://www.herts.ac.uk/philosophy/Aris_Soc.html], [http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/ccreegan/wk/chapter1.html]).
+
'''Søren Aabye Kierkegaard''' (May 5, 1813 – November 11, 1855) was a nineteenth century Danish [[philosophy|philosopher]] and [[theology|theologian]] who has often been called “the father of [[existentialism]].” Although his thought was influenced at least to some degree by the German philosopher [[Hegel|G. W. F. Hegel]], much of Kierkegaard’s work was devoted to critiquing Hegel, and in particular Hegel’s [[dialectic]]al System which claimed [[Reason]] could contain all of reality. For Kierkegaard this reduced many religious truths to philosophy and so much of his critique was an attempt to show how certain experiences (particularly those concerning religious [[faith]]) escaped rational conceptualization. Moreover, Kierkegaard thought Hegel’s ethics absorbed the individual into the collective whole such that the individual person had no value outside of the social.
  
 +
Kierkegaard’s work is marked by a unique complexity due to his anti-systematic and often literary approach to philosophy. His books were often attributed to pseudonyms and were written in an ironic style that was called “Socratic.” Kierkegaard’s early romance with Regine Olsen with whom he broke an engagement also had a profound influence on his life and writings. As a philosopher Kierkegaard is best known for such notions as his stages of existence, “faith in the absurd,” “[[truth]] as subjectivity,” and his analyses of existential anxiety and despair. Given the ambiguity of Kierkegaard’s style, however, the exact meaning of these notions continues to be debated. His overall existential philosophy had a tremendous influence on twentieth century thought, particularly in the areas of [[philosophy]], [[theology]], [[psychology]], [[literature]], and [[art]].
 +
{{toc}}
 +
Kierkegaard's historical role can be understood when we look at the fact that he and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] brought forth a "breakdown" of Hegel's universal synthesis by critiquing it in two extremely different ways: through faith-oriented existentialism and atheistic anthropology, respectively, which eventually led to [[Karl Barth|Barthian]] theology and [[Karl Marx|Marxism]]. Kierkegaard's thought is a corrective to the [[rationalism]] of much of philosophy, reminding us of the inward dimension of existence, the experience of subjectivity.
 +
 
 
==Life==
 
==Life==
 
===Early years (1813&ndash;1841)===
 
===Early years (1813&ndash;1841)===
Søren Kierkegaard was born to an [[wealth|affluent]] family in [[Copenhagen]], the capital of Denmark. His father, Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard, was a strongly religious man.  Convinced that he had earned God's wrath, he believed that none of his children would live to the age of 34. The [[sin]]s necessitating this punishment, he believed, included cursing the name of God in his youth, and possibly impregnating Kierkegaard's mother out of wedlock. Though many of his seven children died young, his predictions were proved false when two of them surpassed this age. This early introduction to the notion of sin, and its connection from father and son, laid the foundation for much of Kierkegaard's work (particularly ''[[Fear and Trembling]]'').  Kierkegaard's mother, Anne Sørensdatter Lund Kierkegaard, is not directly referred to in his books, although she too affected his later writings.  Despite his father's occasional religious melancholy, Kierkegaard and his father shared a close bond.  Kierkegaard learned to explore the realm of his imagination through a series of exercises and games they played together.
+
Søren Kierkegaard was born to an affluent family in [[Copenhagen]], the capital of [[Denmark]]. His father, Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard, was a very religious man who believed he had committed the unpardonable [[sin]] and as a result none of his children would live past the age of 34. Although it is not clear which sin his father had committed, possibilities include having cursed the name of God and having impregnated his future wife out of wedlock. Although many of his seven children did die young, the father’s predictions proved false when two of the children surpassed the age of 34. This early introduction to the notion of sin, however, along with the intimate bond he shared with his father (who often battled fits of melancholy) laid the foundation for much of Kierkegaard's later work (such as ''Fear and Trembling'' and ''The Concept of Anxiety'').  
  
Kierkegaard attended the School of Civic Virtue and Copenhagen University. At the university, Kierkegaard wrote his dissertation, ''[[The Concept of Irony|The Concept of Irony, with Continual Reference to Socrates]]'', which was found by the university panel to be a noteworthy and well-thought out work, but a little too wordy and literary for a philosophy thesis. Kierkegaard graduated in October 1841.
+
Kierkegaard attended the School of Civic Virtue and Copenhagen University. At the university, Kierkegaard wrote his dissertation, ''The Concept of Irony, with Continual Reference to Socrates.'' The work was found by the university panel to be a noteworthy and well-thought out work, but a little too wordy and literary for a philosophical thesis. The practice of Socratic irony, along with his literary and wordy style, would remain significant and characteristic features throughout the entirety of Kierkegaard’s corpus. Kierkegaard graduated from the university in October of 1841.
  
 
===Regine Olsen (1837&ndash;1841)===
 
===Regine Olsen (1837&ndash;1841)===
 
[[Image:Regine olsen.jpg|150px|thumb|left|Regine Olsen, the love of his life, and a muse for his writings.]]
 
[[Image:Regine olsen.jpg|150px|thumb|left|Regine Olsen, the love of his life, and a muse for his writings.]]
  
Another important aspect of Kierkegaard's life (generally considered to have had a major influence on his work) was his broken engagement to [[Regine Olsen]] (1822 - 1904). Kierkegaard met Regine in [[8 May]], [[1837]] and was instantly attracted to her, and she to him.  In his journals, Kierkegaard wrote about his love for Regine:
+
One of most important events in Kierkegaard's life (and a major influence on his work) was his relation with Regine Olsen (1822 - 1904). Kierkegaard met Regine in May of 1837 and the two instantly fell in love. In September of 1840, Kierkegaard formally proposed to Regine and she immediately accepted. Not long afterwards, however, Kierkegaard began to have second thoughts and less than a year after the proposal, he broke off the engagement. Over the years many theories have been offered to explain his reasons, but his precise motive for ending the engagement remains a mystery. Like his father, Kierkegaard suffered from melancholy and he seemed to believe he had inherited his father’s curse. For this reason, Kierkegaard judged himself to be unsuited for marriage. In any case, it is generally believed that Soren and Regine were deeply in love, and perhaps remained so even after she married Johan Frederik Schlegel, a prominent civil servant. Although for a period both Kierkegaard and Regine remained in Copenhagen their contact was limited to chance meetings on the streets. At one point, Kierkegaard asked Regine's husband for permission to speak with her, but the husband refused the request. Kierkegaard’s writings are filled with what appear to be subtle references intended to be directly or indirectly understood by Regine. Regine and her husband left the country when Schlegel was appointed Governor in the [[Danish West Indies]]. By the time Regine returned, Kierkegaard was dead. Regine Schlegel lived until 1904, and upon her death she was buried near Kierkegaard in the Assistens Cemetery in Copenhagen. One of the most poignant passages in Kierkegaard’s journals is the one which reads, “Had I had faith, I would have married Regine.”
 
 
{{Quotation|Thou sovereign of my heart treasured in the deepest fastness of my chest, in the fullness of my thought, there ... unknown divinity!  Oh, can I really believe the poet's tales, that when one first sees the object of one's love, one imagines one has seen her long ago, that all love like all knowledge is remembrance, that love too has its prophecies in the individual. ... it seems to me that I should have to possess the beauty of all girls in order to draw out a beauty equal to yours; that I should have to circumnavigate the world in order to find the place I lack and which the deepest mystery of my whole being points towards, and at the next moment you are so near to me, filling my spirit so powerfully that I am transfigured for myself, and feel that it's good to be here.|Søren Kierkegaard|Journals, [[2 February]], [[1839]]}}
 
 
 
On [[8 September]], [[1840]], Kierkegaard formally proposed to Regine. However, Kierkegaard soon felt disillusioned and melancholic about the marriage.  Less than a year after he had proposed, he broke it off on [[11 August]], [[1841]]. Several theories have been offered to explain, but Kierkegaard's motive for ending the engagement remains mysterious.   It is generally believed that the two were deeply in love, perhaps even after she married Johan Frederik Schlegel (1817&ndash;1896), a prominent civil servant (not to be confused with the German philosopher [[Friedrich Schlegel|Friedrich von Schlegel]], 1772-1829). For the most part, their contact was limited to chance meetings on the streets of [[Copenhagen]]. Some years later, however, Kierkegaard went so far as to ask Regine's husband for permission to speak with her, but was refused.
 
 
 
Soon afterwards, the couple left the country, Schlegel having been appointed Governor in the [[Danish West Indies]]. By the time Regine returned, Kierkegaard was dead. Regine Schlegel lived until 1904, and upon her death she was buried near Kierkegaard in the Assistens Cemetery in Copenhagen.
 
  
 
===The First Authorship (1841 &ndash; 1846)===
 
===The First Authorship (1841 &ndash; 1846)===
Although Kierkegaard wrote a few articles on politics, women, and entertainment in his youth and university days, many scholars believe Kierkegaard's first noteworthy work is either his university thesis, ''[[The Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates]]'', which was presented in 1841 or his masterpiece and arguably greatest work, ''[[Either/Or]]'', which was published in 1843. In either case, both works critiqued major figures in Western philosophic thought ([[Socrates]] in the former and [[Hegel]] in the latter), showcased Kierkegaard's unique style of writing, and displayed a maturity in writing from his works of youth. ''[[Either/Or]]'' was mostly written during Kierkegaard's stay in [[Berlin]] and was completed in the autumn of 1842. The work was published in February 1843.
+
Kierkegaard's first important work was his university thesis, ''The Concept of Irony,'' which was presented in 1841. Shortly thereafter in 1943 he published the pseudonymous work, ''Either/Or'' which remains one of his most famous and important books. The work offers the beginning of Kierkegaard’s [[existentialism|existential]] analysis in which he suggests that a fundamental choice must be made between an aesthetic or ethical existence.
  
[[Image:manuscript_philosophical_fragments.png|250px|thumb|Kierkegaard's manuscript of [[Philosophical Fragments]].]]  
+
[[Image:manuscript_philosophical_fragments.png|250px|thumb|Kierkegaard's manuscript of ''Philosophical Fragments.'']]  
  
In the same year Either/Or was published, Kierkegaard found out Regine was engaged to be married to [[Johan Frederik Schlegel]]. This fact affected Kierkegaard and his subsequent writings deeply. In ''[[Fear and Trembling]]'', published in late 1843, one can interpret a section in the work as saying: 'Kierkegaard hopes that through a divine act, Regine would return to him'. ''[[Repetition (Kierkegaard)|Repetition]]'', published on the same day and year as ''Fear and Trembling'', is about a young gentleman leaving his beloved.  Several other works in this period make similar overtones of the Kierkegaard-Olsen relationship.
+
In the same year that ''Either/Or'' appeared, Kierkegaard discovered that Regine was engaged. The news left a deep imprint on Kierkegaard and in turn his writings. In ''Fear and Trembling'' (1843) Kierkegaard seems to suggest that through a divine act, Regine might return to him. Several other works of this period, such as ''Repetition,'' allude to Kierkegaard’s relationship to his former fiancée.
 
 
Other major works in this period focuses on a critique of [[Georg Hegel]] and form a basis for [[existential psychology]].  ''[[Philosophical Fragments]]'', ''[[The Concept of Dread]]'', and ''[[Stages on Life's Way]]'' are about thoughts and feelings an individual may face in life, existential choices and its consequences, and whether or not to embrace religion, specifically [[Christianity]], in one's life.  Perhaps the most valiant attack on [[Hegelianism]] is the ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments]]'' which discusses the importance of the individual, subjectivity as truth, and countering the Hegelian claim that ''the Rational is the Real and the Real is the Rational''.
 
  
 
===The Corsair Affair (1845&ndash;1846)===
 
===The Corsair Affair (1845&ndash;1846)===
On [[22 December]], [[1845]], [[Peder Ludvig Møller]] published an article critiquing ''[[Stages on Life's Way]]''The article gave ''Stages'' a poor review, but showed little understanding of the work. Møller was also a contributor of ''[[Corsaren|The Corsair]]'', a Danish satirical paper that lampooned people of notable standing. Kierkegaard wrote a response in order to defend the work, ridicule Møller, and bring down The Corsair, earning him the ire of the paper and its editor, [[Meïr Aaron Goldschmidt]]. 
+
In December of 1845, Peder Ludvig Møller published an article critiquing Kierkegaard’s work ''Stages on Life's Way.'' The article not only gave ''Stages'' a poor review, but showed little understanding of the style, substance, and intention of the pseudonymous work. Møller was also an editor of ''The Corsair,'' a Danish satirical paper that lampooned people of notable standing. Kierkegaard wrote two articles in response to both Møller’s original critique and to ''The Corsair'' itself. The former focused on the questionability of Møller's integrity while the latter launched a direct assault on ''The Corsair,'' in which Kierkegaard openly asked to be satirized.
 
 
The only two articles that Kierkegaard wrote in response to ''The Corsair'' were ''[[Activity of a Traveling Esthetician]]'' and ''[[Dialectical Result of a Literary Police Action]]''. The former focused on insulting Møller's integrity and responding to his critique.  The latter was a directed assault on The Corsair, in which Kierkegaard openly asked to be satirized.
 
 
 
{{Quotation|With a paper like '''The Corsair''', which hitherto has been read by many and all kinds of people and essentially has enjoyed the recognition of being ignored, despised, and never answered, the only thing to be done in writing in order to express the literary, moral order of things—reflected in the inversion that this paper with meager competence and extreme effort has sought to bring about—was for someone immortalized and praised in this paper to make application to be abused by the same paper ... May I asked to be abused—the personal injury of being immortalized by ''The Corsair'' is just too much.|Søren Kierkegaard|Dialectical Result of a Literary Police Action}}
 
 
 
Over the next few months, '''The Corsair''' took Kierkegaard up on his offer to "be abused", and unleashed a series of attacks making fun of Kierkegaard's appearance, voice, and habits.  For months, he was harassed on the streets of Denmark. 
 
In an [[1846]] journal entry, Kierkegaard makes a long, detailed explanation of his attack on Møller and ''The Corsair'', and also explains that this attack made him quit his indirect communication authorship:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|The days of my authorship are past, God be praised.  I have been granted the satisfaction of bringing it to a conclusion [by] myself, understanding when it is fitting that I should make an end, and next after the publication of ''[[Either/Or]]'' I thank God for that.  That this, once again, is not how people would see it, that I could actually prove in two words that it is so.  I know quite well and find [my authorship] quite in order.  But it has pained me; it seemed to me that I might have asked for that admission; but let it be. If only I can manage to become a priest.  However much of my present life may have satisfied me: I shall breathe more freely in that quiet activity, allowing myself an occasional literary work in my free time.|Søren Kierkegaard|Journals, [[9 March]], [[1846]]}}
 
 
 
===The Second Authorship (1846&ndash;1853)===
 
[[Image:Sicknessmanuscript.jpg|300px|thumb|Kierkegaard's manuscript of [[The Sickness Unto Death]].]]
 
 
 
Whereas his first authorship focused on Hegel, this authorship focused on the hypocrisy of Christendom.  It is important to realise that by 'Christendom' is not meant Christianity itself, but rather the church and the applied religion of his society. After the Corsair incident, Kierkegaard became interested in "the public" and the individual's interaction with it. His first work in this period of his life was ''[[Two Ages: A Literary Review]]'' which was a critique of the novel ''Two Ages'' (in some translations ''Two Generations'') written by [[Thomasine Christine Gyllembourg-Ehrensvärd]]. After giving his critique of the story, Kierkegaard made several insightful observations on the nature of the present age and its passionless attitude towards life.
 
 
 
{{Quotation |The present age is essentially a sensible, reflecting age, devoid of passion, flaring up in superficial, short-lived enthusiasm and prudentially relaxing in indolence. ... whereas a passionate age accelerates, raises up, and overthrows, elevates and debases, a reflective apathetic age does the opposite, it stifles and impedes, it levels.  In antiquity the individual in the crowd had no significance whatsoever; the man of excellence stood for them all. The trend today is in the direction of mathematical equality, so that in all classes about so and so many uniformly make one individual.... For leveling to take place, a phantom must first be raised, the spirit of leveling, a monstrous abstraction, an all-encompassing something that is nothing, a mirage—and this phantom is the public.... The present age is essentially a sensible age, devoid of passion and therefore it has nullified the principle of contradiction.|Søren Kierkegaard|(Two Ages)}}
 
  
Other works continue to focus on the superficiality of "the crowd" attempting to limit and stifle the unique individual.  ''[[The Book on Adler]]'' is a work about Pastor [[Adolf Peter Adler]]'s claim to have had a sacrilegious revelation and was shunned and expelled from the pastorate.
+
Over the next few months, ''The Corsair'' took Kierkegaard up on his challenge to "be abused," and unleashed a series of attacks ridiculing Kierkegaard's appearance, voice, and habits. For months, Kierkegaard was harassed on the streets of Denmark so that schoolboys used to chide one another by saying, “Don’t be a Soren.” In an 1846 journal entry, Kierkegaard offers a long, detailed explanation of his attack on Møller and ''The Corsair,'' and also explains that this attack made him quit his indirect communication authorship. At that point Kierkegaard believed that his writing career had reached its conclusion; from then on, he decided, he would settle down into the quiet life of a [[Lutheran Church|Lutheran]] pastor.
  
As part of his analysis of the crowd, Kierkegaard realized the decay and decadence of the [[Christian church]], especially the [[Church of Denmark|Danish State Church]]. Kierkegaard believed Christendom had "lost its way" on the Christian faith. Christendom in this period ignored, skewed, and gave 'lip service' to the original Christian doctrine.  Kierkegaard felt his duty in this later era was to inform others about the shallowness of so-called "Christian living". He wrote several criticisms on contemporary Christianity in works such as ''[[Christian Discourses]]'', ''[[Works of Love]]'', and ''[[Edifying Discourses in Diverse Spirits]]''.
+
===The Second Authorship and the Attack Upon Christendom (1846&ndash;1855)===
 +
[[Image:Sicknessmanuscript.jpg|300px|thumb|Kierkegaard's manuscript of ''The Sickness Unto Death.'']]  
 +
Not long afterwards Kierkegaard reversed his momentous decision. Rather than give up his authorship, he decided to redirect it. Whereas his first authorship offered a polemic against [[Hegel]], his second authorship would launch an assault against the hypocrisy of Christendom. One should note that by 'Christendom' Kierkegaard did not mean Christianity itself, but rather the official Church which had become indistinguishable from Danish culture and society. After the ''Corsair'' incident, Kierkegaard emphasized the role of "the public" and the individual's interaction with it. His first work of this period was ''Two Ages: A Literary Review'' which was a critique of a well-known novel. While offering his critique of the work, Kierkegaard drew several insightful conclusions on the nature of the present age and its abstract and passionless attitude towards life.
  
