kierkegaard's philosophical fragments
Post on 02-Jun-2018
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
1/15
Philosophical Fragments
Philosophical Fragments (Danish title: Philosophi-
ske Smuler eller En Smule Philosophi) is a Christian
philosophic work written by Danish philosopher Sren
Kierkegaardin 1844. It was the first of three works writ-
ten under the pseudonym Johannes Climacus, the other
two were Johannes Climacus, 1841 andConcluding Un-
scientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, 1846.
Kierkegaardian scholars D. Anthony Storm[nb 1] and
Walter Lowrie believe Kierkegaard could be referring
to Johannes Climacus, a 7th-century Christian monk,
who believed that an individual is converted to Chris-tianity by way of a ladder, one rung (virtue) at a time.[1]
Kierkegaard believes the individual comes to an under-
standing with Christ by a leap.
Kierkegaard scholar and translator David F. Swenson
was the first to translate the book into English in 1936.
He called it Philosophical Chips in an earlier biogra-
phy of Kierkegaard published in 1921[nb 2]and another
early translator,Lee Milton Hollander, called it Philo-
sophic Trifles in his early translation of portions of
Kierkegaards works in 1923.[nb 3]
Kierkegaard hinted that he might write a sequel in 17
pieces in his preface.[2] By February 22, 1846 he pub-
lished a 600 page sequel to his 83 page Fragments. He de-
voted over 200 pages of Concluding Unscientific Postscript
to an explanation of what hemeant by Philosophical Frag-
ments.[3]
He referred to a quote byPlatoin hisPostscript to Philo-
sophical Fragments: But I must ask you Socrates, what
do you suppose is the upshot of all this? As I said a little
while ago, it is the scrapings and shavings of argument,
cut up into little bits. Greater Hippias, 304a. He could
have been thinking about this quote when he wrote this
book. Plato was asking What is beauty?" Kierkegaard
asks, What is Truth?"[4] Kierkegaard had already asked
about truth 9 days earlier when he publishedThree Up-
building Discourses. A mere 4 days from the publication
ofPhilosophical Fragmentshe publishedThe Concept of
Anxiety.
Kierkegaard wrote his books in reaction to both Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich
Schlegelas well as the philosophic-historical use of spec-
ulation in regard to Christianity. Schlegel published a
book bearing the same title as Kierkegaards,Philosoph-
ical Fragmentsin 1799.[nb 4]
1 Structure
Kierkegaard always wrote aprefacesigned by the name
of the pseudonymous author he was using. He began
this practice with his unpublished bookJohannes Clima-
cusand continued it throughout his writing career. How-
ever, he added his own name as the person responsible for
publication ofPhilosophical Fragments, Concluding Un-
scientific Postscript,The Sickness Unto DeathandPractice
in Christianity. He also wrote manydiscourseswhich he
signed with his own name. He began that practice withthe writing of Two Upbuilding Discourses in 1843. He
divides his book into five major sections
A Project of Thought
The God as Teacher and Savior: An Essay of the
Imagination
The Absolute Paradox of the Offended Christian
Appendix: The Paradox and the Offended
Consciousness
The Case of the Contemporary Disciple
Interlude
The Disciple at Second Hand
2 Overview
Kierkegaard uses familiar Christian vocabulary to de-
velop his own method for arriving at Truth. He presents
two views, the Socratic and the religious.Socratesis con-
sidered an authoritative voice in the philosophic commu-nity so Kierkegaard begins with his ideas. He developed
the doctrine of recollection which Kierkegaard makes use
of in his explanation of Truth andignorance.
His aim is to advance beyond Socrates, who was inter-
ested in finite truth, to another Teacher who explained
Eternal Truth. TheEnlightenmentmovement was intent
on combining concepts of God, nature, knowledge and
man into one world view. Kierkegaard was a counter-
Enlightenment writer.[5] He believed that knowledge of
God was a condition that only the God can give and
the Moment God gives the condition to the Learner has
decisive significance.
[6]
He uses thecategoryof the single individual to help those
seeking to become Christians. He says, I am he who
1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_(Kant)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(philosophy)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Upbuilding_Discourses,_1843https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoursehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefacehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Schlegelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Schlegelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Upbuilding_Discourses,_1844https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Upbuilding_Discourses,_1844https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Hippiashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Milton_Hollanderhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Swenson_(translator)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Climacushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lowrie_(translator)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concluding_Unscientific_Postscript_to_Philosophical_Fragmentshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concluding_Unscientific_Postscript_to_Philosophical_Fragmentshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_omnibus_dubitandum_esthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaardhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaardhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmarkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_language -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
2/15
2 2 OVERVIEW
Socratesremained true to himself, through his manner of life giv-
ing artistic expression to what he hadunderstood. Philosophical
Fragmentsp, 8
himself has been educated to the point of becoming aChristian. In the fact that education is pressed upon me,
and in the measure that it is pressed, I press in turn upon
this age; but I am not a teacher, only a fellow student.[7]
And again, Once and for all I must earnestly beg the
kind reader always to bear in mente (in mind) that the
thought behind the whole work is: what it means to be-
come a Christian.[8] He can only bring an individual
to the point of becoming a Christian because the single
individual must choose to become a Christian in free-
dom. Kierkegaard says, either believe or be offended.
But choose.
Philosophers and Historianstend to try to prove Chris-tianity rather than teach belief in Christ through faith.
Kierkegaard says,
As long as I keep my hold on the proof,
i.e., continue to demonstrate, the existence
does not come out, if for no other reason than
that I am engaged in proving it; but when I
let the proof go, the existence is there. (...)
unless we hold fast to the Socratic doctrine
of Recollection, and to his principle that ev-
ery individual man is Man, Sextus Empiricus
stands ready to make the transition involvedin teaching not only difficult but impossible;
and Protagoras will begin where Sextus Em-
piricus leaves off, maintaining that man is the
measure of all things, in the sense that the in-
dividual man is the measure for others, but by
no means in the Socratic sense that each man is
his own measure, neither more nor less. Philo-
sophical Fragmentsp. 29-30, 32
2.1 A Project of Thought
Kierkegaard uses the Doctrine of Recollection as an ex-
ample of how truth was found in Ancient Greek phi-
losophyand is still found in psychotherapyand modern
medicine. Both of these sciences are based on question-
ing the patient, Learner, in the hope of jogging their
memory about past events. The therapist could ask the
right question and not realize he has received the an-
swer he was looking for, this is known as Menos para-
dox. Kierkegaard puts his paradox this way, what a man
knows he cannot seek, since heknowsit; and what he does
not know he cannot seek, since he does not even know for
what to seek.[9]
The problem for the Learner is that he is in Error, and
is ignorant of his Error. He had the truth from birth, he
knew who his creator was, but forgot. Kierkegaard calls
this Error Sin. How can he find out that he had vested
his life in outer goods rather than theinner goods of the
Spirit? A Teacher must bring him the condition[note 1]
necessary for understanding the Truth.[nb 5] He explains
the whole process this way:
In so far as the learner is
in Error, but in consequence of his
own act (and in no other way can he
possibly be in this state, as we have
shown above), he might seem to be
free; for to be what one is by ones
own act is freedom. And yet he is
in reality unfree and bound and ex-
iled; for to be free from the Truth
is to be exiled from the Truth, and
to be exiled by ones own self is to
be bound. But since he is bound by
himself, may he not loose his bondsand set himself free? For whatever
binds me, the same should be able
to set me free when it wills; and
since this power is here his own self,
he should be able to liberate him-
self. But first at any rate he must
will it.
