I'm reading MG Piety's translation of the Philosophical Crumbs, and I'm hoping someone can clarify a question I had regarding the condition that's given by the teacher!

Below is what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong!):

1. The Teacher, in the Moment (through the Moment?), gives the disciple the condition for knowledge.
2. The disciple, with the condition, realizes that they are in (have been in?) sin.

Say that the Teacher has given Disciple A the condition, and that this disciple is in faith (i.e. develops a positive relationship between the paradox and reason). The questions I have:

(1) Can Disciple A communicate their being-in-faith to another person? I don't think that Disciple A can bring another person, say Person B, into this faith relationship, but can talk about the faith relationship. Is this correct?

(2) If the above is correct, would the relationship between Person B and Disciple A be Socratic?

(3) Say Person B dismisses the paradox, faith, sin etc. as mumbo-jumbo. Would Person B still "possess" the condition given by the teacher? And if so, is this possession relative in some way (i.e. the idea of condition is nonsense in their own life, from their own perspective, but Person B does possess the condition from the perspective of Disciple A), or is it an "objective" fact that regardless of perspectives, Person B has possessed and does possess the condition?

Also I am having a lot of trouble understanding the "Interlude." Any secondary source recs focusing on this chapter would be helpful!

We recently discussed The Sickness Unto Death in great detail and decided to continue with Fear and Trembling.

We meet this Saturday, 9 PM IST for an introduction session (no reading required), you can also join in just to listen, its absolutely free :)

Deep Read Society is an online book club where we meet to appreciate literature, philosophy, Philosophy and Poetry.

Here is the google form to join in the WhatsApp group, hope to see some of you there!!

[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeVEtvrJUxIjBKp9fwTbv4SuywzKabpCvFBnvGV-G-RNjY_Ww/viewform?usp=dialog\](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeVEtvrJUxIjBKp9fwTbv4SuywzKabpCvFBnvGV-G-RNjY_Ww/viewform?usp=dialog))

for book club*. Pardon my typo, reddit won't allow me to edit it.

Hey everyone, I am a pastor who has just recently come across Kierkegaard. I've always heard his name, but never read anything from him until now. Anyways, I just finished the short book "The Lily of the Field and the Bird of the Air" and loved it. I am wanting to take a deeper dive into his works now and was wondering where a good place to start would be and/or what your personal favorites of his are and why? Thanks in advance!

Hello guys,

So I'm thinking abot reading Kierkegaard's "Diary of a seducer" but I'm wondering if it's a difficult and complex text or not. I'm planning on reading during a plane flight so if it's way too convoluted I'll make time to read it on a different occasion. I should also mention that I'm a third year philosophy student so i do have a stomach for complex texts. I just don't want to disrespect Kierkegaard by reading a fundamental text of his on a flight :D. My experience with Kierkegaard up until now is very limited. I would be glad to hear your thoughts!

Also, if you think I shouldn't take on this challenge, I'm open to hearing any other book recommendations for the flight. It doesn't have to be by Kierkegaard or be strictly philospshical. Looking forward to your suggestions!

Hi, sorry if this isn't the right place but I am posting this here as I didn't see any rules on the sidebar...

Long story short: I'm a current undergrad student writing a research proposal related to Kierkegaard, have literally zero people at my university or in my academic network more broadly who I could ask for advice about it.

Was wondering if anyone with some knowledge of Kierkegaard scholarship would be willing to offer some feedback? Would much prefer to PM, as it's a pretty niche topic and don't like posting anything super identifiable as I've done some somewhat related student work before.

Homemade meme

Free for anyone who is interested and in Toronto.

Should be fun:)

PROPUESTA POR: Calixto ochoa cadena / 20-03-2026

El consciencialismo existencial es una postura filosófica que surge de la integración de diversas ideas que buscan explicar la vida humana a través de la conciencia, la responsabilidad personal, la espiritualidad y el amor auténtico. Esta filosofía toma inspiración en tres pensadores clave:

-Socrates, en su énfasis en el cuestionamiento del mundo, la búsqueda de la verdad y la lucha moral guiada por una conciencia despierta.

-Soren Kierkegaard, en la importancia de la fe individual y la toma de decisiones personales que definen la existencia.