''[[The Sickness Unto Death]]'' is one of Kierkegaard's most popular works in this era, and although some contemporary atheistic philosophers and psychologists dismiss Kierkegaard's suggested solution as [[faith]], his analysis on the nature of [[Existential despair|despair]] is one of the best accounts on the subject and has been emulated in subsequent philosophies, such as [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]]'s concept of existential guilt and [[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre]]'s [[bad faith]].
+
{{Quotation|The present age is essentially a sensible, reflecting age, devoid of passion, flaring up in superficial, short-lived enthusiasm and prudentially relaxing in indolence. … whereas a passionate age accelerates, raises up, and overthrows, elevates and debases, a reflective apathetic age does the opposite, it stifles and impedes, it levels.|Kierkegaard|The Present Age}}
  
Around 1848, Kierkegaard began a literary attack on the [[Church of Denmark|Danish State Church]] with books such as ''[[Practice in Christianity]]'', ''[[For Self-Examination]]'', and ''[[Judge for Yourselves!]]'', which attempted to expound the true nature of Christianity, with [[Jesus]] as the role model.
+
As part of his analysis of the crowd, Kierkegaard realized the decay and decadence of the Christian church, especially the Church of Denmark. Kierkegaard believed Christendom had "lost its way" and so had abandoned the Christian faith. Christendom merely gave 'lip service' to the original and profound nature of the Christian doctrine taming it into a social and mundane doctrine of manners. Convinced that his duty was to inform others of the shallowness of this so-called Christian teaching of the Danish Church (which made everything too “easy”), Kierkegaard wrote several scathing criticisms on contemporary Christendom in works such as ''Christian Discourses,'' ''Works of Love,'' and ''Edifying Discourses in Diverse Spirits.'' His task throughout these works was to make things “more difficult,” though not more difficult than Christianity itself.
  
===Attack Upon Christendom (1854&ndash;1855)===
 
 
[[Image:KierkegaardGrave.jpg|250px|thumb|Søren Kierkegaard's grave in Assistens Kirkegård]]
 
[[Image:KierkegaardGrave.jpg|250px|thumb|Søren Kierkegaard's grave in Assistens Kirkegård]]
  
Kierkegaard's final years were taken up with a sustained, outright attack on the [[Church of Denmark|Danish State Church]] by means of newspaper articles published in '''The Fatherland''' ('''Fædrelandet''') and a series of self-published pamphlets called '''The Moment''' ('''Øieblikket'''). Kierkegaard was initially called to action by a speech by Professor [[Hans Lassen Martensen]], which called his recently deceased predecessor Bishop Jakob P. Mynster a "truth-witness, one of the authentic truth-witnesses."  
+
Kierkegaard's final years were taken up with a more sustained, outright attack on the Danish State Church by means of newspaper articles published in ''The Fatherland'' and a series of self-published pamphlets called ''The Moment.'' Kierkegaard was initially provoked by a speech made by Professor Hans Lassen Martensen, in which he referred to the recently deceased Bishop Mynster as an authentic "truth-witness." Although Kierkegaard had an affection towards Mynster, he believed Mynster’s conception of Christianity was in error and so served man's interest rather than God's. For this reason, it was an outrage to compare Mynster's life with that of a 'truth-witness'.  
 
 
Kierkegaard had an affection towards Mynster, but had come to see that his conception of Christianity was in man's interest, rather than God's, and in no way was Mynster's life comparable to that of a 'truth-witness.'  
 
 
 
Before the tenth chapter of '''The Moment''' could be published, Kierkegaard collapsed on the street and was taken to a hospital. He stayed in the hospital for nearly a month and refused to receive communion from a priest of the church, whom Kierkegaard regarded as merely an official and not a servant of God. 
 
 
 
He said to his friend since boyhood Emil Boesen, who kept a record of his conversations and was himself a pastor, that his life had been one of great and unknown suffering, which looked like vanity to others but was not.  
 
  
Kierkegaard died in Frederick's Hospital after being there for over a month, possibly from complications from a fall he had taken from a tree when he was a boy. He was interred in the [[Assistens Cemetery|Assistens Kirkegård]] in the [[Nørrebro]] section of Copenhagen. At Kierkegaard's funeral, his nephew Henrik Lund caused a disturbance by protesting that Kierkegaard was being buried by the official church even though in his life he had broken from and denounced it. Lund was later fined.
+
Before the tenth chapter of ''The Moment'' could be published, though, Kierkegaard collapsed on the street and was taken to a hospital. He stayed in the hospital for nearly a month and refused to receive communion from a priest of the church, whom Kierkegaard regarded as merely a state official rather than an authentic servant of God. Kierkegaad admitted to his friend since boyhood, Emil Boesen (who was himself a pastor and who kept a record of his conversations with Kierkegaard) that his (Kierkegaard’s) life, which looked like vanity to others, had been one of tremendous and unknown [[suffering]]. Kierkegaard died in Frederick's Hospital on November 11, 1855.
  
==Kierkegaard's Thought==
+
==Indirect Communication and Pseudonymous Authorship==
{{main|Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard}}
+
One of the most distinctive features of Kierkegaard’s large body of work is that a number of his books were published under pseudonyms. Although Kierkegaard was not immediately revealed to be the “real author,” the concealment of his identity from the reading public was not his primary motive. Rather by using a pseudonym Kierkegaard intentionally distanced himself from the works and the ideas contained in them. Similar to the way novelists will create characters who express ideas that they themselves do not embrace, Kierkegaard created philosophers who expressed ideas to which he himself did not necessarily commit. This technique allowed Kierkegaard to represent different ways of thinking and living which would connect to his different stages of existence. Moreover, this reflects Kierkegaard’s method of indirect communication where, as in poetry, the reader is required to interpret the possible meanings embedded in the text, rather than be told them straightforwardly or directly. In his ''The Point of View of my Work as an Author,'' Kierkegaard admitted that he wrote this way in order to prevent his works from being treated as a philosophical system with a systematic structure. He says, "In the pseudonymous works, there is not a single word which is mine. I have no opinion about these works except as a third person, no knowledge of their meaning, except as a reader, not the remotest private relation to them." Of course, given his continuous use of [[irony]] the reader is left to decide to what extent this “admission” should be taken seriously.
[[Image:Kierkegaard olavius.jpg|250px|thumb|Søren Kierkegaard in the coffee-house. Sketch in oils by Christian Olavius, 1843]]
 
  
Kierkegaard is labelled a [[Christian existentialism|Christian existentialist]], a theologian, the father of existentialism, a psychologist, a poet and a philosopher. Two of his main ideas are the "leap of faith" and "subjectivity". The [[leap of faith]] is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. It is not so much a rational decision, as it is a rejection of rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt that God exists; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought, without which the faith would have no real substance. Doubt is an essential element of faith, an underpinning. In plain words, to believe or have faith that God exists, without ever having doubted God's existence or goodness, would not be a faith worth having. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God.
+
This indirect and ironic style of writing has made it difficult for scholars to demonstrate what precisely Kierkegaard’s definitive view on things were and where he ultimately stood in relation to the ideas presented in the pseudonymous texts. This ambiguity, however, was exactly what Kierkegaard was aiming at. His works constantly belittle the academic tendency to seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake as opposed to searching for a truth that would be worth living (and dying) for. For this reason, he hoped readers would read his works without attributing them to some aspect of his own life; rather readers should decide for themselves what value the ideas held and to what extent they agree or disagree with them. Furthermore, Kierkegaard in being opposed to Hegel was adamantly anti-systematic. He believed that existence itself was not a system, at least from the human perspective. Thus, Kierkegaard thought that his stages of existence: the aesthetic, ethical and religious, could be more truthfully approached “from the inside.” His pseudonyms authors, then, exist in the very ideas they are presenting.  
 
 
Kierkegaard also stressed the importance of the self, and the self's relation to the world as being grounded in self-reflection and introspection. He argued in ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments]]'' that "subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity"; that is, that the self is the ultimate governor of what life is and what life means. He also believed in the infinity of the self, explaining that the self could not be fully known or understood, because it is  infinite. In this way his thought reflects the Christian idea of the soul, which is immortal; but Kierkegaard was not speaking about the immortality of the self as much as the depth of the soul, of a person's being.  
 
 
 
His writings, many of which were written pseudonymously, reflected not only the trend at the time to write pseudonymously but also his idea that a person or a self is made up of many faces and facets, as his book titled ''[[Philosophical Fragments]]'' would indicate. Kierkegaard did not like the systems that were brought on by philosophers such as Kant and Hegel before him. He measured himself against the backdrop of philosophy which was introduced by Socrates, as he noted in ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript'', and preferred a philosophy that was fragmented and made deep insights, without committing to an encompassing all-explaining system.
 
 
 
==Indirect communication and pseudonymous authorship==
 
[[Image:EitherOr_Cover.jpg|150px|thumb|Either/Or, one of Kierkegaard's best works, was authored by the pseudonyms "A" and Judge William and edited by Victor Eremita.]]
 
 
 
During Søren Kierkegaard's early authorship, he frequently wrote many of his works under various pseudonyms who represented different ways of thinking and living.  This was part of Kierkegaard's [[indirect communication]] technique. According to several passages in his works and his journals, such as ''[[The Point of View of my Work as an Author]]'', Kierkegaard wrote this way in order to prevent his works from being treated as a philosophical system with a systematic structure. In the ''Point of View'', Kierkegaard wrote: "In the pseudonymous works, there is not a single word which is mine.  I have no opinion about these works except as a third person, no knowledge of their meaning, except as a reader, not the remotest private relation to them."
 
 
 
Writing this way was intended to make it difficult to ascertain whether a viewpoint put forward by a pseudonym is a viewpoint actually held by Kierkegaard or not. Kierkegaard hoped readers would just read the work at face value, without attributing it to some aspect of his life.  Kierkegaard thought he was able to write on various aspects of the aesthetic, ethical and religious stages of life, while his pseudonyms prevented readers from seeing all of this as one unified system.
 
 
 
Kierkegaard also did not want his readers to treat his work as authoritative. He wanted his readers to look to themselves for interpreting his work.  Early Kierkegaardian scholars, such as [[Theodor W. Adorno]], have disregarded Kierkegaard's intentions and argues that the entire authorship should be treated as Kierkegaard's own personal and religious views. This way of looking at Kierkegaard's work leads to many confusions and seeming contradictions, which makes Kierkegaard seem like an incoherent writer ([http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletter/issue46/46002.htm]). However, many later scholars, such as the [[post-structuralism|post-structuralists]], have respected Kierkegaard's wishes and intentions and interpreted his work by attributing the pseudonymous texts to their respective authors.
 
  
 +
The importance of recognizing the pseudonymous authorship has only recently been recognized in Kiekegaardian scholarship. Early Kierkegaardian scholars, such as [[Theodor W. Adorno]], blatantly disregarded Kierkegaard's intentions and instead argued that the entire authorship should be treated as Kierkegaard's own personal and religious views. This way of looking at Kierkegaard's work leads to many confusions and seeming contradictions, and often makes Kierkegaard’s work appear to be incoherent. Most later scholars, however, have respected Kierkegaard's stated intentions and so interpret his work by attributing the pseudonymous texts to their respective authors. It is also important to note that while publishing these “aesthetic” works (which were attributed to a pseudonym) Kierkegaard almost always published concurrently a “religious” work or “edifying discourse” (which he published under his own name). Unfortunately, some scholars have not always appreciated the significance and connection between these two kinds of works.
 
Some of Kierkegaard's most important pseudonyms include:
 
Some of Kierkegaard's most important pseudonyms include:
  
*Victor Eremita, editor of ''[[Either/Or]]''
+
* Victor Eremita, editor of ''Either/Or''
*A, writer of many articles in ''[[Either/Or]]''
+
* Judge William, author of rebuttals to A in ''Either/Or ''
*Judge William, author of rebuttals to A in ''[[Either/Or]]''
+
* Johannes de Silentio, author of ''Fear and Trembling''
*Anti-Climacus, author of ''[[The Sickness Unto Death]]''
+
* Hilarius Bookbinder, editor of ''Stages on Life's Way''
*Johannes de Silentio, author of ''[[Fear and Trembling]]''
+
* Vigilius Haufniensis, author of ''The Concept of Dread ''
*Hilarius Bookbinder, editor of ''[[Stages on Life's Way]]''
+
* Johannes Climacus, author of ''Philosophical Fragments'' and ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments''
*Vigilius Haufniensis, author of ''[[The Concept of Dread]]''
+
* Anti-Climacus, author of ''The Sickness Unto Death'' and ''Training in Christianity''
*Johannes Climacus, author of ''[[Philosophical Fragments]]'' and ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript]]''
 
  
== The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard ==
+
== Kierkegaard and Hegel ==
[[Image:cover_journals_kierkegaard.png|200px|right|thumb|The cover of the first English edition of The Journals, edited by Alexander Dru in [[1938]].]]
+
[[Image:Hegel.jpg|150px|thumb|Hegel]]
One of group of key texts in attempting to understand Kierkegaard and his work are his journals. {{ref|Journals}}  Kierkegaard wrote over 7000 pages in his journals describing key events, musings, thoughts about his works and everyday remarks. The entire collection of Danish journals has been edited and published in 13 volumes, which consist of 25 separate bindings, including indices.  The first English edition of the journals was edited by Alexander Dru in 1938 ([http://sorenkierkegaard.org/journals.htm]).
+
Kierkegaard’s relation to [[Hegel]] is complex. On the one hand, one of Kierkegaard's greatest philosophical contributions is his critique of Hegel. Kierkegaard objected vigorously to Hegel’s claim that his dialectical System could explain the whole of reality. For Hegel Christianity and religion are merely “moments” that can be rationally explained and so surpassed within a higher philosophical and conceptual system. Kierkegaard never tired of refuting (and ridiculing) these claims by showing that there are things in the world that cannot be explained by [[philosophy]]. Moreover, Kierkegaard feared that Hegel’s [[ethics]] would swallow the individual into the collective whole and so he argued that the Individual is higher than the Universal or the System. Faith, too, was something higher and so could not be grasped by an abstract philosophical theory, but only in the concrete and living practice of the individual or “knight of faith.
  
His journals reveal many different facets of the man and his work and help elucidate many of his ideas. Scholars have frequently noted the style in his journals is among the most elegant and poetic of his writings. Kierkegaard took his journals quite seriously and even remarked in one passage that it was his '''most trusted confidant''':
+
Although Kierkegaard’s work offers a critique of Hegel, there is some of the 'Hegelian' in his work. Given the ambiguity of Kierkegaard’s style and his use of pseudonyms it is difficult for scholars to determine how much of Kierkegaard’s own dialectical style was intended as a parody of Hegel and how much was an authentic appropriation of it. Critics often accuse Kierkegaard of trying to disprove the dialectic by means of the dialectic, which would seem to be a ‘performative contradiction’. Defenders of Kierkegaard argue that he was not opposed to dialectic and reason but to the Hegelian claim that everything could be reconciled within it. While both Hegel and Kierkegaard were dialectical thinkers, they were very different in their understandings of the goal of dialectical thinking. For Hegel the goal is to reach a synthesis, while for Kierkegaard its purpose is only to open the door to inward subjectivity.
  
{{Quotation |I have never confided in anyone.  By being an author I have in a sense made the public my confidant.  But in respect of my relation to the public I must, once again, make posterity my confidant.  The same people who are there to laugh at one cannot very well be made one's confidant.|Søren Kierkegaard|'(Journals, [[4 November]], [[1847]])'}}
+
==Main Themes in Kierkegaard's Thought==
 +
[[Image:Kierkegaard olavius.jpg|250px|thumb|Søren Kierkegaard in the coffee-house. Sketch in oils by Christian Olavius, 1843]]
  
His journals have also been the source of many [[aphorism]]s credited to Kierkegaard. The following passage is perhaps one of the most oft-quoted aphorism from Kierkegaard's journals and is usually a key quote for [[existentialist]] studies:
+
===Existential Stages===
 +
Kierkegaard distinguishes between three levels or stages of individual existence through which one becomes an authentic self, namely, the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. He analyzes the different stages in rather cryptic form throughout many of his works, but makes them most explicit in ''Stages on Life's Way.'' Kierkegaard borrows the idea of stages from Hegel’s notion of sublation, though Kierkegaard interprets the notion in an existential rather than conceptual manner. In both, though, the higher stages include or incorporate the essential aspects of the lower one(s). For example, an ethical or religious person is still capable of aesthetic enjoyment, which is why Kierkegaard states that the religious does “not abolish the aesthetic, it merely dethrones it.”  Moreover, it should be noted that the difference between these ways of existing are inward rather than outward, and so there is no necessary external evidence by which to prove which stage a person is actually existing in.
  