for he forges the chains of
his bondage with the strength of
his freedom, since he exists in it
without compulsion; and thus hisbonds grow strong, and all his pow-
ers unite to make him theslaveof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_willhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moseshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_Spirithttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_Spirithttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno#Meno%2527s_paradoxhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno#Meno%2527s_paradoxhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy#Systemshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagorashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus_Empiricushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Religionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Golden_Agehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understoodhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
3/15
2.1 A Project of Thought 3
sin. -- What now shall we call such
aTeacher, one who restores the lost
condition and gives the learner the
Truth? Let us call him Saviour,
for he saves the learner from his
bondage and from himself; let us
call himRedeemer, for he redeemsthe learner from the captivity into
which he had plunged himself, and
no captivity is so terrible and so im-
possible to break, as that in which
the individual keeps himself. And
still we have not said all that is
necessary; for by his self-imposed
bondage the learner has brought
upon himself a burden of guilt, and
when the Teacher gives him the
condition and the Truth he consti-
tutes himself an Atonement, tak-ing away the wrath impending upon
that of which the learner has made
himselfguilty. Such aTeacherthe
learner will never be able to forget.
For the moment he forgets him he
sinks back again into himself, just
as one who while in original pos-
session of the condition forgot that
God exists, and thereby sank into
bondage. Philosophical Fragments,
Swenson p. 12-13
The conversion ofSaint PaulbyAndrea Meldolla1510-1553
Now he owes everything to his Teacher but is sad-
dened that it took so long to find out that he forgot
his soul belonged to God and not to the world, and
he Repents.[11] The Moment[12] the Teacher brings
the condition the learner experiences a "New Birth".
Kierkegaard says a change has taken place within him
like the change fromnon-beingto being. He calls this
change Conversion.[13] He says, When one who has
experienced birth thinks of himself as born, he conceivesthis transition from non-being to being. The same princi-
ple must also hold in the case of the new birth. Or is the
difficulty increased by the fact that the non-being which
precedes the new birth contains more being than the non-
being which preceded thefirst birth? But who then may
be expected to think the new birth?"[14] This is a paradox.
When the seed of the oak is planted in
earthen vessels, they break asunder; when new
wine is poured in old leather bottles, they
burst; what must happen when the God im-
plants himself in human weakness, unless man
becomes a new vessel and a new creature!
But this becoming, what labors will attend the
change, how convulsed with birth-pangs! And
the understandinghow precarious, and how
close each moment to misunderstanding, when
the anguish of guilt seeks to disturb the peace
of love! And how rapt in fear; for it is in-
deed less terrible to fall to the ground when
the mountains tremble at the voice of the God,than to sit at table with him as an equal; and yet
it is the Gods concern precisely to have it so.
Philosophical Fragmentsp. 27
How many an individual has not asked,
What is truth? and at bottom hoped that it
would be a long time before the truth would
come so close to him that in the same instant it
would determine what it was his duty to do at
that moment. When the Pharisee, in order to
justify himself, asked, Who is my neighbor?
he presumably thought that this might developinto a very protracted inquiry, so that it would
perhaps take a very long time and then per-
haps end with the admission that it was impos-
sible to define the concept neighbor with ab-
solute accuracy for this very reason he asked
the question, to find an escape, to waste time,
and to justify himself. But God catches the
wise in their foolishness, and Christ impris-
oned the questioner in the answer that con-
tained the task. So it is with all Christs an-
swers. Sren Kierkegaard,Works of Love p.
96-97
The truth is within me, that is, when I am
truly within myself (not untruthfully outside
myself), the truth, if it is there, is a being, a life.
Therefore it says, This is eternal life, to know
the only true God and the one whom he sent,
the truth. (John 14:6 The Bible) That is, only
then do I in truth know the truth, when it be-
comes a life in me. Therefore Christ compares
truth to food and appropriating it to eating, just
as, physically, food by being appropriated (as-
similated) becomes the life sustenance, so also,
spiritually, truth is both the giver of life and thesustenance of life, is life. Practice in Christian-
ity, Hong 1991 p. 206
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neighbourhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_birthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Birthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Meldollahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Paulhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirithttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_(emotion)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemer_(Christianity)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
4/15
4 2 OVERVIEW
But Kierkegaard went deeply into the choice in his first
book, Either/Or:
Let me make a little psychological obser-
vation. We frequently hear people vent their
dissatisfaction in a complaint about life; oftenenough we hear them wishing. Imagine a poor
wretch like that; let us skip over the wishes that
shed no light here because they involve the ut-
terly accidental. He wishes: Would that I had
that mans intellect, or that mans talent etc. In-
deed, to go to the extreme: Would that I had
that mans steadfastness. Wishes of that sort
are frequently heard, but have you ever heard
a person earnestly wish that he could be some-
one else? It is so far from being the case that
it is particularly characteristic of people called
unfortunate individualities that they cling most
of all to themselves, that despite all their suf-
ferings they still would not wish to be any-
body else for all the world. That is because
such people are very close to the truth, and
they feel the eternal validity of the personal-
ity not in its blessing but in its torment, even if
they have retained this totally abstract expres-
sion for the joy in it; that they prefer to go on
being themselves. But the person with many
wishes is nevertheless continually of the opin-
ion that he would be himself even if everything
were changed. Consequently, there is some-
thing within him that in relation to everythingelse is absolute, something whereby he is who
he is even if the change he achieved by his wish
were the greatest possible. That he is mistaken,
I shall show later, but at this point I merely
want to find the most abstract expression for
this self that makes him who he is. And this
is nothing other than freedom. By this route
it is actually possible to present a very plausi-
ble demonstration of the eternal validity of the
personality. Indeed, even a suicide does not
actually will to do away with his self; he, too,
wishes-he wishes another form of his self, and
this is why we certainly find a suicide who is
very convinced of the immortality of the soul,
but whose whole being was so ensnared that he
believed he would by this step find the absolute
form for his spirit. The reason, however, it may
seem to an individual as if he could be changed
continually and yet remain the same, as if his
innermost being were an algebraic symbol that
could signify anything whatever it is assumed
to be, is that he is in a wrong position, that he
has not chosen himself, does not have a concept
of it, and yet there is in his folly an acknowl-
edgment of the eternal validity of his person-ality. But for him who is in a proper posi-
tion things take another course. He chooses
himself-not in a finite sense, for then this "self"
would indeed be something finite that would
fall among all the other finite things-but in the
absolute sense, and yet he does choose him-
self and not someone else. This self that he
chooses in this way is infinitely concrete, for it
is he himself, and yet it is absolutely differentfrom his former self, for he has chosen it ab-
solutely. This self has not existed before, be-
cause it came into existence through a choice,
and yet it has existed, for it was indeed him-
self. The choice here makes two dialectical
movements simultaneous-that which is chosen
does not exist and comes into existence through
the choice-and that which is chosen exists; oth-
erwise it was not a choice. In other words, if
what I chose did not exist but came into exis-
tence absolutely through the choice, then I did
not choose-then I created. But I do not createmyself-I choose myself. Therefore, whereas
nature is created from nothing, whereas I my-
self as immediate personality am created from
nothing, I as free spirit am born out of the
principle of contradiction and am born through
choosing myself.
