kierkegaard's philosophical fragments

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


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


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


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


5/15


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


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


8/15

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


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


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


11/15


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


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


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


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

kierkegaard's philosophical fragments

Documents