{{Quotation |The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.|Søren Kierkegaard|'(Journals, [[1 August]], [[1835]])'}}
+
=====Aesthetic===== 
 +
Throughout his life Kierkegaard was devoted to art and [[aesthetics]]. Some of his pseudonyms refer to themselves as “religious poets,” and Kierkegaard himself, because of his passionate and ironic writing style and his use of pseudonyms, has often been called a "poet-philosopher." But although Kierkegaard appreciated the richness of beauty and aesthetic experience, much of his work was intended to show the meaninglessness and irresponsibility of a life lived solely on the aesthetic level. In short, an aesthetic life is one devoted to enjoyment, interest, and pleasure. Although Kierkegaard viewed the fine arts as the highest realization of aesthetic enjoyment, the artist as a person is not necessarily existing in this stage. Moreover, the aesthetic sphere also includes much baser forms of pleasure. For there are many degrees of aesthetic existence and perhaps at the bottom would be a life of gross consumerism. But even at the top, those lives which seek only the finest aesthetic refinements are self-absorbed and ultimately irresponsible since they view nothing higher than themselves to which they owe their allegiance. Kierkegaard thought that this way of living, far from being an anomaly, was how most people lived. That is, their lives and activities are guided by enjoyment, pleasure, and interest rather than any deep and meaningful commitment to something that transcended themselves and their own immediacy. For this reason, most people, whether they are aware of it or not, live lives of despair.
  
Although his journals clarify some aspects of his work and life, Kierkegaard made note not to reveal too much. Abrupt changes in thought, repetitive writing, unusual turns of phrases are among many of the tactics Kierkegaard uses to throw readers of the track and lead to many variations of interpretations of his journals. However, Kierkegaard did not doubt the importance his journals would have in the future. In 1849, Kierkegaard wrote:
+
=====Ethical=====
 +
The second level of existence is the ethical. Within the entirety and diversity of Kierkegaard’s authorship the ethical was discussed in various (and sometimes seemingly antithetic) ways. Judge William’s discussion of the ethical in ''Either-Or,'' for instance, stands in sharp contrast with Johannes de silentio’s analysis in ''Fear and Trembling.'' In general, though one might distinguish between two broad ways to understand the ethical within Kierkegaard’s work as a whole, depending upon whether one views the ethical in relation to the aesthetic or in relation to the religious.  
  
{{Quotation |Only a dead man can dominate the situation in Denmark. Licentiousness, envy, gossip, and medocrity are everywhere supreme. Were I to die now the effect of my life would be exceptional; much of what I have simply jotted down carelessly in the Journals would become of great importance and have a great effect; for then people would have grown reconciled to me and would be able to grant me what was, and is, my right.|Søren Kierkegaard|'(Journals, December 1849)'}}
+
The first way is the emphasis upon existential choice, a notion from which later twentieth century existential thinkers often borrowed. Here the ethical existence is defined by an individual making an authentic choice which commits her to a certain direction in life. In doing this, she enters the journey of self-becoming by adhering to values and ethical norms that transcend her own immediate wants or desires. At this ethical level her actions begin to take on a certain consistency and coherence which they lacked in the aesthetic sphere. For Judge William, the ethical is supremely important. For it calls each individual to take account of their own lives by scrutinizing their actions in terms of universal and absolute demands. These demands are to be appropriated by the individual in such a way that in making a genuine response the individual affirms herself as a truly committed and passionate consciousness. Any lesser response is an avoidance of responsibility and the universal nature of duty. Although the universality of these responsibilities seem to be self-evident, they are not to be followed simply as a matter of course. They must be done subjectively, that is, with a passion and understanding that views them as a having direct impact upon one’s own self-becoming. [[Ethics]], then, is something one achieves for oneself with the realization that one’s entire self-understanding is involved. Thus, the meaning of one’s life amounts to whether one practices one’s conviction in an honest, passionate, and devoted way.
  
==Kierkegaard and Christendom==
+
Another way in which some of Kierkegaard’s authors depict the ethical is by more or less equating it with the social norms of the particular group or culture. In this way it is the society which mediates the ethical and so the individual must adhere to those social values in order to be ethical. Although this view has often been appropriated by later thinkers in order to critique certain cultures (both past and present), Kierkegaard’s authors do not always take a negative view of it. For there is a legitimate ethical value in the individual sacrificing oneself for the good of others within the social whole. For in doing so, one transcends one’s own selfish or merely aesthetic wants. In ''Fear and Trembling'', for instance, Silentio describes various ethical or “tragic heroes” such as Agamemnon. In the classic tale the king, after making an oath to the gods, sacrifices his daughter for the good of the people. What distinguishes these ethical heroes is precisely that they are understood by the people (which is why they are considered to be heroes). Silentio will contrast such heroes with the “knights of faith” (such as Abraham) precisely by their not being understood (or if they are, it is always in hindsight after their particular trial has been endured in solitude and misunderstanding).
[[Image:Marmorkirken.jpg|250px|thumb|Kierkegaard mounted an attack on Christian institutions in his final years.  He felt Christendom was detrimental to individuals.]]
 
{{see also|Theology of Søren Kierkegaard}}
 
As mentioned in the biography, during the final years of his life, Kierkegaard took up a sustained attack on all of [[Christendom]], Christanity as a political entity. In the 19th century, most Danes who were citizens of [[Denmark]] were necessarily members of the Danish State Church. In 2002 even, the [[Church of Denmark]] reports 84.3% of Danes are members of the [[state church]] {{ref|Churchstat}}. Kierkegaard felt this state-church union was unacceptable and perverted the true meaning of Christianity. The main points of the attack include:
 
  
*''Church congregations are meaningless'': The idea of congregations keeps individuals as children since it disinclines Christians from taking the initiative to take responsibility for their own relation to God.  Kierkegaard stresses that "Christianity is the individual, here, the single individual." [http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletter/issue39/39002.htm]
+
=====Religious=====
 +
As with the ethical, the religious sphere of existence is approached by Kierkegaard and his pseudonyms in various ways. Although the ethical and the religious are intimately connected, just how Kierkegaard viewed this relation has been a matter of dispute among scholars. For the different pseudonymous works depict the religious not only in different but seemingly incompatible ways. Both ethics and religion rest on the awareness of a higher reality that gives meaning to actions. In moving from the ethical to the religious, however, the question arises as to what extent reason and the ethical values which serve as the mediation to the universal are not only transcended, but also transgressed. This raises the issue of the relation between faith and reason and to what extent faith goes beyond reason and to what extent it goes against reason. Here Kierkegaard’s ironic, unsystematic, and pseudonymous style of writing leaves his reader with a number of ambiguities. Whereas living in the ethical sphere involves a commitment to some ethical universal norms, existing in the religious sphere involves an immediate and direct relation to the Eternal.
  
*''Christendom had become secularized and political'': Since the Church was controlled by the State, Kierkegaard believed it was the State's bureacratic mission to increase membership and oversee the welfare of its members.  More members would mean more power for the clergymen: a corrupt ideal. This mission would seem at odds with Christianity's true doctrine, which is to stress the importance of the individual, not the whole.
+
In ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments'' Johannes Climacus distinguishes between two types within the religious stage: ''Religiousness A'' and ''Religiousness B.'' Religiousness A is symbolized by [[Socrates]], whose passionate pursuit of the truth and individual [[conscience]] led him to a subjective appropriation of truth which conflicted with his society. Thus, Socrates transcended a merely ethical manner of existing by recognizing the beyond of the eternal and a willingness to die for it. Socrates’ faith, then, was a kind of secular faith which did not stop short at the ethical but surpassed it. Nonetheless, Socrates’ faith was incomplete in that it lacked a proper object which could fulfill the paradoxical nature of his existence. For the paradoxical aspect of human existence is that while being a finite and limited being in time the human seeks the infinite, unlimited, and eternal.  
  
*''Christianity becomes an empty religion'':  Thus, the [[state church]] political structure is offensive and detrimental to individuals, since everyone can become "Christian" without knowing what it means to be Christian. It is also detrimental to the religion itself since it reduces Christianity to a mere fashionable tradition adhered to by unbelieving "believers", a "herd mentality" of the population, so to speak.
+
Only through Christianity or ''Religiousness B'' is the paradoxical nature of human existence fulfilled. It is fulfilled not by being explained and so understood through reason, but by being believed and so understood by faith. For in the person of [[Jesus]] the Eternal breaks into time so that [[God]] exists in time. The Incarnation, then, is the Absolute Paradox through which human beings find their salvation. Moreover, the realization that the individual is sinful and so is the source of untruth, can only be righted not by an intellectual assent to a rational God, but through an immediate relation to the Absolute Paradox. Only in time, through a subjective and passionate appropriation of Christian revelation (which from a scientific standpoint is an “objective uncertainty”) does one come into a direct relationship with the Absolute Paradox: that is God, the transcendent, coming into time in human form to redeem human beings. For Kierkegaard, the very notion of this occurring is scandalous to human reason; indeed, it must be, and if it is not then one does not truly understand the Incarnation or the meaning of human sinfulness. For Kierkegaard, the impulse towards an awareness of a transcendent power in the universe is what religion is. Although religion has a social and so ethical dimension, it begins with the individual and his or her awareness of sinfulness. Here Kierkegaard reflects Lutheran and Augustinian teachings in which the immediate relation to the Absolute (God) is founded upon grace alone.
  
{{Quotation |If the Church is "free" from the state, it's all good. I can immediately fit in this situation. But if the Church is to be [[emancipation|emancipated]], then I must ask: By what means, in what way?  A religious movement must be served religiously - otherwise it is a sham!  Consequently, the emancipation must come about through martyrdom - bloody or bloodless.  The price of purchase is the spiritual attitude.  But those who wish to emancipate the Church by secular and worldly means (i.e. no martyrdom), they've introduced a conception of tolerance entirely consonant with that of the entire world, where tolerance equals indifference, and that is the most terrible offence against Christianity. ... the doctrine of the established Church, its organization, are both very good indeed. Oh, but then our lives: believe me, they are indeed wretched.|Søren Kierkegaard|'(Journals, January 1851)'}}
+
===Leap of Faith===
 +
In both the ''Postscript'' and ''Fear and Trembling'' Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms speak of faith as “a leap.” Thus, later scholars make much of his “leap of faith” and many of the more negative critiques argue that this notion advocates an irrationalism or fideism in which reason is rejected in favor of blind impulse. These critics points to the texts in which faith is referred to as an absurdity. More favorable readings, however, argue that the importance of the pseudonymous authorship should not be devalued. They also emphasize Kierkegaard’s anti-[[Hegelianism]]. For [[Hegel]] the dialectical stages were necessary unfolding of history and understanding; in contrast, Kierkegaard insists that the transitions within his stages of existence are not necessary but contingent. It is in this sense, then, that one might understand “leap.” That is, the progressive movement from one stage to the next requires something more than a natural transition. A certain gap or chasm needs to be crossed. It is in this way, as well, one might understand doubt or despair as those gaps which are crossed by the leap of faith.
  
Because of the incompetence and corruption of the Christian churches, Kierkegaard seemed to have foreseen philosophers like [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] who would go on to criticize the Christian religion.
+
[[Image:Abraham.jpg|250px|right|thumb|In ''Fear and Trembling,'' Johannes de Silentio analyzes [[Abraham]]'s action to sacrifice [[Isaac]]. Silentio argues that Abraham is a knight of faith.]]
  
{{Quotation |I ask: what does it mean when we continue to behave as though all were as it should be, calling ourselves Christians according to the [[New Testament]], when the ideals of the New Testament have gone out of life?  The tremendous disproportion which this state of affairs represents has, moreover, been perceived by many. They like to give it this turn: the human race has outgrown Christianity.|Søren Kierkegaard|'(Journals, [[June 19]], [[1852]])'}}
+
The relation between ethics and the leap of faith continues to be debated among scholars. Some philosophers who read ''Fear and Trembling'' conclude that it supports [[divine command theory|divine command]]. The divine command theory is a [[Meta-ethics|metaethical]] theory which claims moral values are whatever is commanded by God. If a divine command from God ''transcends'' ethics, it would seem that at times God can command an unethical act (such as murder in the case of [[Abraham]] and his son [[Isaac]]). Any religious person must be prepared for the event of a divine command from God that would take precedence over all moral and rational obligations. In ''Fear and Trembling'' Silentio called this event the ''teleological suspension of the ethical.'' The ethical duty is not cancelled but merely suspended at a particular place and time according to God’s own command. Abraham, the knight of faith, chose to obey God’s command unconditionally, and was rewarded with the title of "Father of Faith." Abraham transcended ethics and leapt into faith not only because he was willing to slay his son, but also because he believed he would receive his son back. For God had also promised Abraham that through Isaac he would become the “Father of many generations.”
  
==Criticisms of Kierkegaard==
+
===Subjectivity ===
Some of Kierkegaard's famous philosophical critics in the [[20th century]] include [[Theodor Adorno]] and [[Emmanuel Levinas]]. Atheistic philosophers such as [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] and [[Martin Heidegger]] mostly support Kierkegaard's philosophical views, but criticize and reject his religious views.
+
Johannes Climacus wrote in the ''Postscript'' the following famous line: "Subjectivity is truth." This line has often been used as proof that Kierkegaard promoted an irrationalism. Defenders of Kierkegaard claim this is a misinterpretation since it both confuses Kierkegaard with the author of the work, Climacus, and it misunderstands what is meant by the term ‘subjectivity’. Existential subjectivity refers not merely to the feelings or emotions of the subject, but rather the way a subject relates to something in terms of his or her own existence. Subjectivity, then, must be understood in relation to objectivity.
  
Adorno's take on Kierkegaard's philosophy has been less than faithful to the original intentions of Kierkegaard. At least one critic of Adorno considers his book ''Kierkegaard: Construction of the Aesthetic'' to be "the most irresponsible book ever written on Kierkegaard" because Adorno takes Kierkegaard's pseudonyms literally, and constructs an entire philosophy of Kierkegaard which makes him seem incoherent and unintelligible. This is like confusing [[William Shakespeare]] with [[Othello]] and [[Dostoevsky]] with [[Raskolnikov]] {{ref|Westphal}}. Another reviewer mentions that "Adorno is [far away] from the more credible translations and interpretations of the Collected Works of Kierkegaard we have today" ([http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletter/issue46/46002.htm]).
+
Scientists, historians, and speculative philosophers study the objective world in order to discover the truth of nature, history, and universal being. In doing so, they try to discover various laws of nature, history, and universal being. Although these laws have a general validity to them, the question that obsessed Kierkegaard throughout most of his works is how the individual himself relates to the world in terms of his or her existence. Existential or subjective truth, then, is measured precisely by the depth or passion of this relation. For instance, one can learn that the capital of Rhode Island is Providence, or that the earth rotates around the sun. Both of these truths are objective, and yet neither concerns me precisely as an individual. For Kierkegaard all objective truths are aesthetic and so have significance under the category of the interesting. Any knowledge insofar as it is objective is merely interesting; but knowledge insofar as it concerns my very self is subjective or existential.
  
Levinas' main attack on Kierkegaard is focused on his ethical and religious stages, especially in ''[[Fear and Trembling]]''. Levinas criticizes the [[leap of faith]] by saying this suspension of the ethical and leap into the religious is a type of violence. {{ref|Lippit}}
+
To illustrate this notion of subjective truth, let us take the theme of death, which Kierkegaard himself often addressed. To say “all men are mortal” is to state an objective truth about the nature of human beings as finite creatures. But to say, “one day I will die” is to appropriate the objective truth to my very self and so offer the possibility of acknowledging the truth in my own being. The relation, then, is one of interiority and so the degree to which one appropriates existential truth varies. In fact, for Kierkegaard to appropriate existential truths fully or completely requires an entire lifetime. So for Kierkegaard merely to recite ethical or religious formulas in no way suggests that a person has advanced beyond the aesthetic stage to a higher one. For what matters is the degree and depth to which the individual commits to certain values and truths and so embodies them. The transition through the existential stages, then, is what Kiekegaard called “becoming a self.” Kierkegaard’s philosophy is sometimes confused with the existentialism of [[Jean-Paul Sartre]]. Sartre argues that the self or subject creates one’s own meaning and values, and so creates one’s self. In contrast, Kierkegaard argues that in the transition through the existential stages one becomes a self precisely by losing or sacrificing one’s self. In the move from the aesthetic to the ethical the self sacrifices personal wants for higher ideals and universal values. Likewise, in the transition from the ethical to the religious, one sacrifices mediated ideals for the immediate encounter with the Eternal in faith. In this way, one loses one’s self in order to regain it as a higher level.
  
{{Quotation |Kierkegaardian violence begins when existence is forced to abandon the ethical stage in order to embark on the religious stage, the domain of belief.  But belief no longer sought external justification. Even internally, it combined communication and isolation, and hence violence and passion. That is the origin of the relegation of ethical phenomena to secondary status and the contempt of the ethical foundation of being which has led, through Nietzsche, to the amoralism of recent philosophies.|Emmanuel Levinas|'Existence and Ethics, (1963)'}}
+
===Pathos===
 +
It is pathos or passion that advances the subject beyond the aesthetic sphere. The aesthete, lacks passion for he cares only about the interesting and pleasurable. Without pathos one cannot transcend into an ethical existence where one does not simply parrot ethical norms but commits to them in order to provide meaning and direction in one’s life. Likewise, it is pathos that drives one to seek some higher good beyond the social or universal values practiced by the culture and in turn seek a divine and eternal source. Here, through pathos one strives to surpass the mediation of the ethical in favor of an immediate and direct encounter with the eternal. The recognition of this pathos is the awareness of an infinite source or desire in the self, one that is not satisfied by finite mediations but seeks the infinite. This, then, is the religious pathos which Kierkegaard calls faith.  
  
Levinas points to the fact that it was God who first commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and that it was an angel who commanded Abraham to stop. If Abraham was truly in the religious realm, he would not have listened to the angel to stop and should have continued to kill Isaac. "Transcending ethics" seems like a loophole to excuse would-be murders from their crime and thus is unacceptable ([http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/archive/volume10/Katz.html]).
+
===Anxiety===
 +
For Kierkegaard, existential dread or anxiety is the [[fear]] we experience in the face of [[freedom]]. Kierkegaard uses the example of a man standing on the edge of a cliff. When the man looks over the edge, he experiences a focused fear of falling, but at the same time, the man feels a terrifying impulse to hurl himself over the edge. That experience is the dread or anxiety we experience in recognizing our own freedom and the possibility of choosing the destiny of our existence. The recognition of this freedom triggers immense feelings of dread which Kierkegaard called our "dizziness of freedom."
  