Sren Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II,
Hong p. 215-216
2.2 The God as Teacher, Saviour and the
Paradox
Kierkegaard leads his reader to consider how a teacher
might become a teacher. He says life and its circum-
stances constitute an occasion for an individual to be-
come a teacher and he in turn becomes an occasion for the
learner to learn something. Socrates was such a teacher as
this. But what about God? What would be the occasion
that moved him to become a Teacher? God is moved by
love but his love is unhappy. He wants to make himself
understood just like a teacher but Hes teaching some-
thing that doesn't come to an individual from the known
world but from a world that is Unknown. His love is a
love of the learner, and his aim is to win him. For it isonly in love that the unequal can be made equal, and it is
only in equality or unity that an understanding can be ef-
fected, and without a perfect understanding the Teacher is
not the God, unless the obstacle comes wholly from the
side of the learner, in his refusing to realize that which
had been made possible for him.[15]
Gods goal is to make himself understood and, according
to Kierkegaard, he has three options. He could elevate
the learner to help the learner forget the misunderstand-
ing. God could show himself to the learner and cause him
to forget his Error while contemplating Gods presence.
Both options are rejected on the basis of equality. Howcan God make himself equal to man? Only bybecoming
man himself, but not a king, or a leader of an established
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actualityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
5/15
-
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
6/15
6 2 OVERVIEW
Through the objective uncertainty and ig-
norance the paradox thrusts away in the in-
wardness of the existing person. But since the
paradox is not in itself the paradox, it does not
thrust away intensely enough. For without risk,
no faith; the more risk, the more faith. The
more objective reliability, the less inwardness(since inwardness is subjectivity). The less ob-
jective reliability, the deeper is the possible in-
wardness. When the paradox itself is the para-
dox, it thrusts away by virtue of the absurd,
and the corresponding passion of inwardness
is faith. When Socrates believed that God is,
he held fast the objective uncertainty with the
entire passion of inwardness, and faith is pre-
cisely in this contradiction, in this risk. Now
it is otherwise. Instead of the objective uncer-
tainty, there is here the certainty that, viewed
objectively, it is the absurd, and this absur-dity, held fast in the passion of inwardness, is
faith. What, then, is the absurd? The absurd
is that the eternal truth has come into existence
in time, that God has come into existence, has
been born, has grown up, has come into ex-
istence exactly as an individual human being,
indistinguishable from any other human be-
ing. Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Hong
p. 209-210
An individual can know what Christianity is without
being a Christian. Kierkegaard says, By Baptism
Christianitygives him a name, and he is a Christian de
nomine (by name); but in thedecision[note 2] he becomes
a Christian and gives Christianity his name.[24] It would
indeed be a ludicrous contradiction if an existing person
asked what Christianity is in terms of existence and then
spent his whole life deliberatingon that-for in that case
when should he exist in it?"[25][nb 9] [nb 10][nb 11]
Belief is not a form of knowledge, but a free act, an
expression of will, its not having a relationship with a
doctrinebut having a relationship with God. Kierkegaard
says Faith, self-active, relates itself to the improbable
and the paradox, is self-active in discovering it and in
holding it fast at every moment-in order to be able to
believe.[26][nb 12][nb 13]
From the God himself everyone receives
the condition who by virtue of the condition
becomes the disciple. (..) For whoever has
what he has from the God himself clearly has
it at first hand; and he who does not have it
from the God himself is not a disciple. (...) if
the contemporary disciple gives the condition
to the successor, the latter will come to believe
in him. He receives the condition from him,
and thus the contemporary becomes the objectof Faith for the successor; for whoever gives
the individual this condition iseo ipso(in fact)
the object of Faith, and the God.Philosophical
Fragmentsp. 60-61
Kierkegaard mentioned Johann Georg Hamann (1730-
1788) in his bookRepetitionp. 149 (1843) and this book,
Philosophical Fragments (p. 38ff, Swenson), and what
Kierkegaard writes is written also by Hamann in his book,
Socratic Memorabilia, in this way:
Johann Hamann
The opinion of Socrates can be summa-
rized in these blunt words, when he said to the
Sophists, the learned men of his time, I know
nothing. Therefore these words were a thorn
in their eyes and a scourge on their backs. All
of Socrates ideas, which were nothing more
than expectorations and secretions of his igno-
rance, seemed as frightful to them as the hair
of Medusas head, the knob of the Aegis. The
ignorance of Socrates was sensibility. But be-
tween sensibility and a theoretical proposition
is a greater difference than between a living an-
imal and its anatomical skeleton. The ancient
and modern sceptics may wrap themselves ever
so much in the lion skin of Socratic ignorance;
nevertheless they betray themselves by their
voices and ears. If they know nothing, why
does the world need a learned demonstration
of it? Their hypocrisy is ridiculous and inso-
lent. Whoever needs so much acumen and elo-
quence to convince himself of his ignorance,
however, must cherish in his heart a powerfulrepugnance for the truth of it. Our own ex-
istence and the existence of all things outside
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Hamannhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_(philosophy)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrinehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberatehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_makinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
7/15
7
us must be believed, and cannot be determined
in any other way. What is more certain than
the end of man, and of what truth is there a
more general and better attested knowledge?
Nevertheless, no one is wise enough to believe
it except the one who, as Moses makes clear,
is taught by God himself to number his days.What one believes does not, therefore, have
to be proved, and a proposition can be ever
so incontrovertibly proven without on that ac-
count being believed. There are proofs of truth
which are of as little value as the application
which can be made of the truths themselves;
indeed, one can believe the proof of the propo-
sition without giving approval to the proposi-
tion itself. The reasons of a Hume may be
ever so cogent, and the refutations of them only
assumptions and doubts; thus faith gains and
loses equally with the cleverest pettifogger andmost honorable attorney. Faith is not the work
of reason, because faith arises just as little from
reason as tasting and seeing does. Hamanns
Socratic Memorabilia, (Compiled for the Bore-
dom of the Public by a Lover of Boredom),
A translation and commentary by James C.