On Kierkegaard's religious views, Sartre offers the usual argument against [[existence of God]]: If existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. In ''[[Being and Nothingness]]'', Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a ''pour-soi'' [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an ''en-soi'' [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms.
+
In ''The Concept of Dread,'' Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Vigilius Haufniensis analyzes this dread further. He focuses on the dread experienced by the first man Adam and his choice to eat from the tree of knowledge. Prior to Adam partaking of the fruit, the concepts of good and evil did not yet exist. Adam, then, had no concept of good and evil, and so did not know that eating from the tree was "evil." He did know, however, that God commanded him not to eat from the tree. The dread Adam experienced originated from God's prohibition itself since the command implied that Adam was free and so could choose either to obey God or not. Once Adam ate from the tree, sin was born. Thus, dread precedes sin, and it is dread that leads Adam to sin. Dread, then, "is the presupposition for hereditary sin."
  
Sartre agrees with Kierkegaard's analysis of Abraham undergoing anxiety (Sartre calls it anguish), but Sartre doesn't agree that God told him to do it. In his lecture, ''[[Existentialism is a Humanism]]'', he says:
+
And yet, there is a sense in which dread is related more to our intrinsic freedom than to sin. For Kierkegaard’s pseudonym also mentions that dread is a way for humanity to be saved as well. Because anxiety increases our self-awareness of choice and personal responsibility, it brings us from a state of un-self-conscious immediacy to self-conscious reflection. An individual becomes truly aware of their potential through the experience of dread. So although dread may be a possibility for sin, it can also be a recognition or realization of the freedom of possibility and the attainment of an authentic self.
  
{{Quotation |The man who lies in self-excuse, by saying "Everyone will not do it" must be ill at ease in his conscience, for the act of lying implies the universal value which it denies. By its very disguise his anguish reveals itself. This is the anguish that Kierkegaard called "the anguish of Abraham." You know the story: An angel commanded [[Abraham]] to sacrifice his son; and obedience was obligatory, if it really was an angel who had appeared and said, "Thou, Abraham, shalt sacrifice thy son." But anyone in such a case would wonder, first, whether it was indeed an angel and secondly, whether I am really Abraham. Where are the proofs? A certain mad woman who suffered from [[hallucination]]s said that people were telephoning to her, and giving her orders. The doctor asked, "But who is it that speaks to you?" She replied: "He says it is God." And what, indeed, could prove to her that it was God? If an angel appears to me, what is the proof that it is an angel; or, if I hear voices, who can prove that they proceed from heaven and not from hell, or from my own subconsciousness or some pathological condition? Who can prove that they are really addressed to me?  |Jean-Paul Sartre|'([http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm]) Existentialism is a Humanism'}}
+
===Despair=== 
 +
{{Quotation|Is despair an excellence or a defect? Purely dialectically, it is both. The possibility of this sickness is man's superiority over the animal, for it indicates infinite sublimity that he is spirit. Consequently, to be able to despair is an infinite advantage, and yet to be in despair is not only the worst misfortune and misery—no, it is ruination.|Søren Kierkegaard|The Sickness Unto Death}}
  
Kierkegaard would have said that this requirement for "proof that it is God" relies on reason alone, and Kierkegaard believes that faith in God transcends "reason alone" by recognizing that human beings have reason because they are created by God in God's image.
+
In ''The Sickness Unto Death'' Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Anti-Climacus offers a complex definition of the self as a synthesis of the finite and the infinite, and the relation that relates to itself in relating to another. Some scholars argue that the style of the work is a parody of the Hegelian dialectical method where opposites merge into ever-higher syntheses. In any case, the work offers an analysis of the various forms of despair in which the self in seeking its own fulfillment continues to direct itself toward objects or possibilities which fail to succeed in this aim of overcoming despair. At times the self loses itself in its own finitude or limitations; at other times it loses itself in its infinitude and endless possibilities. The key for Kierkegaard is the balance which one strikes in actualizing the possibilities which are truly one’s own and so following the course of one’s own life laid out specifically for oneself. Later existential thinkers, such as Sartre and Heidegger, borrow this notion of authentic possibility. For Kirkegaard’s specifically religious view, however, the authentic possibility of overcoming the ultimate despair of death and our own human finitude is fulfilled only through faith. In this way, self-becoming realizes itself only through a relation to the Eternal.
  
==Kierkegaard's influence==
+
==Kierkegaard's Influence==
 
[[Image:Søren-Kirkegaard-Statue.jpeg|thumb|The Søren Kierkegaard Statue in Copenhagen.]]
 
[[Image:Søren-Kirkegaard-Statue.jpeg|thumb|The Søren Kierkegaard Statue in Copenhagen.]]
  
Kierkegaard's works were not made widely available until several decades after his death. This is perhaps due to the facts that Kierkegaard was shunned by the Danish State Church, one of the major institutions in Denmark at the time, as well as the relative obscurity of the Danish language, compared to languages such as [[German language|German]] and [[English language|English]]. [[Georg Brandes]], an early Kierkegaardian Danish scholar who was fluent in Danish and German, gave one of the first formal lectures on Kierkegaard and helped bring Kierkegaard to the attention of [[Europe]]. Brandes also wrote the first book on Kierkegaard's philosophy and life in 1877.  The dramatist [[Henrik Ibsen]] became interested in Kierkegaard and introduced the works in [[Scandinavia]]. German translations appeared during the 1910s, while the first English translations were produced in 1938 by [[Alexander Dru]] under the editorial efforts of then-[[Oxford University Press]] editor [[Charles Williams]]{{ref|Poole}}. Kierkegaard's fame as a philosopher grew tremendously in the 1930s, mostly in response to the growing existentialist movement.
+
Kierkegaard's works were not made widely available until several decades after his death. Not until Georg Brandes, an early Kierkegaardian Danish scholar fluent in both Danish and German, translated his work was Kierkegaard made known to the academic community in Europe. The dramatist [[Henrik Ibsen]] became interested in Kierkegaard, as well, and so popularized the works in Scandinavia. German translations appeared during the early 1900s, while the first English translations were not produced until 1938. Kierkegaard's fame as a philosopher grew tremendously in the 1930s, mostly in relation to the growing existentialist movement. He is called the father of existentialism.
  
Many [[20th-century philosophy|20th-century philosophers]], both theistic and atheistic, drew many concepts from Kierkegaard, including the notions of angst, despair, and the importance of the individual. Philosophers and theologians who have been influenced by Kierkegaard include [[Karl Jaspers]], [[Paul Tillich]], [[Rudolf Karl Bultmann]], [[Martin Buber]], [[Gabriel Marcel]], [[Miguel de Unamuno]], [[Karl Barth]], [[Hans Urs von Balthasar]], [[Martin Heidegger]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], [[Albert Camus]], and [[Simone de Beauvoir]].  [[Paul Feyerabend]]'s scientific anarchism was inspired by Kierkegaard's idea of subjectivity as truth.  [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] has been known to have been immensely influenced and humbled by Kierkegaard [http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/ccreegan/wk/], claiming that "Kierkegaard is far too deep for me, anyhow. He bewilders me without working the good effects which he would in deeper souls" ([http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/ccreegan/wk/chapter1.html]).
+
Many twentieth-century philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, drew many concepts from Kierkegaard, particularly the notions of angst, despair, and the importance of individual choice and commitment. Philosophers and theologians who have been influenced by Kierkegaard include [[Karl Jaspers]], [[Paul Tillich]], [[Rudolf Bultmann|Rudolf Karl Bultmann]], [[Martin Buber]], [[Gabriel Marcel]], [[Miguel de Unamuno]], [[Karl Barth]], [[Hans Urs von Balthasar]], [[Martin Heidegger]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], [[Albert Camus]], [[Simone de Beauvoir]], and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]].
  
Kierkegaard's literary influence has also been considerable; those deeply affected by his work include [[Walker Percy]], [[David Lodge]], and [[John Updike]].  
+
Kierkegaard also influenced other disciplines such as literature and psychology. Many literary writers were influenced by Kierkegaard’s insightful analyses of existential themes and situations, such as [[Walker Percy]], [[David Lodge]], and [[John Updike]].
 +
Kierkegaard also had a profound influence on [[psychology]] and created the foundations of [[Christian psychology]], [[existential psychology]] and [[existential therapy|therapy]]. [[Ludwig Binswanger]], [[Victor Frankl]], and [[Carl Rogers]] are well-known existential or humanistic psychologists. [[Rollo May]], an American existential psychologist, based his work ''The Meaning of Anxiety'' on Kierkegaard's ''The Concept of Anxiety.'' Kierkegaard's [[sociology|sociological]] work ''Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age'' provides an interesting critique of [[modernity]]. Kierkegaard is also an important figure in [[postmodern]] debates.
  
Kierkegaard also had a profound influence on [[psychology]] and created the foundations of [[Christian psychology]], [[existential psychology]] and [[existential therapy|therapy]]. [[Ludwig Binswanger]], [[Victor Frankl]], and [[Carl Rogers]] are well-known existential or humanistic psychologists. [[Rollo May]], an American existential psychologist, based his work ''The Meaning of Anxiety'' on Kierkegaard's '''The Concept of Anxiety'''.  Kierkegaard's [[sociology|sociological]] work ''Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age'' provides an interesting critique of [[modernity]]. Kierkegaard is also an important figure in [[postmodern]]ism.
+
According to [[Paul Tillich]],<ref>Paul Tillich. ''A History of Christian Thought.'' (Touchstone, 1972), 432-503.</ref> the nineteenth century witnessed a "breakdown" of Hegel's universal synthesis into two different schools of thought which constituted two extremely opposite ways of reacting against it: Kierkegaard's God-centered existentialism and [[Ludwig Feuerbach|Feuerbach]]'s God-denying anthropology. Tillich also notes that both reactions historically led to the theology of Karl Barth and the [[communism]] of [[Karl Marx]], respectively. The breakdown of Hegel's universal synthesis had to occur, according to Tillich, because its original attempt to synthesize the faith tradition of [[Pietism]] and the humanistic tradition of [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] was far from successful. If it is true, it can be said that Kierkegaard played an importantly insightful role of bringing humans to the domain of experiencing inwardness with God beyond Hegel's rather mechanistic universal system, although the scope of Kierkegaard' thought may not look broad enough for some people.
  
Kierkegaard himself had accurately predicted his own posthumous fame in his journals.  He foresaw that his work would become the subject of intense study and research.  In his journals, he writes:
+
==Notes==
 
+
<references/>
{{Quotation |What the age needs is not a genius - it has had geniuses enough, but a martyr, who in order to teach men to obey would himself be obedient unto death.  What the age needs is awakening.  And therefore someday, not only my writings but my whole life, all the intriguing mystery of the machine will be studied and studied.  I never forget how God helps me and it is therefore my last wish that everything may be to his honour|Søren Kierkegaard|'(Journals, [[20 November]], [[1847]])'}}
 
  
 
==Selected bibliography==
 
==Selected bibliography==
[[Image:Fear Trembling Cover.jpg|thumb|Fear and Trembling, one of Kierkegaard's most popular works.]]
+
===Primary sources===
''For a complete bibliography, see [[List of Works by Søren Kierkegaard]]''
+
* (1843) ''Either/Or,'' Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1987. ISBN 0691020426.
* (1841) ''[[The Concept of Irony]]'' (''Om Begrebet Ironi med stadigt Hensyn til Socrates'')
+
* (1843) ''Fear and Trembling,'' Translated by Alastair Hannay. Penguin, 1985. ISBN 0140444491.
* (1843) ''[[Either/Or]]'' (''Enten - Eller'')
+
* (1843) ''Repetition,'' Translated by Walter Lowrie. Princeton, 1946.  
* (1843) ''[[Fear and Trembling]]'' (''Frygt og Bæven'')
+
* (1844) ''Philosophical Fragments,'' Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1985. ISBN 0691020361.  
* (1843) ''[[Repetition (Kierkegaard)|Repetition]]'' (''Gjentagelsen'')
+
* (1844) ''The Concept of Anxiety,'' Translated by Reidan Thompste and Albert B. Anderson. Princeton, 1981. ISBN 0691020116.
* (1844) ''[[Philosophical Fragments]]'' (''Philosophiske Smuler'')
+
* (1845) ''Stages on Life's Way,'' Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1987. ISBN 0691020493.
* (1844) ''[[The Concept of Dread]]'' (''Begrebet Angest'')
+
* (1846) ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript to The Philosophical Fragments,'' Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1992. ISBN 0691020817.
* (1845) ''[[Stages on Life's Way]]'' (''Stadier paa Livets Vei'')
+
* (1847) ''Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits,'' Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1993. ISBN 0691032742.
* (1846) ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript to The Philosophical Fragments]]'' (''Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift'')
+
* (1847) ''Works of Love,'' Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1995. ISBN 0691037922.
* (1847) ''[[Edifying Discourses in Diverse Spirits]]''
+
* (1849) ''The Sickness Unto Death,'' Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1980. ISBN 0691020280.
* (1847) ''[[Works of Love]]'' (''Kjerlighedens Gjerninger'')
+
* (1850) ''Training in Christianity,'' Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1987. ISBN 0691020639.
* (1848) ''[[Christian Discourses]]'' (''Christelige Taler'')
 
* (1849) ''[[The Sickness Unto Death]]''  (''Sygdommen til Døden'')
 
* (1850) ''[[Training in Christianity]]'' (''Indøvelse i Christendom'')
 
 
 
==Notes==
 
#{{note|Journals}} - Given the importance of the journals, references in the form of ''(Journals, XYZ)'' are referenced from Dru's 1938 Journals. When known, the exact date is given; otherwise, month and year, or just year is given.
 
#{{note|Churchstat}} - Statistic obtained from Wikipedia article [[Church of Denmark]].
 
#{{note|Westphal}} - Westphal p.9
 
#{{note|Lippit}} - Lippit p.135-7
 
#{{note|Poole}} - Cambridge Companion, p.57-58
 
 
 
==References==
 
===Biography & Works===
 
*[[Joakim Garff]]. ''Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography'', Princeton University Press 2005, ISBN 069109165X.
 
*[[Alastair Hannay]]. ''Kierkegaard: A Biography'', Cambridge University Press, New edition 2003, ISBN 0521531810.
 
*[[Alexander Dru]]. ''The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard'', Oxford University Press, 1938.
 
* Bellinger, Charles. ''The Genealogy of Violence: Reflections on Creation, Freedom, and Evil'', Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0195134982
 
* Duncan, Elmer. ''Søren Kierkegaard: Maker of the Modern Theological Mind'', Word Books 1976, ISBN 0876804636
 
* Hannay, Alastair and Gordon Marino (eds).  ''The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard'', Cambridge University Press 1997, ISBN 0521477190
 
* Kierkegaard.  ''The Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates'', Princeton University Press 1989, ISBN 0691073546
 
* Lippit, John.  ''Kierkegaard and Fear and Trembling'', Routledge 2003, ISBN 0415180473
 
* Oden, Thomas C.  ''The Humor of Kierkegaard: An Anthology'', Princeton University Press 2004, ISBN 069102085X
 
* Ostenfeld, Ib and Alastair McKinnon. ''Søren Kierkegaard's Psychology'', Wilfrid Laurer University Press 1972, ISBN 0889200688
 
* Westphal, Merold.  ''A Reading of Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript'', Purdue University Press 1996, ISBN 1557530904
 
 
 
===External links===
 
{{wikiquote}}
 
{{commonscat|Søren Kierkegaard}}
 
*[http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org D. Anthony Storm's Commentary On Kierkegaard]
 
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Søren Kierkegaard]
 
*[http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/humsoc/kierkegaard/docs/Kierkepilepsy.pdf Kierkgaard's Epilepsy: "The Intriguing Secret of the Machinery"]
 
*[http://www.kb.dk/kultur/expo/sk-mss/index-en.htm Manuscripts from the Søren Kierkegaard Archive at Denmark's Royal Library]
 
 
 
==Further reading==
 
*[[Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard]]
 
*[[Theology of Søren Kierkegaard]]
 
*[[Kierkegaard and Nietzsche comparisons]]
 
*[[Christian anarchism]]
 
*[[Christian existentialism]]
 
*[[knight of faith]]
 
*[[leap of faith]]
 
*[[Philosophy of religion]]
 
*[http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletter/ Søren Kierkegaard Newsletter] edited by Gordon D. Marino
 
*[[Open Directory Project]]: [http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Philosophers/K/Kierkegaard,_S%C3%B8ren/ Kierkegaard, Søren]
 
*[http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/Internet/kierk.htm Wabash Center Internet Guide: Soren Kierkegaard]
 
*[http://sage.stolaf.edu/ Online Library Catalog at St. Olaf College; select '''Kierkegaard Library''' from the menu to search for books and articles.]
 
*[http://ceh.kitoba.com/hook/kierkegaard.html Kierkegaard's Narrative]: An existential humanist plot outline
 
*[http://www.bruderhof.com/e-books/Provocations.htm Provocations]: Spiritual Writings of Søren Kierkegaard
 
*[http://christoffaithandhistory.blogspot.com Christ of Faith and History]
 
*[http://kierkegaardonline.blogspot.com/ Links to Online Resources]
 
*[http://www.christianpsych.org/ Society for Christian Psychology]
 
*[http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0410/articles/neuhaus.htm Kierkegaard for Grownups]
 
 
 
 
 
[[Category:19th century philosophers|Kierkegaard, Søren]]
 
[[Category:Christian philosophers|Kierkegaard, Søren]]
 
[[Category:Continental philosophers|Kierkegaard, Søren]]
 
[[Category:Danish philosophers|Kierkegaard, Søren]]
 
[[Category:Danish theologians|Kierkegaard, Søren]]
 
[[Category:Existentialists|Kierkegaard, Søren]]
 
[[Category:Philosophers|Kierkegaard, Søren]]
 
[[Category:Søren Kierkegaard]]
 
[[category:philosophy and religion]]
 
[[Image:Kierkegaard.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Søren Kierkegaard]]
 
 
 
'''Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy''' has been a major influence in the development of [[20th century]] philosophy, especially in the movements of [[Existentialism]] and [[Postmodernism]].  [[Søren Kierkegaard]] was a [[19th century]] Danish philosopher who has been generally considered the "Father of Existentialism".  His philosophy also influenced the development of [[existential psychology]]. 
 
 
 
His writings, many of which were written pseudonymously, reflected not only the trend at the time to write pseudonymously but also his idea that a person or a self is made up of many faces and facets, as his book titled ''[[Philosophical Fragments]]'' would indicate.  Kierkegaard did not like the systems that were brought on by philosophers such as [[Immanuel Kant]] and [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] before him.  He measured himself against the backdrop of philosophy which was introduced by [[Socrates]] and preferred a philosophy that was fragmented and made deep insights, without committing to an encompassing all-explaining system.
 
 
 
One of Kierkegaard's recurrent themes is the importance of the self, and the self's relation to the world as being grounded in self-reflection and introspection.  In ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments]]'', he argues that "subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity"; that is, that the self is the ultimate governor of what life is and what life means. He also believed in the infinity of the self, explaining that the self could not be fully known or understood, because it is infinite. In this way his thought reflects the Christian idea of the soul, which is immortal; but Kierkegaard was not speaking about the immortality of the self as much as the depth of the soul, of a person's being.
 
 
 
==Themes in his philosophy==
 
===Alienation===
 
[[Alienation]] is a term applied to a wide variety of phenomena including: any feeling of separation from, and discontent with, society; feeling that there is a moral breakdown in society; feelings of powerlessness in the face of the solidity of social institutions; the impersonal, dehumanised nature of large-scale and bureaucratic social organisations. [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-06] Kierkegaard recognizes and accepts the notion of alienation, although he phrases it and understands it in his own distinctly original terms. For Kierkegaard, the present age is a reflective age&mdash;one that values objectivity and thought over action, lip-service to ideals rather than action, discussion over action, publicity and advertising to reality, and fantasy to the real world. For Kierkegaard, the meaning of values has been sucked out of them by a lack of authority. Instead of the authority of the past or the [[Bible]] or any other great and lasting voice, we have emptiness and uncertainty.  
 
 
 
We have lost meaning because the accepted criterion of reality and truth is objective thought&mdash;that which can be proved with [[logic]], historical research, or [[scientific analysis]]. But humans are not [[robot]]s or computer programs or [[amoeba]]&mdash; humans need reasons to live and die, and what truly gives meaning to human life is something that cannot be formulated into mathematical, historical or logical terms. We cannot think our choices in life, we must live them; and even those choices that we often think about become different once life itself enters into the picture. For Kierkegaard, the type of objectivity that a scientist or historian might use misses the point&mdash;humans are not motivated and do not find meaning in life through pure objectivity. Instead, they find it through [[passion]], desire, and moral and religious commitment. These phenomena are not objectively provable&mdash;nor do they come about through any form of analysis of the external world; they come about through inward reflection, a way of looking at one’s life that evades objective scrutiny. Instead, true self-worth originates in a relation to something that transcends human powers, something that provides a meaning because it inspires awe and wonder and demands total and absolute commitment in achieving it.
 
 
 
Kierkegaard’s analysis of the present age uses terms that resemble but are not exactly coincident with Hegel and [[Marx's theory of alienation]].
 
 
 
===Abstraction===
 
A key element of Kierkegaard’s critique of modernity is the mention of [[money]] &mdash;which he calls an [[abstraction]]. An abstraction is something that only has a reality in an [[ersatz]] reality. It is not tangible, and only has meaning within an artificial context, which ultimately serves devious and deceptive purposes. It is a figment of thought that has no concrete reality, either now or in the future.
 
 
 
How is money an abstraction? Money gives the illusion that it has a direct relationship to the work that is done. That is, the work one does is worth so much, equals so much money. In reality, however, the work one does is an expression of who one is as a person; it expresses one's goals in life and its ultimate meaning. As a person, the work one performs is supposed to be an external realization of one's relationship to others and to the world. It is one's way of making the world a better place for oneself and for others. What reducing work to a monetary value does is to replace the concrete reality of one's everyday struggles with the world—to give it shape, form and meaning—with an abstraction.
 
 
 
===Death===
 
[[Death]] is inevitable and temporally unpredictable. Kierkegaard believed that individuals needed to sincerely and intensely come to realize the truth of that fact in order to realize their passion for the task of obtaining true selfhood.  Kierkegaard accuses society of being in death-denial and believes that even though people see death all around them and objectively grasp death, most people have not understood death subjectively.  Instead of viewing death in a detached manner, as in "Death'll happen someday", it is important to look at death as part of a person's life. For example, in ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript'', Kierkegaard notes that people never think to say, "I shall certainly attend your party, but I must make an exception for the contingency that a roof tile happens to blow down and kill me; for in that case, I cannot attend."
 
 
 
===Dread or anxiety===
 
[[Image:The leap.png|250px|thumb|In [[Groundhog Day (film)|Groundhog Day]], Phil Connors makes a leap from a building.  Kierkegaard would say Phil had gone through anxiety/dread about jumping, but came to embrace Death and his freedom to jump.]]
 
For Kierkegaard, [[Existential dread|dread]] or anxiety/[[angst]] (depending on the translation and context) is unfocused fear.  Kierkegaard uses the example of a man standing on the edge of a tall building or cliff.  When the man looks over the edge, he experiences a focused fear of falling, but at the same time, the man feels a terrifying impulse to throw himself intentionally off the edge.  That experience is dread or anxiety because of our complete freedom to choose to either throw oneself off or to stay put.  The mere fact that one has the possibility and freedom to do something, even the most terrifying of possibilities, triggers immense feelings of dread.  Kierkegaard called this our "dizziness of freedom".
 
 
 
In ''[[The Concept of Dread]]'', Kierkegaard focuses on the first dread experienced by man: [[Adam and Eve|Adam]]'s choice to eat from God's forbidden tree of knowledge or not.  Since the concepts of good and evil did not come into existence before Adam ate the fruit, which is now dubbed [[original sin]], Adam had no concept of good and evil, and did not know that eating from the tree was "evil".  What he did know was that God told him not to eat from the tree.  The dread comes from the fact that God's prohibition itself implies that Adam is free and that he could choose to obey God or not.  After Adam ate from the tree, sin was born.  So, according to Kierkegaard, dread precedes sin, and it is dread that leads Adam to sin.  Kierkegaard mentions that ''dread is the presupposition for hereditary sin''.
 
 
 
However, Kierkegaard also mentions that dread is a way for humanity to be saved as well.  Anxiety informs us of our choices, our self-awareness and personal responsibility, and brings us from a state of un-self-conscious immediacy to self-conscious reflection.  (Jean-Paul Sartre calls these terms pre-reflexive consciousness and reflexive consciousness.)  An individual becomes truly aware of their potential through the experience of dread.  So, dread may be a possibility for sin, but dread can also be a recognition or realization of one's true identity and freedoms.
 
 
 
{{Quotation|Whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate.|Søren Kierkegaard|The Concept of Dread}}
 
 
 
===Despair=== 
 
{{Quotation|Is despair an excellence or a defect? Purely dialectically, it is both. The possibility of this sickness is man's superiority over the animal, for it indicates infinite sublimity that he is spirit.  Consequently, to be able to despair is an infinite advantage, and yet to be in despair is not only the worst misfortune and misery—no, it is ruination.|Søren Kierkegaard|The Sickness Unto Death}}
 
 
 
Most emphatically in ''[[The Sickness Unto Death]]'' but also in ''[[Fear and Trembling]]'' Kierkegaard argues that humans are made up of three parts: the finite, the infinite, and the "relationship of the two to itself." The finite (sense, body, knowledge) and the infinite (paradox and the capacity to have faith) always exist in a state of tension. That tension, as it is aware of itself, is the "self." When the self is lost, either to [[insensibility]] or [[exuberance]], the person is in a state of [[Existential despair|despair]]. Notably, one does not have to be conscious of one's despair, or to feel oneself to be anything but happy.  Despair is, instead, the loss of self. In ''[[Either/Or]]'', Kierkegaard has two [[epistolary novel]]s in two volumes. The first letter-writer is an aesthete whose wildness of belief and imagination lead him to a meaningless life of egoistic despair. The second volume's author is a judge who lives his life by strict Christian laws. Because he works entirely upon received law and never uses belief or soulfulness, he lives a life of ethical despair. The third sphere of life, the only one in which an individual can find some measure of freedom from despair, is the religious sphere. This consists in a sort of synthesis between the first two.  In ''[[Fear and Trembling]]'', Kierkegaard argues that the choice of [[Abraham]] to obey the private, anti-ethical, religious commandment of God to sacrifice his son is the perfect act of self. If Abraham were to blithely obey, his actions would have no meaning. It is only when he acts ''with fear and trembling'' that he demonstrates a full awareness and the actions of the self, as opposed to the actions of either the finite or infinite portions of humanity.
 
 
 
===Ethics===
 
[[Image:Abraham.jpg|250px|right|thumb|In [[Fear and Trembling]], Johannes de Silentio analyzes [[Abraham]]'s action to sacrifice [[Isaac]].  Silentio argues that Abraham is a knight of faith.]]
 
 
 
Many philosophers who initially read Kierkegaard, especially ''[[Fear and Trembling]]'', often come to the conclusion that he supports a [[divine command theory|divine command]] law of ethics.  The divine command theory is a [[Meta-ethics|metaethical]] theory which claims moral values are whatever is commanded by a god or gods.  However, Kierkegaard (through his pseudonym Johannes de Silentio) is not arguing that morality is created by [[God]]; instead, he would argue that a divine command from God ''transcends'' ethics.  This distinction means that God does not necessarily create human morality: it is up to us as individuals to create our own morals and values.  But any religious person must be prepared for the event of a divine command from God that would take precedence over all moral and rational obligations.  Kierkegaard called this event the ''teleological suspension of the ethical''.  Abraham, the [[knight of faith]], chose to obey God unconditionally, and was rewarded with his son, his faith, and the title of ''Father of Faith''.  Abraham transcended ethics and leapt into faith.
 
 
 
But there is no valid logical argument one can make to claim that morality ought to be or can be suspended in any given circumstance, or ever.  Thus, Kierkegaard believes ethics and faith are separate stages of consciousness.  The choice to obey God unconditionally is a true existential 'either/or' decision faced by the individual.  Either one chooses to live in faith (the religious stage) or to live ethically (the ethical stage).
 
 
 
===Individuality===
 
[[Image:Solar eclipse 2005-crowds Madrid.jpg|200px|thumb|Try not to get lost in the crowd.  Assert your individuality.]]
 
For Kierkegaard, true [[Individual|individuality]] is called selfhood. Becoming aware of our true self is our true task and endeavor in life&mdash;it is an ethical imperative, as well as preparatory to a true religious understanding. Individuals can exist at a level that is less than true selfhood. We can live, for example, simply in terms of our [[pleasure]]s&mdash;our immediate satisfaction of desires, propensities, or distractions. In this way, we glide through life without direction or purpose. To have a direction, we must have a purpose that defines for us the meaning of our lives.  
 
 
 
An individual person, for Kierkegaard, is a particular that no abstract formula or definition can ever capture. Including the individual in a group or subsuming a human being as simply a member of a species is a reduction of the true meaning of life for individuals. What philosophy or politics try to do is to categorize and pigeonhole individuals by group characteristics instead of individual differences. For Kierkegaard, those differences are what make us who we are.
 
 
 
Kierkegaard’s critique of the modern age, therefore, is about the loss of what it means to be an individual. Modern society contributes to this dissolution of what it means to be an individual. Through its production of the false idol of the Public, it diverts attention away from individuals to a mass public that loses itself in abstractions, communal dreams, and fantasies. It is helped in this task by the media and the mass production of products to keep it distracted.
 
 
 
===Pathos (Passion)===
 
For Kierkegaard, in order to apprehend the absolute, the mind must radically empty itself of objective content. What supports this radical emptying, however, is the desire for the absolute. Kierkegaard names this desire ''[[Passion]]''. ([http://www.bib.uab.es/pub/enrahonar/0211402Xn29p119.pdf Kangas])
 
 
 
According to Kierkegaard, the human self desires that which is beyond [[reason]]. Desire itself appears to be a desire for the infinite, as Plato once wrote. Even the desire to propagate, according to [[Plato]], is a kind of desire for [[immortality]]&mdash;that is, we wish to live on in time through our children and their children.  [[Erotic love]] itself appears as an example of this desire for something beyond the purely finite. It is a taste of what could be, if only it could continue beyond the boundaries of [[time]] and [[space]]. As the analogy implies, humans seek something beyond the here and now. The question remains, however, why is it that human pathos or passion is the most precious thing? In some ways, it might have to do with our status as existential beings. It is not thought that gets us through life&mdash;it is action; and what motivates and sustains action is passion, the desire to overcome hardships, pain, and suffering. It is also passion that enables us to die for ideals in the name of a higher reality. While a scientist might see this as plain emotion or simple animal desire, Kierkegaard sees it as that which binds to the source of life itself. The desire to live, and to live in the right way, for the right reasons, and with the right desires, is a holy and sacred force.
 
 
 
One can also look at this from the perspective of what the meaning of our existence is. Why suffer what humans have suffered, the pain and despair&mdash;what meaning can all of this have? For Kierkegaard, there is no meaning unless passion, the emotions and will of humans, has a divine source.
 
 
 
Passion is closely aligned with faith in Kierkegaard's thought. [[Faith]] as a passion is what drives humans to seek reality and truth in a transcendent world, even though everything we can know intellectually speaks against it. To live and die for a belief, to stake everything one has and is in the belief in something that has a higher meaning than anything in the world&mdash;this is belief and passion at their highest.
 
 
 
===Subjectivity===
 
[[Image:Textbooks.JPG|250px|thumb|Scientific and historical textbooks are a source of objective knowledge and are existentially indifferent. Nothing subjective can be obtained from them (Subjectivity in this context does not mean bias or opinion, but the relationship between the individual and the objective).]]
 
Kierkegaard writes in ''Concluding Unscientific Postcript to the Philosophical Fragments'' the following cryptic line: "[[Subjectivity]] is Truth". To understand Kierkegaard’s concept of the individual, it is important to look at what he says regarding subjectivity. What is subjectivity?  In very rough terms, subjectivity refers to what is personal to the individual&mdash;what makes the individual ''who he is in distinction from others''. It is what is inside&mdash;what the individual can see, feel, think, imagine, dream, etc.  It is often opposed to objectivity&mdash;that which is outside the individual, which the indvidual and others around can feel, see, measure, and think about.  Another way to interpret subjectivity is the ''unique'' relationship between the subject and object.
 
 
 
Scientists and historians, for example, study the objective world, hoping to elicit the truth of nature&mdash;or perhaps the truth of [[history]]. In this way, they hope to predict how the future will unfold in accordance with these laws. In terms of history, by studying the past, the individual can perhaps elicit the laws that determine how events will unfold&mdash;in this way the individual can predict the future with more exactness and perhaps take control of events that in the past appeared to fall outside the control of humans.
 
 
 
In most respects, Kierkegaard did not have problems with [[science]] or the scientific endeavor.  He would not disregard the importance of objective knowledge.  Where the scientist or historian finds certainty, however, Kierkegaard noted very accurately that results in science change as the tools of observation change. But Kierkegaard's special interest was in history. His most vehement attacks came against those who believed that they had understood history and its laws&mdash;and by doing so could ascertain what a human’s true self is. That is, the assumption is that by studying history I can come to know who I really am as a person. Kierkegaard especially accused Hegel's philosophy of falling prey to this assumption.
 
 
 
For Kierkegaard, this is a ridiculous argument at best, and a harmful notion at worst. It undermines the meaning of what a self is. For Kierkegaard, the individual comes to know who he is by an intensely personal and passionate pursuit of what will give meaning to my life.  As an existing individual, who must come to terms with everyday life, overcome its obstacles and setbacks, who must live and die, the single individual has a life that no one else will ever live. In dealing with what life brings my way, the individual must encounter them with all his psycho-physical resources.
 
 
 
Subjectivity is that which the individual has and no one else does. But what does it mean to have something like this? It cannot be understood in the same way as having a [[car]] or a bank account. It means to be someone who is becoming someone&mdash;it means being a person with a past, a present, and a future.  No one can have an individual's past, present or future. We all experience these in various ways&mdash;these experiences are mine, not yours or anyone else’s. Having a past, present, and future means that I am an existing individual&mdash;that I find my meaning in time and by existing.  Individuals do not think themselves into existence, they are born. But once born and past a certain age, the individual begins to make choices in life; now those choices can be his, his parents’, society’s, etc. The important point is that to exist, the individual must make choices&mdash;the individual must decide what to do the next moment and on into the future.  What the individual chooses and how he chooses will define who and what he is&mdash;to himself and to others.
 
 
 
The goal of life, according to [[Socrates]], is to know thyself.  Knowing myself means being aware of who I am, what I can be and what I cannot be.  The search for this self, is the task of subjectivity. This task is the most important one in life.
 
Kierkegaard considers this to be an important task and should have been obvious to the individual immediately.  If I do not know who I am then I am living a lie, and living a lie, for most people is wrong.
 
 
 
Subjectivity comes with consciousness of myself as a self. It encompasses the emotional and intellectual resources that the individual is born with. Subjectivity is what the individual is as a human being. Now the problem of subjectivity is to decide how to choose&mdash;what rules or models is the individual going to use to make the right choices?  What are the right choices?  Who defines [[right]]?  To be truly an individual, to be true to himself, his actions should in some way be expressed so that they describe who and what he is to himself and to others. The problem, according to Kierkegaard is that we must choose who and what we will be based on subjective interests&mdash;the individual must make choices that will mean something to him as a reasoning, feeling being.
 
 
 
===Three Stages of Life===
 
Kierkegaard recognized three levels of individual existence, which were the focus of [[Stages on Life's Way]].  Each of these levels of existence envelops those below it: an ethical person is still capable of aesthetic enjoyment, for example.  It is also important to note that the difference between these ways of living are inward, not external, and thus there are no external signs one can point to to determine at what level a person is living.
 