OFlaherty, 1967 Johns Hopkins Press p. 167-
169
Only one who receives the condition from
the God is a believer. (This corresponds ex-
actly to the requirement that man must re-nounce his reason, and on the other hand dis-
closes the only form of authority that corre-
sponds to Faith.) If anyone proposes to believe,
i.e., imagines himself to believe, because many
good and upright people living here on the hill
have believed, i.e., have said that they believed
(for no man can control the profession of an-
other further than this; even if the other has
endured, borne, suffered all for the Faith, an
outsider cannot get beyond what he says about
himself, for a lie can be stretched precisely as
far as the truthin the eyes of men, but not in
the sight of God), then he is a fool, and it is
essentially indifferent whether he believes on
account of his own and perhaps a widely held
opinion about what good and upright people
believe, or believes aMnchausen. If the cred-
ibility of a contemporary is to have any inter-
est for himand alas! one may be sure that
this will create a tremendous sensation, and
give occasion for the writing of folios; for this
counterfeit earnestness, which asks whether so-
and-so is trustworthy instead of whether the in-
quirer himself has faith, is an excellent mask
for spiritual indolence, and for town gossip ona European scaleif the credibility of such a
witness is to have any significance it must be
with respect to the historical fact. But what his-
torical fact?Philosophical Fragmentsp. 77
if it is the misfortune of the age that it
has come to know too much, has forgotten
what it means to exist and what inwardness
is, then it was important that sin not be con-ceived in abstract categories, in which it cannot
be conceived at all, that is, decisively, because
it stands in an essential relation to existing.
Therefore it was good that the work was a psy-
chological inquiry, which in itself makes clear
that sin cannot find a place in the system, pre-
sumably just like immortality, faith, the para-
dox, and other such concepts that essentially
related to existing, just what systematic think-
ing ignores. The expression anxiety does not
lead one to think of paragraph pomposity but
rather of existence inwardness. Just as "fearand trembling" is the state of theteleologically
suspended person when God tempts him, so
also is anxiety the teleologically suspended per-
sons state of mind in that desperate exemp-
tion from fulfilling the ethical. When truth is
subjective, the inwardness of sin as anxietyin
the existing individuality is the greatest possi-
ble distance and the most painful distance from
the truth. Concluding Unscientific Postscriptp.
269
3 Reviews and assessments
Kierkegaard was criticized by his former teacher and
pastor Hans Lassen Martensen, he concludes from
Kierkegaards writing, here and in Concluding Unscien-
tific Postscript, that hes saying an individual can be saved
without the help of the Church. Martensen believed
19th century Socialism would destroy individuality, but
regarded Kierkegaards emphasis on the single individ-
ual as too one-sided.[27] Kierkegaard was responding to
Hegelian writers such as Ludwig Feuerbach andDavid
Strauss who emphasized the objective nature of God.
God is just mans idea.
Man is an object to God, before God per-
ceptibly imparts himself to man; he thinks of
man; he determines his action in accordance
with the nature of man and his needs. God is
indeedfree in will; he can reveal himself or not;
but he is not free as to the understanding; he
cannot reveal to man whatever he will, but only
what is adapted to man, what is commensurate
with his nature such as it actually is; he reveals
what he must reveal, if his revelation is to be
a revelation for man, and not for some otherkind of being. Now what God thinks in rela-
tion to man is determined by the idea of man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Strausshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Strausshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feuerbachhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Lassen_Martensenhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angsthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Tremblinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Tremblinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_M%C3%BCnchhausen -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
8/15
8 3 REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS
it has arisen out of reflection on human na-
ture. God puts himself in the place of man, and
thinks of himself as this other being can and
should think of him; he thinks of himself, not
with his own thinking power, but with mans.
In the scheme of his revelation God must have
reference not to himself, but to mans power ofcomprehension. That which comes from God
to man, comes to man only from man in God,
that is, only from the ideal nature of man to
the phenomenal man, from the species to the
individual. Thus, between thedivine revela-
tionand the so-called human reason or nature,
there is no other than an illusory distinction;
the contents of the divine revelation are of hu-
man origin, for they have proceeded not from
God as God, but from God as determined by
human reason, human wants, that is, directly
from human reason and human wants. And soin revelation man goes out of himself, in order,
by a circuitous path, to return to himself! Here
we have a striking confirmation of the position
that the secret of theology is nothing else than
anthropology the knowledge of God nothing
else than a knowledge of man! The Essence of
Christianity, Ludwig Feuerbach, 1841[28]
Otto Pfleiderer wrote an assessment of Kierkegaards
views in 1877.[29] He called his work "ascetic
individualistic mysticism.[30]
Robert L Perkins wrote a book about Kierkegaardsbooks which used Johannes Climacus as a pseudonym.[31]
and Kierkegaardian biographer, Alastair Hannay, dis-
cusses Philosophical Fragments 36 times in Sren
Kierkegaard, A Biography.[32] Jyrki Kivel wonders
if Kierkegaards Paradox is David Hume's miracle.[32]
Which comes first existence or essence? Richard
Gravil tries to explain it in his book Existentialism.[32]
Kierkegaard says God comes into existence again and
again for each single individual. He didn't just come once
for all.
3.1 Existential point of view
An early existentialist, Miguel de Unamuno, discussed
the relation between faith and reason in relation to
Kierkegaards Postscript to this book.
just as there is logical truth, opposed to
error, and moral truth, opposed to falsehood,
so there is also aesthetic truth or verisimili-
tude, which is opposed to extravagance, and
religious truth or hope, which is opposed to
the inquietude of absolute despair. For esthetic
verisimilitude, the expression of which is sen-sible, differs from logical truth, the demonstra-
tion of which is rational; and religious truth, the
The Descent of theModernists
truth of faith, thesubstance of thingshopedfor,
is not equivalent to moral truth, but superim-
poses itself upon it. He who affirms a faith built
upon a basis of uncertainty does not and cannot
lie. And not only do we not believe with reason,
nor yet above reason nor below reason, but we
believe against reason. Religious faith, it must
be repeated yet again, is not only irrational, it
is contra-rational. Kierkegaard says: Poetry
is illusion before knowledge; religion illusion
after knowledge. Between poetry and religionthe worldly wisdom of living plays its comedy.
Every individual who does not live either poet-
ically or religiously is a fool (Afsluttende uv-
idenskabelig Efterskrift, chap, iv., sect. 2a, 2,
Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philo-
sophical Fragments). The same writer tells us
that Christianity is a desperatesortie(salida).
Even so, but it is only by the very desperateness
of this sortie that we can win through to hope,
to that hope whose vitalizing illusion is of more
force than all rational knowledge, and which
assures us that there is always something thatcannot be reduced to reason. And of reason the
same may be said as was said of Christ: that he
who is not with it is against it. That which is not
rational is contra-rational; and such is hope. By
this circuitous route we always arrive at hope in
the end.[33]
Hegel and his followers accepted Christianity without
miracles or any other supernaturalism. Robert Solomon
puts it this way:
What is Christianity, revealed religion,divested of its figurative thought"? It is
a faith without icons, images, stories, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernaturalismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortiehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernistshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Unamunohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Miracleshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Humehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualistichttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascetichttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
9/15
3.1 Existential point of view 9
myths, without miracles, without a resurrec-
tion, without a nativity, withoutChartresand
Fra Angelico, without wine and wafers, with-
out heaven and hell, without God as judge and
without judgment. With philosophical concep-
tualization, the Trinity is reduced to Kant's cat-
egories of Universality (God the father) Partic-ularity (Christ the Son) and Individuality (The
Holy Spirit). The incarnation no longer refers
to Christ alone, but only to the philosophical
thesis that there is no God other than humanity.