 
 
=====Stage One: Aesthetic===== 
 
 
 
Kierkegaard was devoted to [[aesthetics]], and is sometimes referred to as the "poet-philosopher" because of the passionate way in which he approached [[philosophy]].  But he was also devoted to showing the inadequacy of a life lived entirely on the aesthetic level.  An aesthetic life is one defined by enjoyment and interest and possibilities.  It is not necessarily a life lived in devotion to art&mdash;although many artists do also live at this level of existence. There are many degrees of aesthetic existence&mdash;at the bottom, one might see the purely consumerist lifestyle. At the top of this spectrum, we could find those lives which are lived in a truly [[anarchy (word)|anarchic]], irresponsible way.  But Kierkegaard believes that most people live in this sphere, their lives and activities guided by enjoyment and interest rather than any truly deep and meaningful commitment to anything.  Whether such people know it or not, their lives are ones of complete despair.
 
 
 
=====Stage Two: Ethical=====
 
The second level of existence is the ethical. This is where an individual begins to take on a true direction in life, becoming genuinely aware of [[goodness and value theory|good]] and [[evil]] and forming some absolute commitment to something. One’s actions at this level of existence have a consistency and coherence that they lacked in the previous sphere of existence. For Kierkegaard, the ethical is supremely important. It calls each individual to take account of their lives and to scrutinize their actions in terms of universal and absolute demands.
 
 
 
These demands are made in such a way that each individual must respond&mdash;to be authentic&mdash;in a truly committed, passionate consciousness. Any other type of response is shirking the demands of responsibility and running away from those universal duties.  What responsibilities there are, are known to everyone, yet they cannot be known in such a way that they are simply followed as a matter of course. They must be done subjectively&mdash;that is, with an understanding that doing or not doing them has a direct result on who I will see myself as a person&mdash;whether a good or bad person. [[Ethics]] is something I do for myself, with the realization that my entire self-understanding is involved. The meaning of my life comes down to whether or not I live out these beliefs in an honest, passionate, and devoted way.
 
 
 
=====Stage Three: Religious=====
 
The ethical and the [[religious]] are intimately connected&mdash; it is important to note that one can have the ethical without religious, but the religious includes the ethical. Both ethics and religion rest on the awareness of a reality that gives substance to actions but which is not reducible to natural laws or to reason.  Whereas living in the ethical sphere involves a commitment to some ethical absolute, living in the religious sphere involves a commitment to and relation to God.
 
 
 
Religion is the highest stage in human existence. Kierkegaard distinguishes two types within this stage, which have been called ''Religiousness A'' and ''Religiousness B''. One type is symbolized by the [[Greek philosophy|Greek philosopher]] [[Socrates]], whose passionate pursuit of the truth and individual conscience came into conflict with his society. Another type of religiousness is one characterized by the realization that the individual is [[sin]]ful and is the source of untruth. In time, through revelation and in direct relationship with the [[paradox]] that is [[Jesus]], the individual begins to see that his or her eternal salvation rests on a paradox&mdash;God, the transcendent, coming into time in human form to redeem human beings. For Kierkegaard, the very notion of this occurring was scandalous to human reason&mdash;indeed, it must be, and if it is not then one does not truly understand the [[Incarnation]] nor the meaning of human sinfulness. For Kierkegaard, the impulse towards an awareness of a transcendent power in the universe is what religion is. Religion has a social and an individual (not just personal) dimension. But it begins with the individual and his or her awareness of sinfulness.
 
 
 
==Kierkegaard's Thoughts On Other Philosophers==
 
===Kierkegaard and Hegel===
 
[[Image:Hegel.jpg|150px|thumb|Hegel]]
 
One of Kierkegaard's greatest contributions to philosophy is his critique of [[Georg Hegel]].  Most of Kierkegaard's earliest works are in response to or a critique of Hegel.  Although Kierkegaard opposed Hegel's philosophy and his supporters, he had the utmost respect for Hegel himself.  In a journal entry made in [[1844]], Kierkegaard wrote:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|If Hegel had written the whole of his logic and then said, in the preface or some other place, that it was merely an experiment in thought in which he had even begged the question in many places, then he would certainly have been the greatest thinker who had ever lived.  As it is, he is merely comic. |Søren Kierkegaard|(Journals, 1844)}}
 
 
 
In Denmark, [[Hegelianism]] was spreading in academia like a "rampant disease".  [[Johan Ludvig Heiberg (poet)|Johan Ludvig Heiberg]] was a key figure in Danish Hegelianism.  Kierkegaard remarked in his journal on [[17 May]][[1843]] that Heiberg's writings were "borrowed" from Hegel, implying Heiberg would have been a nobody without Hegel.
 
 
 
The main objection Kierkegaard had against Hegel's philosophy was the Hegelian claim that he has devised an entire system which could explain the whole of reality, with the dialectic leading the way to this whole.  Hegel also dismissed Christianity as something that can be rationally explained away and absorbed into his system.  Kierkegaard attempted to refute these claims by showing that there are things in the world that cannot be explained.
 
 
 
To refute Hegel's claim regarding Christianity, in ''[[Fear and Trembling]]'', Kierkegaard attempts to use the story of [[Abraham]] to show that there is an authority higher than that of ethics (disproving Hegel's claim that ethics is universal) and that faith cannot be explained by Hegelian ethics, (disproving Hegel's claim that Christianity can be absorbed into his system).  Either way, this work reveals an inherent flaw in Hegelian ethics.
 
 
 
Kierkegaard also parodies the Hegelian [[dialectic]] by showing that a thesis-antithesis coming together to form a synthesis is detrimental to individuals, rather than an improvement.
 
 
 
{{Quotation|Kierkegaard's strategy was to invert this dialectic by seeking to make everything more difficult. Instead of seeing scientific knowledge as the means of human redemption, he regarded it as the greatest obstacle to redemption. Instead of seeking to give people more knowledge he sought to take away what passed for knowledge. Instead of seeking to make God and Christian faith perfectly intelligible he sought to emphasize the absolute transcendence by God of all human categories. Instead of setting himself up as a religious authority, Kierkegaard used a vast array of textual devices to undermine his authority as an author and to place responsibility for the existential significance to be derived from his texts squarely on the reader. ...  Kierkegaard's tactic in undermining Hegelianism was to produce an elaborate parody of Hegel's entire system. The pseudonymous authorship, from ''[[Either/Or]]'' to ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript]]'', presents an inverted Hegelian dialectic which is designed to lead readers away from knowledge rather than towards it. |Søren Kierkegaard|[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Rhet William McDonald]}}
 
 
 
By doing this, Hegelian critics accuse Kierkegaard of using the dialectic to disprove the dialectic, which seems somewhat contradictory and hypocritical.  However, Kierkegaard would not claim the dialectic itself is bad, only the Hegelian premise that the dialectic ''would lead to a harmonious reconciliation of everything'', which Hegel called the [[Absolute]].
 
 
 
Kierkegaardian scholars have made several interpretations of how Kierkegaard proceeds with parodying Hegel's dialectic.  One of the more popular interpretations argues the aesthetic-ethical-religious stages are the triadic process Kierkegaard was talking about.  See section ''Spheres of existence'' for more information.  Another interpretation argues for the world-individual-will triadic process.  The dialectic here is either to assert an individual's own desire to be independent and the desire to be part of a community.  Instead of reconciliation of the world and the individual where problems between the individual and society are neatly resolved in the Hegelian system, Kierkegaard argues that there's a delicate bond holding the interaction between them together, which needs to be constantly reaffirmed.  [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] takes this latter view and says the individual is in a constant state of reaffirming his or her own identity, else one falls into [[bad faith]].
 
 
 
This process of reconciliation leads to a "both/and" view of life, where both thesis and antithesis are resolved into a synthesis, which negates the importance of personal responsibility and the human choice of either/or.  The work ''[[Either/Or]]'' is a response to this aspect of Hegel's philosophy.  A passage from that work exemplifies Kierkegaard's contempt for Hegel's philosophy:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|Marry, and you will regret it. Do not marry, and you will also regret it. Marry or do not marry, you will regret it either way. Whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the stupidities of the world, and you will regret it; weep over them, and you will also regret it. Laugh at the stupidities of the world or weep over them, you will regret it either way. Whether you laugh at the stupidities of the world or you weep over them, you will regret it either way. Trust a girl, and you will regret it. Do not trust her, and you will also regret it. ... Hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way. Whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way.  This, gentlemen, is the quintessence of all the wisdom of life.|Søren Kierkegaard|Either/Or}}
 
 
 
===Kierkegaard and Schelling===
 
[[Image:Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling.png|150px|thumb|Schelling]]
 
In [[1841]]-[[1842]], Kierkegaard attended the [[Berlin]] lectures of [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling]].  Schelling was a critic of [[Georg Hegel]] and a professor at the [[University of Berlin]].  The university started a lecture series given by Schelling in order to espouse a type of [[positive philosophy]] which would be diametrically opposed to [[Hegelianism]].  Kierkegaard was initially delighted with Schelling. Before he left Copenhagen to attend Schelling's lectures in Berlin, he wrote to his friend Peter Johannes Sprang:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|I have put my trust in Schelling and at the risk of my life I have the courage to hear him once more. It may very well blossom during the first lectures, and if so one might gladly risk one's life. |Søren Kierkegaard|(Journals, 1841)}}
 
 
 
At Berlin, Kierkegaard gave high praises to Schelling.  In a journal entry made sometime around October or November 1841, Kierkegaard wrote this piece about Schelling's second lecture:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|I am so pleased to have heard Schelling's second lecture — indescribably!  I have sighed for long enough and my thoughts have sighed within me; when he mentioned the word, "reality" in connection with the relation of philosophy to reality the fruit of my thought leapt for joy within me.  I remember almost every word he said from that moment on.  ... Now I have put all my hopes in Schelling!|Søren Kierkegaard|(Journals, 1841)}}
 
 
 
As time went on, however, Kierkegaard, as well as many in Schelling's audience, began to become disillusioned with Schelling.  In a particularly insulting letter about Schelling, Kierkegaard wrote to his brother, Peter Kierkegaard:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|Schelling drivels on quite intolerably!  If you want to form some idea what this is like then I ask you to submit yourself to the following experiment as a sort of self-inflicted sadistic punishment.  Imagine person R's meandering philosophy, his entirely aimless, haphazard knowledge, and person Hornsyld's untiring efforts to display his learning: imagine the two combined and in addition to an impudence hitherto unequalled by any philosopher; and with that picture vividly before your poor mind go to the workroom of a prison and you will have some idea of Schelling's philosophy.  He even lectures longer to prolong the torture. ... Consequently, I have nothing to do in Berlin.  I am too old to attend lectures and Schelling is too old to give them.  So I shall leave Berlin as soon as possible.  But if it wasn't for Schelling, I would never have travelled to Berlin.  I must thank him for that.  ... I think I should have become utterly insane if I had gone on hearing Schelling.|Søren Kierkegaard|(Journals, [[27 February]] [[1842]])}}
 
 
 
Kierkegaard became disillusioned with Schelling partly because Schelling shifted his focus on actuality, including a discussion on ''quid sit'' [what is] and ''quod sit'' [that is], to a more mythological, psychic-type pseudo-philosophy.  Kierkegaard's last writing about Schelling's lectures was on [[4 February]] [[1842]].
 
 
 
Although Schelling had little influence on Kierkegaard's subsequent writings, Kierkegaard's trip to Berlin provided him ample time to work on his masterpiece, [[Either/Or]].  In a reflection about Schelling in [[1849]], Kierkegaard remarked that Schelling was ''like the [[Rhine]] at its mouth where it became stagnant water — he was degenerating into a Prussian "Excellency". (Journals, January 1849)''
 
 
 
===Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer===
 
[[Image:Schopenhauer.jpg|150px|thumb|Schopenhauer]]
 
Kierkegaard became acquainted with [[Arthur Schopenhauer]]'s writings quite late in his life.  Kierkegaard felt Schopenhauer was an important writer, but Kierkegaard disagreed on almost every point Schopenhauer made.  In several journal entries made in [[1854]], a year before he died, Kierkegaard spoke highly of Schopenhauer:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|In the same way that one disinfects the mouth during an epidemic so as not to be infected by breathing in the poisonous air, one might recommend students who will have to live in Denmark in an atmosphere of nonsensical Christian optimism, to take a little dose of Schopenhauer's Ethic in order to protect themselves against infection from that malodourous twaddle.|Søren Kierkegaard|(Journals, 1854)}}
 
 
 
However, Kierkegaard also considered him, ''a most dangerous sign'' of things to come:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|Schopenhauer is so far from being a real pessimist that at the most he represents 'the interesting': in a certain sense he makes [[asceticism]] interesting—the most dangerous thing possible for a pleasure-seeking age which will be harmed more than ever by distilling pleasure even out of asceticism ... is by studying asceticism in a completely impersonal way, by assigning it a place in the system.|Søren Kierkegaard|(Journals, 1854)}}
 
 
 
Kierkegaard believes Schopenhauer's ethical point of view is that the individual succeeds in seeing through the wretchedness of existence and then decides to deaden or mortify the joy of life.   As a result of this complete asceticism, one reaches contemplation: the individual does this out of sympathy. He sympathizes with all the misery and the misery of others, which is to exist. Kierkegaard here is probably referring to the pessimistic nature of Schopenhauer's philosophy. One of Kierkegaard's main concerns is a suspicion of his whole philosophy:
 
 
 
{{Quotation|After reading through Schopenhauer's Ethic one learns - naturally he is to that extent honest - that he himself is not an ascetic.  And consequently he himself has not reached contemplation through asceticism, but only a contemplation which contemplates asceticism.  This is extremely suspicious, and may even conceal the most terrible and corrupting voluptuous [[melancholy]]: a profound misanthropy.  In this too it is suspicious, for it is always suspicious to propound an ethic which does not exert so much power over the teacher that he himself expresses.  Schopenhauer makes ethics into genius, but that is of course an unethical conception of ethics.  He makes ethics into genius and although he prides himself quite enough on being a genius, it has not pleased him, or nature has not allowed him, to become a genius where asceticism and mortification are concerned.|Søren Kierkegaard|(Journals, 1854)}}
 
  
Little else is known about Kierkegaard's attitude to Schopenhauer.  On Schopenhauer himself, Kierkegaard felt that Schopenhauer would've been patronizing.  "Schopenhauer interests me very much, as does his fate in Germany.  If I could talk to him I am sure he would shudder or laugh if I were to show him [my philosophy]."  ''(Journals, 1854)''
+
===Secondary sources===
  
==References==
+
* Bellinger, Charles. ''The Genealogy of Violence: Reflections on Creation, Freedom, and Evil.'' Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0195134982
*Dru, Alexander. [[Søren Kierkegaard#The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard|The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard]], Oxford University Press, 1938.
+
* Dru, Alexander. ''The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard.'' Oxford University Press, 1938.
*Duncan, Elmer. Søren Kierkegaard: Maker of the Modern Theological Mind, Word Books 1976, ISBN 0876804636  
+
* Duncan, Elmer. ''Søren Kierkegaard: Maker of the Modern Theological Mind.'' Word Books 1976, ISBN 0876804636
*Garff, Joakim. Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, Princeton University Press 2005, ISBN 069109165X.
+
* Garff, Joakim. ''Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography.'' Princeton University Press 2005, ISBN 069109165X.
*Hannay, Alastair. Kierkegaard: A Biography, Cambridge University Press, New edition 2003, ISBN 0521531810.
+
* Hannay, Alastair. ''Kierkegaard: A Biography.'' Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0521531810.
*Kierkegaard. The Concept of Anxiety, Princeton University Press, 1981, ISBN 0691020116
+
* Hannay, Alastair and Gordon Marino, eds. ''The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard.'' Cambridge University Press, 1997. ISBN 0521477190
*Kierkegaard. The Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates, Princeton University Press 1989, ISBN 0691073546
+
* Kierkegaard, S. ''The Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates.'' Princeton University Press, 1989. ISBN 0691073546
*Kierkegaard.  The Sickness Unto Death, Princeton University Press, 1983, ISBN 0691020280
+
* Lippit, John. ''Kierkegaard and Fear and Trembling.'' Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0415180473
*Lippit, John. Kierkegaard and Fear and Trembling, Routledge 2003, ISBN 0415180473
+
* Oden, Thomas C. ''The Humor of Kierkegaard: An Anthology.'' Princeton University Press, 2004. ISBN 069102085X
*Ostenfeld, Ib and Alastair McKinnon. Søren Kierkegaard's Psychology, Wilfrid Laurer University Press 1972, ISBN 0889200688
+
* Ostenfeld, Ib, and Alastair McKinnon. ''Søren Kierkegaard's Psychology.'' Wilfrid Laurer University Press, 1972. ISBN 0889200688
*Westphal, Merold. A Reading of Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Purdue University Press 1996, ISBN 1557530904
+
* Tillich, Paul. ''A History of Christian Thought.'' Touchstone, 1972.
 +
* Westphal, Merold. ''Becoming a Self: A Reading of Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript.'' Purdue University Press, 1996. ISBN 1557530904
  
===External links===
+
==External links==
*[http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org D. Anthony Storm's Commentary On Kierkegaard]
+
All links retrieved February 26, 2023.
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Søren Kierkegaard]
+
*[http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org D. Anthony Storm's Commentary On Kierkegaard].
 +
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Søren Kierkegaard].
 +
*[http://www.kb.dk/kultur/expo/sk-mss/index-en.htm Manuscripts from the Søren Kierkegaard Archive at Denmark's Royal Library].
 +
*[http://wp.stolaf.edu/kierkegaard/ The Howard and Edna Hong Kierkegaard Library]
 +
*[http://kierkegaardonline.blogspot.com/ Online Kierkegaard Links].
 +
===General Philosophy Sources===
 +
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 +
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 +
*[http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html Paideia Project Online]
 +
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg]  
  
==Further reading==
 
===External links===
 
*[http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletter/ Søren Kierkegaard Newsletter] edited by Gordon D. Marino
 
*[[Open Directory Project]]: [http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Philosophers/K/Kierkegaard,_S%C3%B8ren/ Kierkegaard, Søren]
 
*[http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/Internet/kierk.htm Wabash Center Internet Guide: Soren Kierkegaard]
 
*[http://sage.stolaf.edu/ Online Library Catalog at St. Olaf College; select '''Kierkegaard Library''' from the menu to search for books and articles.]
 
  
[[Category:19th century philosophy]]
+
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Christian philosophy]]
 
[[Category:Continental philosophy]]
 
[[Category:Existentialism]]
 
[[Category:Philosophical schools and traditions]]
 
[[Category:Postmodernism]]
 
[[Category:Søren Kierkegaard]]
 
  
 
{{credits|Søren_Kierkegaard|45526410|Philosophy_of_Søren_Kierkegaard|43513723}}
 
{{credits|Søren_Kierkegaard|45526410|Philosophy_of_Søren_Kierkegaard|43513723}}

Latest revision as of 02:01, 27 February 2023

Western Philosophers
19th-century philosophy
Kierkegaard.jpg
Name: Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Birth: May 5, 1813 (Copenhagen, Denmark)
Death: November 11, 1855 (Copenhagen, Denmark)
School/tradition: Continental philosophy,[1][2]Danish Golden Age Literary and Artistic Tradition, precursor to Existentialism, Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, Existential psychology, Neo-orthodoxy, and many more
Main interests
Religion, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics, Psychology
Notable ideas
Regarded as the father of Existentialism, angst, existential despair, Three spheres of human existence, knight of faith.
Influences Influenced
Hegel, Abraham, Luther, Kant, Hamann, Lessing, Socrates[3] (through Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes) Jaspers, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Sartre, Marcel, Buber, Bonhoeffer, Tillich, Barth, Auden, Camus, Kafka, de Beauvoir, May, Updike, Percy and many more

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (May 5, 1813 – November 11, 1855) was a nineteenth century Danish philosopher and theologian who has often been called “the father of existentialism.” Although his thought was influenced at least to some degree by the German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, much of Kierkegaard’s work was devoted to critiquing Hegel, and in particular Hegel’s dialectical System which claimed Reason could contain all of reality. For Kierkegaard this reduced many religious truths to philosophy and so much of his critique was an attempt to show how certain experiences (particularly those concerning religious faith) escaped rational conceptualization. Moreover, Kierkegaard thought Hegel’s ethics absorbed the individual into the collective whole such that the individual person had no value outside of the social.

Kierkegaard’s work is marked by a unique complexity due to his anti-systematic and often literary approach to philosophy. His books were often attributed to pseudonyms and were written in an ironic style that was called “Socratic.” Kierkegaard’s early romance with Regine Olsen with whom he broke an engagement also had a profound influence on his life and writings. As a philosopher Kierkegaard is best known for such notions as his stages of existence, “faith in the absurd,” “truth as subjectivity,” and his analyses of existential anxiety and despair. Given the ambiguity of Kierkegaard’s style, however, the exact meaning of these notions continues to be debated. His overall existential philosophy had a tremendous influence on twentieth century thought, particularly in the areas of philosophy, theology, psychology, literature, and art.

Kierkegaard's historical role can be understood when we look at the fact that he and Ludwig Feuerbach brought forth a "breakdown" of Hegel's universal synthesis by critiquing it in two extremely different ways: through faith-oriented existentialism and atheistic anthropology, respectively, which eventually led to Barthian theology and Marxism. Kierkegaard's thought is a corrective to the rationalism of much of philosophy, reminding us of the inward dimension of existence, the experience of subjectivity.

Life

Early years (1813–1841)

Søren Kierkegaard was born to an affluent family in Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark. His father, Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard, was a very religious man who believed he had committed the unpardonable sin and as a result none of his children would live past the age of 34. Although it is not clear which sin his father had committed, possibilities include having cursed the name of God and having impregnated his future wife out of wedlock. Although many of his seven children did die young, the father’s predictions proved false when two of the children surpassed the age of 34. This early introduction to the notion of sin, however, along with the intimate bond he shared with his father (who often battled fits of melancholy) laid the foundation for much of Kierkegaard's later work (such as Fear and Trembling and The Concept of Anxiety).

Kierkegaard attended the School of Civic Virtue and Copenhagen University. At the university, Kierkegaard wrote his dissertation, The Concept of Irony, with Continual Reference to Socrates. The work was found by the university panel to be a noteworthy and well-thought out work, but a little too wordy and literary for a philosophical thesis. The practice of Socratic irony, along with his literary and wordy style, would remain significant and characteristic features throughout the entirety of Kierkegaard’s corpus. Kierkegaard graduated from the university in October of 1841.

Regine Olsen (1837–1841)

Regine Olsen, the love of his life, and a muse for his writings.

One of most important events in Kierkegaard's life (and a major influence on his work) was his relation with Regine Olsen (1822 - 1904). Kierkegaard met Regine in May of 1837 and the two instantly fell in love. In September of 1840, Kierkegaard formally proposed to Regine and she immediately accepted. Not long afterwards, however, Kierkegaard began to have second thoughts and less than a year after the proposal, he broke off the engagement. Over the years many theories have been offered to explain his reasons, but his precise motive for ending the engagement remains a mystery. Like his father, Kierkegaard suffered from melancholy and he seemed to believe he had inherited his father’s curse. For this reason, Kierkegaard judged himself to be unsuited for marriage. In any case, it is generally believed that Soren and Regine were deeply in love, and perhaps remained so even after she married Johan Frederik Schlegel, a prominent civil servant. Although for a period both Kierkegaard and Regine remained in Copenhagen their contact was limited to chance meetings on the streets. At one point, Kierkegaard asked Regine's husband for permission to speak with her, but the husband refused the request. Kierkegaard’s writings are filled with what appear to be subtle references intended to be directly or indirectly understood by Regine. Regine and her husband left the country when Schlegel was appointed Governor in the Danish West Indies. By the time Regine returned, Kierkegaard was dead. Regine Schlegel lived until 1904, and upon her death she was buried near Kierkegaard in the Assistens Cemetery in Copenhagen. One of the most poignant passages in Kierkegaard’s journals is the one which reads, “Had I had faith, I would have married Regine.”

The First Authorship (1841 – 1846)

Kierkegaard's first important work was his university thesis, The Concept of Irony, which was presented in 1841. Shortly thereafter in 1943 he published the pseudonymous work, Either/Or which remains one of his most famous and important books. The work offers the beginning of Kierkegaard’s existential analysis in which he suggests that a fundamental choice must be made between an aesthetic or ethical existence.

Kierkegaard's manuscript of Philosophical Fragments.

In the same year that Either/Or appeared, Kierkegaard discovered that Regine was engaged. The news left a deep imprint on Kierkegaard and in turn his writings. In Fear and Trembling (1843) Kierkegaard seems to suggest that through a divine act, Regine might return to him. Several other works of this period, such as Repetition, allude to Kierkegaard’s relationship to his former fiancée.

The Corsair Affair (1845–1846)

In December of 1845, Peder Ludvig Møller published an article critiquing Kierkegaard’s work Stages on Life's Way. The article not only gave Stages a poor review, but showed little understanding of the style, substance, and intention of the pseudonymous work. Møller was also an editor of The Corsair, a Danish satirical paper that lampooned people of notable standing. Kierkegaard wrote two articles in response to both Møller’s original critique and to The Corsair itself. The former focused on the questionability of Møller's integrity while the latter launched a direct assault on The Corsair, in which Kierkegaard openly asked to be satirized.

Over the next few months, The Corsair took Kierkegaard up on his challenge to "be abused," and unleashed a series of attacks ridiculing Kierkegaard's appearance, voice, and habits. For months, Kierkegaard was harassed on the streets of Denmark so that schoolboys used to chide one another by saying, “Don’t be a Soren.” In an 1846 journal entry, Kierkegaard offers a long, detailed explanation of his attack on Møller and The Corsair, and also explains that this attack made him quit his indirect communication authorship. At that point Kierkegaard believed that his writing career had reached its conclusion; from then on, he decided, he would settle down into the quiet life of a Lutheran pastor.

The Second Authorship and the Attack Upon Christendom (1846–1855)

Kierkegaard's manuscript of The Sickness Unto Death.

Not long afterwards Kierkegaard reversed his momentous decision. Rather than give up his authorship, he decided to redirect it. Whereas his first authorship offered a polemic against Hegel, his second authorship would launch an assault against the hypocrisy of Christendom. One should note that by 'Christendom' Kierkegaard did not mean Christianity itself, but rather the official Church which had become indistinguishable from Danish culture and society. After the Corsair incident, Kierkegaard emphasized the role of "the public" and the individual's interaction with it. His first work of this period was Two Ages: A Literary Review which was a critique of a well-known novel. While offering his critique of the work, Kierkegaard drew several insightful conclusions on the nature of the present age and its abstract and passionless attitude towards life.

The present age is essentially a sensible, reflecting age, devoid of passion, flaring up in superficial, short-lived enthusiasm and prudentially relaxing in indolence. … whereas a passionate age accelerates, raises up, and overthrows, elevates and debases, a reflective apathetic age does the opposite, it stifles and impedes, it levels.

Kierkegaard, The Present Age

As part of his analysis of the crowd, Kierkegaard realized the decay and decadence of the Christian church, especially the Church of Denmark. Kierkegaard believed Christendom had "lost its way" and so had abandoned the Christian faith. Christendom merely gave 'lip service' to the original and profound nature of the Christian doctrine taming it into a social and mundane doctrine of manners. Convinced that his duty was to inform others of the shallowness of this so-called Christian teaching of the Danish Church (which made everything too “easy”), Kierkegaard wrote several scathing criticisms on contemporary Christendom in works such as Christian Discourses, Works of Love, and Edifying Discourses in Diverse Spirits. His task throughout these works was to make things “more difficult,” though not more difficult than Christianity itself.

Søren Kierkegaard's grave in Assistens Kirkegård

Kierkegaard's final years were taken up with a more sustained, outright attack on the Danish State Church by means of newspaper articles published in The Fatherland and a series of self-published pamphlets called The Moment. Kierkegaard was initially provoked by a speech made by Professor Hans Lassen Martensen, in which he referred to the recently deceased Bishop Mynster as an authentic "truth-witness." Although Kierkegaard had an affection towards Mynster, he believed Mynster’s conception of Christianity was in error and so served man's interest rather than God's. For this reason, it was an outrage to compare Mynster's life with that of a 'truth-witness'.

Before the tenth chapter of The Moment could be published, though, Kierkegaard collapsed on the street and was taken to a hospital. He stayed in the hospital for nearly a month and refused to receive communion from a priest of the church, whom Kierkegaard regarded as merely a state official rather than an authentic servant of God. Kierkegaad admitted to his friend since boyhood, Emil Boesen (who was himself a pastor and who kept a record of his conversations with Kierkegaard) that his (Kierkegaard’s) life, which looked like vanity to others, had been one of tremendous and unknown suffering. Kierkegaard died in Frederick's Hospital on November 11, 1855.

Indirect Communication and Pseudonymous Authorship

One of the most distinctive features of Kierkegaard’s large body of work is that a number of his books were published under pseudonyms. Although Kierkegaard was not immediately revealed to be the “real author,” the concealment of his identity from the reading public was not his primary motive. Rather by using a pseudonym Kierkegaard intentionally distanced himself from the works and the ideas contained in them. Similar to the way novelists will create characters who express ideas that they themselves do not embrace, Kierkegaard created philosophers who expressed ideas to which he himself did not necessarily commit. This technique allowed Kierkegaard to represent different ways of thinking and living which would connect to his different stages of existence. Moreover, this reflects Kierkegaard’s method of indirect communication where, as in poetry, the reader is required to interpret the possible meanings embedded in the text, rather than be told them straightforwardly or directly. In his The Point of View of my Work as an Author, Kierkegaard admitted that he wrote this way in order to prevent his works from being treated as a philosophical system with a systematic structure. He says, "In the pseudonymous works, there is not a single word which is mine. I have no opinion about these works except as a third person, no knowledge of their meaning, except as a reader, not the remotest private relation to them." Of course, given his continuous use of irony the reader is left to decide to what extent this “admission” should be taken seriously.

This indirect and ironic style of writing has made it difficult for scholars to demonstrate what precisely Kierkegaard’s definitive view on things were and where he ultimately stood in relation to the ideas presented in the pseudonymous texts. This ambiguity, however, was exactly what Kierkegaard was aiming at. His works constantly belittle the academic tendency to seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake as opposed to searching for a truth that would be worth living (and dying) for. For this reason, he hoped readers would read his works without attributing them to some aspect of his own life; rather readers should decide for themselves what value the ideas held and to what extent they agree or disagree with them. Furthermore, Kierkegaard in being opposed to Hegel was adamantly anti-systematic. He believed that existence itself was not a system, at least from the human perspective. Thus, Kierkegaard thought that his stages of existence: the aesthetic, ethical and religious, could be more truthfully approached “from the inside.” His pseudonyms authors, then, exist in the very ideas they are presenting.

The importance of recognizing the pseudonymous authorship has only recently been recognized in Kiekegaardian scholarship. Early Kierkegaardian scholars, such as Theodor W. Adorno, blatantly disregarded Kierkegaard's intentions and instead argued that the entire authorship should be treated as Kierkegaard's own personal and religious views. This way of looking at Kierkegaard's work leads to many confusions and seeming contradictions, and often makes Kierkegaard’s work appear to be incoherent. Most later scholars, however, have respected Kierkegaard's stated intentions and so interpret his work by attributing the pseudonymous texts to their respective authors. It is also important to note that while publishing these “aesthetic” works (which were attributed to a pseudonym) Kierkegaard almost always published concurrently a “religious” work or “edifying discourse” (which he published under his own name). Unfortunately, some scholars have not always appreciated the significance and connection between these two kinds of works. Some of Kierkegaard's most important pseudonyms include:

  • Victor Eremita, editor of Either/Or
  • Judge William, author of rebuttals to A in Either/Or
  • Johannes de Silentio, author of Fear and Trembling
  • Hilarius Bookbinder, editor of Stages on Life's Way
  • Vigilius Haufniensis, author of The Concept of Dread
  • Johannes Climacus, author of Philosophical Fragments and Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments
  • Anti-Climacus, author of The Sickness Unto Death and Training in Christianity

Kierkegaard and Hegel

Hegel

Kierkegaard’s relation to Hegel is complex. On the one hand, one of Kierkegaard's greatest philosophical contributions is his critique of Hegel. Kierkegaard objected vigorously to Hegel’s claim that his dialectical System could explain the whole of reality. For Hegel Christianity and religion are merely “moments” that can be rationally explained and so surpassed within a higher philosophical and conceptual system. Kierkegaard never tired of refuting (and ridiculing) these claims by showing that there are things in the world that cannot be explained by philosophy. Moreover, Kierkegaard feared that Hegel’s ethics would swallow the individual into the collective whole and so he argued that the Individual is higher than the Universal or the System. Faith, too, was something higher and so could not be grasped by an abstract philosophical theory, but only in the concrete and living practice of the individual or “knight of faith.”

Although Kierkegaard’s work offers a critique of Hegel, there is some of the 'Hegelian' in his work. Given the ambiguity of Kierkegaard’s style and his use of pseudonyms it is difficult for scholars to determine how much of Kierkegaard’s own dialectical style was intended as a parody of Hegel and how much was an authentic appropriation of it. Critics often accuse Kierkegaard of trying to disprove the dialectic by means of the dialectic, which would seem to be a ‘performative contradiction’. Defenders of Kierkegaard argue that he was not opposed to dialectic and reason but to the Hegelian claim that everything could be reconciled within it. While both Hegel and Kierkegaard were dialectical thinkers, they were very different in their understandings of the goal of dialectical thinking. For Hegel the goal is to reach a synthesis, while for Kierkegaard its purpose is only to open the door to inward subjectivity.

Main Themes in Kierkegaard's Thought

Søren Kierkegaard in the coffee-house. Sketch in oils by Christian Olavius, 1843

Existential Stages

Kierkegaard distinguishes between three levels or stages of individual existence through which one becomes an authentic self, namely, the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. He analyzes the different stages in rather cryptic form throughout many of his works, but makes them most explicit in Stages on Life's Way. Kierkegaard borrows the idea of stages from Hegel’s notion of sublation, though Kierkegaard interprets the notion in an existential rather than conceptual manner. In both, though, the higher stages include or incorporate the essential aspects of the lower one(s). For example, an ethical or religious person is still capable of aesthetic enjoyment, which is why Kierkegaard states that the religious does “not abolish the aesthetic, it merely dethrones it.” Moreover, it should be noted that the difference between these ways of existing are inward rather than outward, and so there is no necessary external evidence by which to prove which stage a person is actually existing in.

Aesthetic

Throughout his life Kierkegaard was devoted to art and aesthetics. Some of his pseudonyms refer to themselves as “religious poets,” and Kierkegaard himself, because of his passionate and ironic writing style and his use of pseudonyms, has often been called a "poet-philosopher." But although Kierkegaard appreciated the richness of beauty and aesthetic experience, much of his work was intended to show the meaninglessness and irresponsibility of a life lived solely on the aesthetic level. In short, an aesthetic life is one devoted to enjoyment, interest, and pleasure. Although Kierkegaard viewed the fine arts as the highest realization of aesthetic enjoyment, the artist as a person is not necessarily existing in this stage. Moreover, the aesthetic sphere also includes much baser forms of pleasure. For there are many degrees of aesthetic existence and perhaps at the bottom would be a life of gross consumerism. But even at the top, those lives which seek only the finest aesthetic refinements are self-absorbed and ultimately irresponsible since they view nothing higher than themselves to which they owe their allegiance. Kierkegaard thought that this way of living, far from being an anomaly, was how most people lived. That is, their lives and activities are guided by enjoyment, pleasure, and interest rather than any deep and meaningful commitment to something that transcended themselves and their own immediacy. For this reason, most people, whether they are aware of it or not, live lives of despair.

Ethical

The second level of existence is the ethical. Within the entirety and diversity of Kierkegaard’s authorship the ethical was discussed in various (and sometimes seemingly antithetic) ways. Judge William’s discussion of the ethical in Either-Or, for instance, stands in sharp contrast with Johannes de silentio’s analysis in Fear and Trembling. In general, though one might distinguish between two broad ways to understand the ethical within Kierkegaard’s work as a whole, depending upon whether one views the ethical in relation to the aesthetic or in relation to the religious.