Spirit, that is, humanity made absolute, is God,
which is to say that there is nothing other than
humanity What is left after the philosoph-
ical conceptualization of religion? To the or-
thodox Christian, nothing is left, save some ter-
minology which has been emptied of its tradi-
tional significance. From Hegels gutted Chris-
tianity toHeineandNietzsche's aesthetic athe-ism is a very short distance indeed.From Hegel
to Existentialism, ByRobert C. Solomon, Ox-
ford University Press US, 1989 p. 61[34]
Eduard Geismar gave a seminar about the religious
thought of Kierkegaard in 1933. He said, Kierkegaard
develops the concept of an existential thinker. The task
of such a thinker is to understand himself in his existence,
with its uncertainty, its risk and its passion. Socrates
was such an existential thinker. from Socrates he
has learned his method of communication, the indirect
method. From Socrates he has learned to abstain fromgiving the reader and objective result to memorize, a
systematicscheme for arrangement in paragraphs, all of
which is relevant only toobjective science, but irrelevant
to existential thought. From Socrates he has learned to
confront the reader with a question, to picture the ideal
as apossibility. From Socrates he has learned to keep the
reader at a distance, to throw him back on his individ-
ual responsibility, to compel him to find his own way to
a solution. Kierkegaard does not merely talk about self-
reliance; his entire literary art is devoted to the promotion
of self-reliance.[35]
Jean-Paul Sartre vehemently disagreed withKierkegaards subjective ideas. He was Hegelian
and had no room in his system for faith. Kierkegaard
seemed to rely on faith at the expense of the intellect.
He developed the idea ofbad faith. His idea is relative
to Kierkegaards idea of the Moment. If a situation
(occasion for Kierkegaard) makes an individual aware of
his authentic self and the individual fails to choose that
self that constitutes bad faith.
Sartre was against Kierkegaards view that God can only
be approached subjectively.
Compared with Hegel, Kierkegaardscarcely seems to count. He is certainly not
a philosopher; moreover, he himself refused
this title. In fact, he is a Christian who is not
willing to let himself be enclosed in the system
and who, against Hegels "intellectualism,
asserts unrelentingly the irreducibility and
the specificity of what is lived. There is
no doubt, as Jean Wahl has remarked, that
a Hegelian would have assimilated this ro-mantic and obstinate consciousness to the
unhappy consciousness, a moment which
had already been surpassed and known in its
essential characteristics. But it is precisely
this objective knowledge which Kierkegaard
challenges. For him the surpassing of the
unhappy consciousness remains purely verbal.
The existing man cannot be assimilated by a
system of ideas. Whatever one may say or
think about suffering, it escapes knowledge
to the extent that it is suffered in itself, for
itself, and to the degree that knowledgeremains powerless to transform it. The
philosopher constructs a palace of ideas and
lives in a hovel. Of course, it is religion which
Kierkegaard wants to defend. Hegel was not
willing for Christianity to be surpassed, but
for this very reason he made it the highest
moment of human existence. Kierkegaard,
on the contrary, insists on the transcendence
of the Divine; between man and God he
puts an infinite distance. The existence of
the Omnipotent cannot be the object of an
objective knowledge; it becomes the aim of a
subjective faith. And this faith, in turn, with its
strength and its spontaneous affirmation, will
never be reduced to a moment which can be
surpassed and classified, to a knowing. Thus
Kierkegaard is led to champion the cause of
pure, unique subjectivity against the objective
universality of essence, the narrow, passionate
intransigence of the immediate life against the
tranquil mediation of all reality, faith, which
stubbornly asserts itself, against scientific
evidence despite the scandal. Existentialism
from Dostoyevsky
Dostoyevsky to Sartre; The Search forMethod (1st part). Introduction to Critique of
Dialectical Reason, I. Marxism & Existential-
ism, Jean-Paul Sartre 1960[36]
Time Magazinesummed up Sartre andCamus' interpre-
tation of Kierkegaard in this way,
Modern existentialists, like Sartre and
Camus, have kidnapped Kierkegaards absur-
dity, stripped it of all religious significance,
and beaten it into insensibility, using it merelyas a dummy to dramatize what they consider
the futility of any way of life.[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Magazinehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectichttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Wahlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_(Sartre)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_of_the_intellecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelianismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartrehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibility_(disambiguation)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_Theologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathoshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Solomonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzschehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Heinehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Categories_of_the_Faculty_of_Understandinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Angelicohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartres_Cathedral -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
10/15
10 5 NOTES
3.2 Christian point of view
Paul Tillich and Neo-orthodox theologians were influ-
enced by Sren Kierkegaard. Tillichs book The New
Being[38] is similar to Kierkegaards idea of the New
Birth. Hes more of a Christian existentialist than an
Existentialist. Many of the 20th centuryTheologiansat-tempt to answer all the questions of Christianity for the
individual, likewho Jesus wasas aperson. Kierkegaards
idea was different. He believed each single individual
comes to Christ in his or her unique way.[39] He was
against all speculation regarding whether or not an indi-
vidual accepts the prompting of the Holy Spirit. A New
Birth doesn't come about through historical or philosoph-
ical ponderings. He wrote,
There is a prayer which especially in our
times would be so apt: 'God in heaven, I thank
you for not requiring a person to comprehendChristianity, for if it were required, then I
would be of all men the most miserable. The
more I seek to comprehend it, the more I dis-
cover merely the possibility of offence. There-
fore, I thank you for requiring only faith and I
pray you will continue to increase it. When
love forgives themiracleof faith happens[40]
Thomas Merton, a Trappist Monk was influenced
by Philosophical Fragments and other works by
Kierkegaard.[41] He wrote a book about the new birth
in 1961.[42] Merton says we come to an understanding
with God because he gives us free speech, Parrhesia.[43]
Kierkegaard and Merton both point more to under-
standing than to reason as the motivating factor in
belief.
Julie Watkin, from the University of Tasmania, Australia,
wrote the following about this book: Philosophical Frag-
ments () investigates in somewhat abstract philosoph-
ical language the Platonic-Socratic idea of recollection
of truth before considering how truth is brought about
in Christianity. The distinction made here is that with
the former, the individual possesses the truth and so the
teacher merely has to provoke it maieutically to the sur-
face, so to speak, and is not vitally important, since any
teacher would do. Where Christianity is concerned, the
individual is like a blind person, needing the restoration
of sight before he or she can see. The individual had the
condition for seeing initially but is to blame for the loss of
sight. The individual in Christianity thus needs the God
and Savior to provide the condition for learning the truth
that the individual is in untruth (i.e., sin). Since the God
appears in the form of a lowly human and is not imme-
diately recognizable, there is the element of the paradox.
The individual must set aside objections of the under-
standing so that the paradoxical savior (who is the vitally
important object of faith rather than the teaching) cangive him-or herself to the individual in the moment along
with the condition of faith.[44]
Was Kierkegaard aMonergistor a Synergist? Gods love
moves everything.
Moved by love, the God is thus eternally
resolved to reveal himself. But as love is the
motive so love must also be the end; for it
would be a contradiction for the God to have
a motive and an end which did not correspond.
His love is a love of the learner, and his aim
is to win him. For it is only in love that the
unequal can be made equal, and it is only in
equality or unity that an understanding can be
effected, and without a perfect understanding
the Teacher is not the God, unless the obsta-
cle comes wholly from the side of the learner,
in his refusing to realize that which had been
made possible for him. But this love is through
and through unhappy, for how great is the dif-
ference between them! It may seem a smallmatter for the God to make himself under-
stood, but this is not so easy of accomplishment
if he is to refrain from annihilating the unlike-
ness that exists between them. Philosophical
Fragmentsp. 20
4 See also
The New life of Dante Alighieri(The Vita Nuova of
Dante)
Selected sermons of Schleiermacher, Chapter IV:
The Necessity of the New Birth
Faith and Knowledge, by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, 1802-Google Books
Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, The Everlasting
Yea or No
19th Cent. Philosophy: Soren KierkegaardGregory
B. Sadler, has a whole video series aboutPhilosoph-
ical Fragmentson YouTube.
5 Notes
[1] Kierkegaard started talking about the condition in Ei-
ther/Or
Every human being, no matter how
slightly gifted he is, however subordinate his
position in life may be, has a natural need
to formulate a life-view, a conception of the
meaning of life and of its purpose. The per-
son who lives esthetically also does that, and
the popular expression heard in all ages andfrom various stages is this: One must enjoy
life. There are, of course, many variations of
http://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC4gvlOxpKKIj7FJgkqWlQ12zvD6-RhEHlhttps://archive.org/details/sartorresartusli02carlhttps://archive.org/details/sartorresartusli02carlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Carlylehttp://books.google.com/books?id=aUL8cP8yt8cC&pg=PR12&dq=Walter+Cerf&hl=en&ei=yqL7TPSaLMP78Aa0w6T1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttps://archive.org/stream/selectedsermonso00schl#page/82/mode/2uphttps://archive.org/stream/selectedsermonso00schl#page/82/mode/2uphttps://archive.org/details/newlifeofdanteal00dantialahttps://archive.org/details/newlifeofdanteal00dantialahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergism_(theology)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monergismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Tasmaniahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trappist_Monkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mertonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_virtueshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theologianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialisthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-orthodoxyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
11/15
-
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
12/15
12 5 NOTES
founded on opposition, ultimately on the op-
position which is consciousness itself. Also
in both senses, Tro is seen as a mental act
that respects yet defeats the opposition which
upon which it is founded. Defeat may be
too strong a word, for uncertainty is never re-
ally defeated by Tro, but only ignored, uncou-pled, put out of circuit. Thus Climacus ar-
gues that in the certaintyof belief there is al-
ways a negated uncertainty, in every way cor-
responding to the becoming of existence. Be-
lief believes what it does not see; it sees that
the staris there, but what itbelieves is that the
star has come into existence. [22] The essen-
tial claim, then, is that the existence of any-
thing cannot be known, but must be believed.
Kierkegaard, by Josiah Thompson, Alfred A.
Knopf, 1973, p. 173 (See p. 170-180))
see alsoMartin Buber I and Thoufor his explanation of
the same concept
[9] Kierkegaard repeats the same message inThe Concept of
Anxiety: When a man of rigid orthodoxyapplies all his
diligence and learning to prove that every word in the New
Testamentderives from the respective apostle, inwardness
will gradually disappear, and he finally comes to under-
stand something quite different from what he wished to
understand. When afreethinkerapplies all his acumen to
prove the New Testament was not written until the 2nd
century, it is precisely inwardness he is afraid of, and
therefore he must have the New Testament placed in the
same class with other books. p. 142-143
[10] He says thinking about life or death in an academicway is contemplation but contemplation should lead to a
conclusionat some point.
Indeed, from what does that confusion of
thoughtlessness come but from this, that the
individuals thought ventures, observing, out
into life, wants to survey the whole of exis-
tence, that play of forces that only God in
heaven can view calmly, because in his provi-
dence he governs it with wise and omniscient
purpose, but which weakens a human be-
ings mind andmakes himmentally deranged,
causes him misplaced care, and strengthens
with regrettable consolation. Misplaced care,namely in mood, because he worries about
so much; regrettable consolation, namely in
slack lethargy, when his contemplation has
so many entrances and exits that it eventually
wanders. And when death comes it still de-
ceives the contemplator, because all his con-
templation did not come a single step closer
to theexplanationbut only deceived him out
of life.Three Discourses on Imagined Occa-
sionsp. 93
93
[11] He repeated the same thing another way in ConcludingUnscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments: In the
animal world, the particular animal is related directly as
specimen to species, participates as a matter of course in
the development of the species, if one wants to talk about
such a thing. When a breed of sheep is improved, im-
proved sheep are born because the specimen merely ex-
presses the species. But surely it is different when an in-
dividual, who is qualified as spirit, relates himself to a
generation. Or is it assumed that Christian parents givebirth to Christian children as a matter of course? At least
Christianity does not assume it; on the contrary, it as-
sumes that sinful children are born of Christian parents
just as in paganism. Or will anyone assume that by being
born of Christian parents one has come a single step closer
to Christianity than the person born of pagan parents if,
please note, he also is brought up in Christianity? And
yet it is of this confusion that modern speculative thought
is, if not directly the cause, nevertheless often enough the
occasion so that the individual is regarded as related to
the development of the human spirit as a matter of course
(just as the animal specimen is related to the species), as if
development of spirit were something one generation can
dispose of by a will in favor of another, as if the generationand not individuals were qualified as spirit, which is both
a self-contradiction and an ethical abomination. Devel-
opment of spirit is self-activity; the spiritually developed
individual takes his spiritual development along with him
in death. If a succeeding individual is to attain it, it must
occur through self-activity; therefore he must skip noth-
ing. Now, of course it is easier and simpler and cheaper to
bellow about being born in the speculative 19th century.
p. 345
[12] Fragments attempted to show that contemporaneity does
nothelpat all, because there is in alleternity no directtran-
sition which also would indeed have been an unbounded
injustice toward all those who come later, an injustice and
a distinction that would be much worse than that between
Jew and Greek, circumcised and uncircumcised, which
Christianity has canceled. Lessing has himself consoli-
dated this issue in the following words, which he has in
boldface: contingent truths of history can never be-
come the demonstrations of necessary truths of rea-
son. ... Everything that becomes historical iscontingent,
inasmuch as precisely by coming into existence, by be-
coming historical, it has its element of contingency, inas-
much as contingency is precisely the one factor in all com-
ing into existence. and therein lies again the incommen-surability between a historical truth and an eternal deci-
sion. It is a leap, and this is the word that Lessing has
employed, within the accidental limitation that is charac-
terized by an illusory distinction between contemporane-
ity and non-contemporaneity. His words read as follows:
That, that is the ugly broad ditch that I cannot cross, how-
ever often and however earnestly I have tried to make the
leap. to have been very close to making the leap is
nothing whatever, precisely because the leap is the cat-
egory of decision. Concluding Unscientific Postscript p.