The first way is the emphasis upon existential choice, a notion from which later twentieth century existential thinkers often borrowed. Here the ethical existence is defined by an individual making an authentic choice which commits her to a certain direction in life. In doing this, she enters the journey of self-becoming by adhering to values and ethical norms that transcend her own immediate wants or desires. At this ethical level her actions begin to take on a certain consistency and coherence which they lacked in the aesthetic sphere. For Judge William, the ethical is supremely important. For it calls each individual to take account of their own lives by scrutinizing their actions in terms of universal and absolute demands. These demands are to be appropriated by the individual in such a way that in making a genuine response the individual affirms herself as a truly committed and passionate consciousness. Any lesser response is an avoidance of responsibility and the universal nature of duty. Although the universality of these responsibilities seem to be self-evident, they are not to be followed simply as a matter of course. They must be done subjectively, that is, with a passion and understanding that views them as a having direct impact upon one’s own self-becoming. Ethics, then, is something one achieves for oneself with the realization that one’s entire self-understanding is involved. Thus, the meaning of one’s life amounts to whether one practices one’s conviction in an honest, passionate, and devoted way.

Another way in which some of Kierkegaard’s authors depict the ethical is by more or less equating it with the social norms of the particular group or culture. In this way it is the society which mediates the ethical and so the individual must adhere to those social values in order to be ethical. Although this view has often been appropriated by later thinkers in order to critique certain cultures (both past and present), Kierkegaard’s authors do not always take a negative view of it. For there is a legitimate ethical value in the individual sacrificing oneself for the good of others within the social whole. For in doing so, one transcends one’s own selfish or merely aesthetic wants. In Fear and Trembling, for instance, Silentio describes various ethical or “tragic heroes” such as Agamemnon. In the classic tale the king, after making an oath to the gods, sacrifices his daughter for the good of the people. What distinguishes these ethical heroes is precisely that they are understood by the people (which is why they are considered to be heroes). Silentio will contrast such heroes with the “knights of faith” (such as Abraham) precisely by their not being understood (or if they are, it is always in hindsight after their particular trial has been endured in solitude and misunderstanding).

Religious

As with the ethical, the religious sphere of existence is approached by Kierkegaard and his pseudonyms in various ways. Although the ethical and the religious are intimately connected, just how Kierkegaard viewed this relation has been a matter of dispute among scholars. For the different pseudonymous works depict the religious not only in different but seemingly incompatible ways. Both ethics and religion rest on the awareness of a higher reality that gives meaning to actions. In moving from the ethical to the religious, however, the question arises as to what extent reason and the ethical values which serve as the mediation to the universal are not only transcended, but also transgressed. This raises the issue of the relation between faith and reason and to what extent faith goes beyond reason and to what extent it goes against reason. Here Kierkegaard’s ironic, unsystematic, and pseudonymous style of writing leaves his reader with a number of ambiguities. Whereas living in the ethical sphere involves a commitment to some ethical universal norms, existing in the religious sphere involves an immediate and direct relation to the Eternal.

In Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments Johannes Climacus distinguishes between two types within the religious stage: Religiousness A and Religiousness B. Religiousness A is symbolized by Socrates, whose passionate pursuit of the truth and individual conscience led him to a subjective appropriation of truth which conflicted with his society. Thus, Socrates transcended a merely ethical manner of existing by recognizing the beyond of the eternal and a willingness to die for it. Socrates’ faith, then, was a kind of secular faith which did not stop short at the ethical but surpassed it. Nonetheless, Socrates’ faith was incomplete in that it lacked a proper object which could fulfill the paradoxical nature of his existence. For the paradoxical aspect of human existence is that while being a finite and limited being in time the human seeks the infinite, unlimited, and eternal.

Only through Christianity or Religiousness B is the paradoxical nature of human existence fulfilled. It is fulfilled not by being explained and so understood through reason, but by being believed and so understood by faith. For in the person of Jesus the Eternal breaks into time so that God exists in time. The Incarnation, then, is the Absolute Paradox through which human beings find their salvation. Moreover, the realization that the individual is sinful and so is the source of untruth, can only be righted not by an intellectual assent to a rational God, but through an immediate relation to the Absolute Paradox. Only in time, through a subjective and passionate appropriation of Christian revelation (which from a scientific standpoint is an “objective uncertainty”) does one come into a direct relationship with the Absolute Paradox: that is God, the transcendent, coming into time in human form to redeem human beings. For Kierkegaard, the very notion of this occurring is scandalous to human reason; indeed, it must be, and if it is not then one does not truly understand the Incarnation or the meaning of human sinfulness. For Kierkegaard, the impulse towards an awareness of a transcendent power in the universe is what religion is. Although religion has a social and so ethical dimension, it begins with the individual and his or her awareness of sinfulness. Here Kierkegaard reflects Lutheran and Augustinian teachings in which the immediate relation to the Absolute (God) is founded upon grace alone.

Leap of Faith

In both the Postscript and Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms speak of faith as “a leap.” Thus, later scholars make much of his “leap of faith” and many of the more negative critiques argue that this notion advocates an irrationalism or fideism in which reason is rejected in favor of blind impulse. These critics points to the texts in which faith is referred to as an absurdity. More favorable readings, however, argue that the importance of the pseudonymous authorship should not be devalued. They also emphasize Kierkegaard’s anti-Hegelianism. For Hegel the dialectical stages were necessary unfolding of history and understanding; in contrast, Kierkegaard insists that the transitions within his stages of existence are not necessary but contingent. It is in this sense, then, that one might understand “leap.” That is, the progressive movement from one stage to the next requires something more than a natural transition. A certain gap or chasm needs to be crossed. It is in this way, as well, one might understand doubt or despair as those gaps which are crossed by the leap of faith.

In Fear and Trembling, Johannes de Silentio analyzes Abraham's action to sacrifice Isaac. Silentio argues that Abraham is a knight of faith.

The relation between ethics and the leap of faith continues to be debated among scholars. Some philosophers who read Fear and Trembling conclude that it supports divine command. The divine command theory is a metaethical theory which claims moral values are whatever is commanded by God. If a divine command from God transcends ethics, it would seem that at times God can command an unethical act (such as murder in the case of Abraham and his son Isaac). Any religious person must be prepared for the event of a divine command from God that would take precedence over all moral and rational obligations. In Fear and Trembling Silentio called this event the teleological suspension of the ethical. The ethical duty is not cancelled but merely suspended at a particular place and time according to God’s own command. Abraham, the knight of faith, chose to obey God’s command unconditionally, and was rewarded with the title of "Father of Faith." Abraham transcended ethics and leapt into faith not only because he was willing to slay his son, but also because he believed he would receive his son back. For God had also promised Abraham that through Isaac he would become the “Father of many generations.”

Subjectivity

Johannes Climacus wrote in the Postscript the following famous line: "Subjectivity is truth." This line has often been used as proof that Kierkegaard promoted an irrationalism. Defenders of Kierkegaard claim this is a misinterpretation since it both confuses Kierkegaard with the author of the work, Climacus, and it misunderstands what is meant by the term ‘subjectivity’. Existential subjectivity refers not merely to the feelings or emotions of the subject, but rather the way a subject relates to something in terms of his or her own existence. Subjectivity, then, must be understood in relation to objectivity.

Scientists, historians, and speculative philosophers study the objective world in order to discover the truth of nature, history, and universal being. In doing so, they try to discover various laws of nature, history, and universal being. Although these laws have a general validity to them, the question that obsessed Kierkegaard throughout most of his works is how the individual himself relates to the world in terms of his or her existence. Existential or subjective truth, then, is measured precisely by the depth or passion of this relation. For instance, one can learn that the capital of Rhode Island is Providence, or that the earth rotates around the sun. Both of these truths are objective, and yet neither concerns me precisely as an individual. For Kierkegaard all objective truths are aesthetic and so have significance under the category of the interesting. Any knowledge insofar as it is objective is merely interesting; but knowledge insofar as it concerns my very self is subjective or existential.

To illustrate this notion of subjective truth, let us take the theme of death, which Kierkegaard himself often addressed. To say “all men are mortal” is to state an objective truth about the nature of human beings as finite creatures. But to say, “one day I will die” is to appropriate the objective truth to my very self and so offer the possibility of acknowledging the truth in my own being. The relation, then, is one of interiority and so the degree to which one appropriates existential truth varies. In fact, for Kierkegaard to appropriate existential truths fully or completely requires an entire lifetime. So for Kierkegaard merely to recite ethical or religious formulas in no way suggests that a person has advanced beyond the aesthetic stage to a higher one. For what matters is the degree and depth to which the individual commits to certain values and truths and so embodies them. The transition through the existential stages, then, is what Kiekegaard called “becoming a self.” Kierkegaard’s philosophy is sometimes confused with the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre argues that the self or subject creates one’s own meaning and values, and so creates one’s self. In contrast, Kierkegaard argues that in the transition through the existential stages one becomes a self precisely by losing or sacrificing one’s self. In the move from the aesthetic to the ethical the self sacrifices personal wants for higher ideals and universal values. Likewise, in the transition from the ethical to the religious, one sacrifices mediated ideals for the immediate encounter with the Eternal in faith. In this way, one loses one’s self in order to regain it as a higher level.

Pathos

It is pathos or passion that advances the subject beyond the aesthetic sphere. The aesthete, lacks passion for he cares only about the interesting and pleasurable. Without pathos one cannot transcend into an ethical existence where one does not simply parrot ethical norms but commits to them in order to provide meaning and direction in one’s life. Likewise, it is pathos that drives one to seek some higher good beyond the social or universal values practiced by the culture and in turn seek a divine and eternal source. Here, through pathos one strives to surpass the mediation of the ethical in favor of an immediate and direct encounter with the eternal. The recognition of this pathos is the awareness of an infinite source or desire in the self, one that is not satisfied by finite mediations but seeks the infinite. This, then, is the religious pathos which Kierkegaard calls faith.

Anxiety

For Kierkegaard, existential dread or anxiety is the fear we experience in the face of freedom. Kierkegaard uses the example of a man standing on the edge of a cliff. When the man looks over the edge, he experiences a focused fear of falling, but at the same time, the man feels a terrifying impulse to hurl himself over the edge. That experience is the dread or anxiety we experience in recognizing our own freedom and the possibility of choosing the destiny of our existence. The recognition of this freedom triggers immense feelings of dread which Kierkegaard called our "dizziness of freedom."

In The Concept of Dread, Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Vigilius Haufniensis analyzes this dread further. He focuses on the dread experienced by the first man Adam and his choice to eat from the tree of knowledge. Prior to Adam partaking of the fruit, the concepts of good and evil did not yet exist. Adam, then, had no concept of good and evil, and so did not know that eating from the tree was "evil." He did know, however, that God commanded him not to eat from the tree. The dread Adam experienced originated from God's prohibition itself since the command implied that Adam was free and so could choose either to obey God or not. Once Adam ate from the tree, sin was born. Thus, dread precedes sin, and it is dread that leads Adam to sin. Dread, then, "is the presupposition for hereditary sin."

And yet, there is a sense in which dread is related more to our intrinsic freedom than to sin. For Kierkegaard’s pseudonym also mentions that dread is a way for humanity to be saved as well. Because anxiety increases our self-awareness of choice and personal responsibility, it brings us from a state of un-self-conscious immediacy to self-conscious reflection. An individual becomes truly aware of their potential through the experience of dread. So although dread may be a possibility for sin, it can also be a recognition or realization of the freedom of possibility and the attainment of an authentic self.

Despair

Is despair an excellence or a defect? Purely dialectically, it is both. The possibility of this sickness is man's superiority over the animal, for it indicates infinite sublimity that he is spirit. Consequently, to be able to despair is an infinite advantage, and yet to be in despair is not only the worst misfortune and misery—no, it is ruination.

Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death

In The Sickness Unto Death Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Anti-Climacus offers a complex definition of the self as a synthesis of the finite and the infinite, and the relation that relates to itself in relating to another. Some scholars argue that the style of the work is a parody of the Hegelian dialectical method where opposites merge into ever-higher syntheses. In any case, the work offers an analysis of the various forms of despair in which the self in seeking its own fulfillment continues to direct itself toward objects or possibilities which fail to succeed in this aim of overcoming despair. At times the self loses itself in its own finitude or limitations; at other times it loses itself in its infinitude and endless possibilities. The key for Kierkegaard is the balance which one strikes in actualizing the possibilities which are truly one’s own and so following the course of one’s own life laid out specifically for oneself. Later existential thinkers, such as Sartre and Heidegger, borrow this notion of authentic possibility. For Kirkegaard’s specifically religious view, however, the authentic possibility of overcoming the ultimate despair of death and our own human finitude is fulfilled only through faith. In this way, self-becoming realizes itself only through a relation to the Eternal.

Kierkegaard's Influence

The Søren Kierkegaard Statue in Copenhagen.

Kierkegaard's works were not made widely available until several decades after his death. Not until Georg Brandes, an early Kierkegaardian Danish scholar fluent in both Danish and German, translated his work was Kierkegaard made known to the academic community in Europe. The dramatist Henrik Ibsen became interested in Kierkegaard, as well, and so popularized the works in Scandinavia. German translations appeared during the early 1900s, while the first English translations were not produced until 1938. Kierkegaard's fame as a philosopher grew tremendously in the 1930s, mostly in relation to the growing existentialist movement. He is called the father of existentialism.

Many twentieth-century philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, drew many concepts from Kierkegaard, particularly the notions of angst, despair, and the importance of individual choice and commitment. Philosophers and theologians who have been influenced by Kierkegaard include Karl Jaspers, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Karl Bultmann, Martin Buber, Gabriel Marcel, Miguel de Unamuno, Karl Barth, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Simone de Beauvoir, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Kierkegaard also influenced other disciplines such as literature and psychology. Many literary writers were influenced by Kierkegaard’s insightful analyses of existential themes and situations, such as Walker Percy, David Lodge, and John Updike. Kierkegaard also had a profound influence on psychology and created the foundations of Christian psychology, existential psychology and therapy. Ludwig Binswanger, Victor Frankl, and Carl Rogers are well-known existential or humanistic psychologists. Rollo May, an American existential psychologist, based his work The Meaning of Anxiety on Kierkegaard's The Concept of Anxiety. Kierkegaard's sociological work Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age provides an interesting critique of modernity. Kierkegaard is also an important figure in postmodern debates.

According to Paul Tillich,[4] the nineteenth century witnessed a "breakdown" of Hegel's universal synthesis into two different schools of thought which constituted two extremely opposite ways of reacting against it: Kierkegaard's God-centered existentialism and Feuerbach's God-denying anthropology. Tillich also notes that both reactions historically led to the theology of Karl Barth and the communism of Karl Marx, respectively. The breakdown of Hegel's universal synthesis had to occur, according to Tillich, because its original attempt to synthesize the faith tradition of Pietism and the humanistic tradition of Enlightenment was far from successful. If it is true, it can be said that Kierkegaard played an importantly insightful role of bringing humans to the domain of experiencing inwardness with God beyond Hegel's rather mechanistic universal system, although the scope of Kierkegaard' thought may not look broad enough for some people.

Notes

  1. This classification is anachronistic; Kierkegaard was an exceptionally unique thinker and his works do not fit neatly into any one philosophical school or tradition, nor did he identify himself with any. However, his works are considered precursor to many schools of thought developed in the twentieth and twenty-fitst centuries. See "20th century receptions" in Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard.
  2. Alastair Hannay and Gordon Marino, (eds). The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard. (Cambridge University Press 1997, ISBN 0521477190)
  3. The influence of Socrates can be seen in Kierkegaard's Sickness Unto Death and Works of Love.
  4. Paul Tillich. A History of Christian Thought. (Touchstone, 1972), 432-503.

Selected bibliography

Primary sources

  • (1843) Either/Or, Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1987. ISBN 0691020426.
  • (1843) Fear and Trembling, Translated by Alastair Hannay. Penguin, 1985. ISBN 0140444491.
  • (1843) Repetition, Translated by Walter Lowrie. Princeton, 1946.
  • (1844) Philosophical Fragments, Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1985. ISBN 0691020361.
  • (1844) The Concept of Anxiety, Translated by Reidan Thompste and Albert B. Anderson. Princeton, 1981. ISBN 0691020116.
  • (1845) Stages on Life's Way, Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1987. ISBN 0691020493.
  • (1846) Concluding Unscientific Postscript to The Philosophical Fragments, Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1992. ISBN 0691020817.
  • (1847) Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1993. ISBN 0691032742.
  • (1847) Works of Love, Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1995. ISBN 0691037922.
  • (1849) The Sickness Unto Death, Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1980. ISBN 0691020280.
  • (1850) Training in Christianity, Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, 1987. ISBN 0691020639.

Secondary sources

  • Bellinger, Charles. The Genealogy of Violence: Reflections on Creation, Freedom, and Evil. Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0195134982
  • Dru, Alexander. The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard. Oxford University Press, 1938.
  • Duncan, Elmer. Søren Kierkegaard: Maker of the Modern Theological Mind. Word Books 1976, ISBN 0876804636
  • Garff, Joakim. Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography. Princeton University Press 2005, ISBN 069109165X.
  • Hannay, Alastair. Kierkegaard: A Biography. Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0521531810.
  • Hannay, Alastair and Gordon Marino, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard. Cambridge University Press, 1997. ISBN 0521477190
  • Kierkegaard, S. The Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates. Princeton University Press, 1989. ISBN 0691073546
  • Lippit, John. Kierkegaard and Fear and Trembling. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0415180473
  • Oden, Thomas C. The Humor of Kierkegaard: An Anthology. Princeton University Press, 2004. ISBN 069102085X
  • Ostenfeld, Ib, and Alastair McKinnon. Søren Kierkegaard's Psychology. Wilfrid Laurer University Press, 1972. ISBN 0889200688
  • Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought. Touchstone, 1972.
  • Westphal, Merold. Becoming a Self: A Reading of Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Purdue University Press, 1996. ISBN 1557530904

External links

All links retrieved February 26, 2023.

General Philosophy Sources

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.