97-98 SeeStages on Lifes Way, Hong p. 443-445
[13] And he explains it again in Preparation for a Christian Life
Preparation for a Christian Life (Practice in Christianity)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Selections%2520from%2520the%2520writings%2520of%2520Kierkegaard/Preparation%2520for%2520a%2520Christian%2520Lifehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faithhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthold_Ephraim_Lessinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Discourses_on_Imagined_Occasionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Discourses_on_Imagined_Occasionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemplationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethargyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_(psychology)http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conclusionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethoughthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testamenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testamenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thouhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber#Philosophy -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
13/15
13
6 References
[1] A Short Life of Kierkegaard, by Walter Lowrie, 1942,
1970, Princeton University p. 166-167
[2] Philosophical Fragmentsp. 5http://www.religion-online.
org/showchapter.asp?title=2512&C=2378
[3] SeeConcluding Unscientific PostscriptChapter IV p 361ff
[4] Concluding Postscripttitle page
[5] Kierkegaard within your grasp, by Shelley O'Hara, Wiley
Publishing inc. p. 10http://books.google.com/books?
id=kC6UFe633GAC&dq=Kierkegaard%20within%
20your%20grasp&source=gbs_similarbooks
[6] Philosophical Fragments, Swenson p. 11-14
[7] Point of View, Lowrie p. 75
[8] Point of View, Lowrie, note p. 22
[9] Philosophical Fragments, Swenson p. 9
[10] Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses p. 167
[11] Philosophical Fragments p. 13
[12] Kierkegaard wrote about the finite moment in Either/Or
I, Swenson An ecstatic lecture p. 37-38 and Part II, Hong
p. 21-22, 83-85 now hes writing about the Eternal Mo-
ment. http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?
title=2512&C=2380
[13] Philosophical Fragments, Swenson p. 11-15
[14] Philosophical Fragments, Swenson p. 15
[15] Philosophical Fragments p. 20
[16] Read it here from his book: http://www.religion-online.
org/showchapter.asp?title=2512&C=2380
[17] Concluding Unscientific Postscript p. 217 (read p.202-
217) also see Philosophical Fragments p.31-35 and The
Sickness Unto Deathp. 132-133 Hannay
[18] Kierkegaard wrote about this inEither/Orp. 213-219 as
well as his discourses but states it most clearly inUpbuild-
ing Discourses in Various Spirits, Hong 1993, p.203-212|
[19] Philosophical Fragments, Swenson p. 35-38, Either/Or
Part II, Hong p. 349-352, Concluding Unscientific
Postscript p. 199-222
[20] Philosophic Fragmentsp. 42-46
[21] Philosophic Fragmentsp. 52
[22] Philosophical Fragments P. 60
[23] Philosophic Fragmentsp. 55-56
[24] Concluding Unscientific Postscriptp. 272-273
[25] Concluding Unscientific Postscript p. 270
[26] Concluding Unscientific Postscriptp. 233
[27] http://www.archive.org/stream/christianethicsg00mart#
page/202/mode/2upRead Section 63-71
[28] Chapter XXI. The Contradiction in the Revelation of God
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/
works/essence/ec21.htm
[29] That review is listed in Secondary Sources below.
[30] Pfleiderer p. 307-308 see Secondary Sources for more
[31] A free peek from Google Books can be found in Sec-
ondary Sources
[32] (See link in Secondary Sources)
[33] THE TRAGIC SENSE OF LIFE IN MEN AND IN PEOPLES
(1921) Unamuno, Miguel de, 1864-1936 p. 198
[34] (See pages 59-68) as well as Chapter 5
Kierkegaard and Subjective Truth p. 72ff
http://books.google.com/books?id=3JA3vyj4slsC&
pg=PA59&dq=faith+and+knowledge+hegel&hl=en&ei=jZ3ATfuYAY_rgQfIlcDUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_
result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#
v=onepage&q&f=false
[35] Lectures on the Religious Thought of Sren Kierkegaard,
by Eduard Geismar, Given at Princeton Theological Sem-
inary in March 1936 p. 47-48
[36] See the link to this article in Primary sources below
[37] Time Magazine, Religion: Great Dane December
16, 1946http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,
9171,934769-1,00.html
[38] http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=375
[39] Here is a YouTube recording of C. S. Lewis writing
about the New Man in the 1940s http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=Dvcx6ATLYiI&feature=related
[40] Sickness Unto Death, 1989 Hannay p.165, 162 (note),
Works of Love, p. 295
[41] See Run to the mountain: the story of a vocation, By
Thomas Merton in secondary links below
[42] Read The New Man http://books.google.
com/books?id=fIAzq6xvnbgC&printsec=
frontcover&dq=the+new+man+merton&hl=en&ei=4BiDToznH6XG0AGkyrWjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_
result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#
v=onepage&q=62&f=false
[43] The New Man, By Thomas Merton p. 62ff
[44] Historical Dictionary of Kierkegaards Philosophy, By
Julie Watkin, Scarecrow Press, 2001 p. 193-194
7 Sources
7.1 Primary sources
Online English text of the Fragments
http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2512http://books.google.com/books?id=fIAzq6xvnbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+man+merton&hl=en&ei=4BiDToznH6XG0AGkyrWjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=62&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=fIAzq6xvnbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+man+merton&hl=en&ei=4BiDToznH6XG0AGkyrWjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=62&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=fIAzq6xvnbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+man+merton&hl=en&ei=4BiDToznH6XG0AGkyrWjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=62&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=fIAzq6xvnbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+man+merton&hl=en&ei=4BiDToznH6XG0AGkyrWjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=62&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=fIAzq6xvnbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+man+merton&hl=en&ei=4BiDToznH6XG0AGkyrWjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=62&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=fIAzq6xvnbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+man+merton&hl=en&ei=4BiDToznH6XG0AGkyrWjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=62&f=falsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvcx6ATLYiI&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvcx6ATLYiI&feature=relatedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewishttp://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=375http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934769-1,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934769-1,00.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=3JA3vyj4slsC&pg=PA59&dq=faith+and+knowledge+hegel&hl=en&ei=jZ3ATfuYAY_rgQfIlcDUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=3JA3vyj4slsC&pg=PA59&dq=faith+and+knowledge+hegel&hl=en&ei=jZ3ATfuYAY_rgQfIlcDUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=3JA3vyj4slsC&pg=PA59&dq=faith+and+knowledge+hegel&hl=en&ei=jZ3ATfuYAY_rgQfIlcDUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=3JA3vyj4slsC&pg=PA59&dq=faith+and+knowledge+hegel&hl=en&ei=jZ3ATfuYAY_rgQfIlcDUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=3JA3vyj4slsC&pg=PA59&dq=faith+and+knowledge+hegel&hl=en&ei=jZ3ATfuYAY_rgQfIlcDUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttps://archive.org/details/thetragicsenseof00unamuofthttps://archive.org/details/thetragicsenseof00unamuofthttps://archive.org/stream/philosophyrelig08pflegoog#page/n321/mode/1up/search/kierkegaardhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec21.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec21.htmhttp://www.archive.org/stream/christianethicsg00mart#page/202/mode/2uphttp://www.archive.org/stream/christianethicsg00mart#page/202/mode/2uphttp://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2512&C=2380http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2512&C=2380http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2512&C=2380http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2512&C=2380http://books.google.com/books?id=kC6UFe633GAC&dq=Kierkegaard%2520within%2520your%2520grasp&source=gbs_similarbookshttp://books.google.com/books?id=kC6UFe633GAC&dq=Kierkegaard%2520within%2520your%2520grasp&source=gbs_similarbookshttp://books.google.com/books?id=kC6UFe633GAC&dq=Kierkegaard%2520within%2520your%2520grasp&source=gbs_similarbookshttp://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2512&C=2378http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2512&C=2378 -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
14/15
14 8 EXTERNAL LINKS
Philosophical fragments Google Books (it has the
historical introduction to the book)
Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical
FragmentsVolume I, by Johannes Climacus, edited
by Sren Kierkegaard, Copyright 1846 Edited and
Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong1992 Princeton University Press
7.2 Secondary sources
The Philosophy of Religion: On the Basis of Its His-
tory,byOtto Pfleiderer1887 p. 209-213, 307-308
Philosophical fragments and Johannes Climacusby
Robert L. Perkins, Mercer University Press, 1994
Kierkegaard: a biography by Alastair Hannay, Cam-
bridge University Press, 2003 p. 222ff
Is Kierkegaards Absolute Paradox Humes Miracle?
By Jyrki Kivel
Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre; The
Search for Method (1st part). Introduction to Cri-
tique of Dialectical Reason, I. Marxism & Existen-
tialism, Jean-Paul Sartre 1960
Existentialism by Richard Gravil, Humanities-
Ebooks
Run to the mountain: the story of a vocation by
Thomas Merton, Patrick Hart, HarperCollins, 1995
8 External links
Quotations related to Philosophical Fragments at
Wikiquote
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search/Philosophical%2520Fragmentshttp://books.google.com/books?id=R3AVE9CVOLoC&pg=PT376&lpg=PT376&dq=thomas+merton+kierkegaard&source=bl&ots=2LNJcTGdVK&sig=FpIbIXXjTH8wjyxDpfZp4_57ICU&hl=en&ei=l49-Tp3sLIjUgQfes-xI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Kierkegaard&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=oYM_WZXLlikC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/sartre1.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/sartre1.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/sartre1.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/sartre1.htmhttp://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliKive.htmhttp://books.google.com/books?id=-pI8ueyxOSkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=fragments&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=BixokjogDOEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Pfleidererhttps://archive.org/stream/philosophyrelig08pflegoog#page/n223/mode/1uphttps://archive.org/stream/philosophyrelig08pflegoog#page/n223/mode/1uphttp://books.google.com/books?id=kuMoXUAaEr0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false -
8/10/2019 Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments
15/15
15
9 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
9.1 Text
Philosophical Fragments Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Fragments?oldid=630589200 Contributors: Poor Yorick,
Bearcat, Academic Challenger, MakeRocketGoNow, Bender235, Sole Soul, Begebies, Twthmoses, Mandarax, Lhademmor, Rjwilmsi,
Naraht, Tomisti, SmackBot, Hmains, Christophernandez, Harryboyles, Hemmingsen, Alaibot, Dsp13, Magioladitis, GrahamHardy,
Niceguyedc, Dthomsen8, WikHead, Addbot, Dawynn, Candidesgarden, Abiyoyo, Vix929, Yobot, Eumolpo, Xqbot, Omnipaedista,
Yknok29, FrescoBot, Xavier050685, 11614soup, Hazhk and Anonymous: 8
9.2 Images
File:Descent_of_the_Modernists,_E._J._Pace,_Christian_Cartoons,_1922.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/1/10/Descent_of_the_Modernists%2C_E._J._Pace%2C_Christian_Cartoons%2C_1922.jpgLicense: Public domain Contrib-
utors: This image scanned from the book Seven Questions in Dispute by William Jennings Bryan, 1924, New York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, inside front cover. Unlike the other cartoons in that book, t his one had not previously been published. It was based on a letter
that Bryan wrote to the editor of the Sunday School Timesmagazine in January 1924. That letter is in the Library of Congress. See Edward
B. Davis, Fundamentalist Cartoons, Modernist Pamphlets, and the Religious Image of Science in the Scopes Era, in Religion and the
Culture of Print in Modern America, ed. Charles L. Cohen and Paul S. Boyer (University of Wisconsin Press, 2008), on pp. 179-180.
Original artist:E. J. Pace
File:Hamann.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Hamann.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist:?
File:Kierkegaard-to-find-the-idea.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/
Kierkegaard-to-find-the-idea.jpg License: CC0 Contributors: http://apothegms.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/
kierkegaard-to-find-the-idea-for-which-i-can-live-and-die/File:Kierkegaard.jpgOriginal artist:author deleted from wordpress
File:Manuscript_philosophical_fragments.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Manuscript_
philosophical_fragments.pngLicense:Public domain Contributors:Uncropped version at: http://www.kb.dk/kultur/expo/sk-mss/11.htm
Originally uploaded to English Wikipedia byen:User:Poor Yorick. Original artist:Sren Kierkegaard
File:Schiavone_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Schiavone_2.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Web Gallery of Art: Image Info about artworkOriginal artist: Andrea Schiavone
File:Vatsoc.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Vatsoc.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own
workOriginal artist:Wilson Delgado
9.3 Content license
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wilson_Delgado&action=edit&redlink=1http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Vatsoc.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Schiavone.pdfhttp://www.wga.hu/html/s/schiavon/conversi.htmlhttp://www.wga.hu/art/s/schiavon/conversi.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Gallery_of_Art.pdfhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Schiavone_2.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/S%25C3%25B8ren_Kierkegaard.pdfhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poor_Yorickhttp://www.kb.dk/kultur/expo/sk-mss/11.htmhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Manuscript_philosophical_fragments.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Manuscript_philosophical_fragments.pnghttp://apothegms.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/kierkegaard-to-find-the-idea-for-which-i-can-live-and-die/http://apothegms.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/kierkegaard-to-find-the-idea-for-which-i-can-live-and-die/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Kierkegaard-to-find-the-idea.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Kierkegaard-to-find-the-idea.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Hamann.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Descent_of_the_Modernists%252C_E._J._Pace%252C_Christian_Cartoons%252C_1922.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Descent_of_the_Modernists%252C_E._J._Pace%252C_Christian_Cartoons%252C_1922.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Fragments?oldid=630589200
top related