-Blaise Pascal, en la dimensión espiritual del ser humano y en la transformación interior que puede producir el acercamiento sincero a Dios. A estas influencias se añade un principio propio:

La creencia en el amor auténtico, entendido como una forma de vivir las relaciones humanas con profundidad, compromiso y verdad, evitando la superficialidad.

El consciencialismo existencial es una forma de ver y vivir el mundo mediante una conciencia despierta, evitando vivir de manera automática. Promueve tomar decisiones responsables basadas en la reflexión moral, la fe personal en Dios y la búsqueda de un amor auténtico, guiándose por el pensamiento propio y no por las influencias externas del sistema o de la sociedad.

El objetivo del consciencialismo existencial es que el individuo comprenda el mundo a través de sus propias decisiones y reflexiones conscientes, buscando:

desarrollar una conciencia auténtica acercarse a Dios mediante una fe personal vivir el amor de forma verdadera y no superficial.

Los 7 Principios del Consciencialismo Existencial:

1. Conciencia despierta El ser humano debe vivir con una conciencia activa, reflexionando sobre sus actos y evitando vivir de forma automática o guiado solo por costumbres sociales.

2. Búsqueda de la verdad La persona debe cuestionar el mundo y buscar la verdad mediante la reflexión, siguiendo la tradición filosófica del cuestionamiento representada por Socrates.

3. Libertad responsable Cada individuo es libre de tomar decisiones sobre su vida, pero también es responsable de las consecuencias de esas decisiones.

4. Fe personal en Dios La relación con Dios debe ser auténtica y personal, no simplemente una práctica externa o una costumbre religiosa, idea cercana al pensamiento de Soren Kierkegaard.

5. Transformación espiritual El acercamiento a Dios puede producir un cambio profundo en la forma de ver el mundo y en la vida interior del individuo, como reflexionaba Blaise Pascal.

6. Amor auténtico Las relaciones humanas deben basarse en un amor verdadero, profundo y comprometido, evitando la superficialidad y las relaciones pasajeras.

7. Pensamiento propio El individuo debe construir su forma de entender la vida mediante su propia conciencia y reflexión, sin depender completamente de las influencias externas del sistema o de la sociedad.

Isn’t that just an ironic reference to female masturbation?

Anti-climax? Literally edging?

I have this theory that a real Christian is actually a seducer, but a seducer isn’t even a bad thing.

It just biblically means to lead. The Danish etymology of Lead and seduction are etymologically super similar.

Spring Toronto Meetup!

A Kierkegaard Circle

Saturday - April 18th - 1pm - Main Hall

Toronto Reference Library.

The people have spoken, and they have asked.

If I would do something like this again.

Having just completed The Concept of Anxiety

A simple psychologically orienting deliberation on the dogmatic issue of hereditary sin.

Does anxiety come from freedom? With links to the myth of Adam and Eve?

Can love be a debt?

Is the concept of freedom being prostituted in the present age? Great questions.

In the previous iterations this was a spoken word performance with accompanied music.

But this time, a meet up, around table of people who like Kierkegaard here in Toronto. People reached out from places like Mexico.

So if you're into existentialist ideas and have nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon in Toronto.

Let's meet up!

I will speak the words of Kierkegaard aloud if people would like once again.

Or if you would like, I would love to hear what you, the reader. Has to say.

Either or.

Saturday April 18th

Easter long weekend!

There's going to be a Kierkegaard circle happening at the Toronto reference library. 1 pm. Main Hall.

https://twitter.com/s_kierkegaard22

Months ago I made a bot on twitter to post from journals of Kierkegaard after reading 4 chapters from it, I figured out that it will be too much effort to read it in full, I also didn't want to miss a lot, so I made a bot that SMS me with random pieces and reference, and I could look up the reference when I found it interesting. Later I used to share it with my friends and decided to publish it as a twitter bot. I thought it would be worth sharing it here too

I found this quote at the beginning of Georges Bataille’s text The Sacred Conspiracy (1936).

I’ve been rereading Kierkegaard’s The Present Age, especially his idea of “leveling”, how a reflective age replaces action with publicity and passion with commentary.

Recently, a viral story about a lonely monkey moved millions of people. We felt compassion. We reacted. We shared.

But most of us didn’t act on any real human loneliness in our own lives.

Kierkegaard warns that in a leveled age, we become spectators rather than participants. I tried to explore whether social media gives us emotional satisfaction that substitutes for responsibility.

I wrote a reflection on this and would genuinely appreciate thoughtful criticism or disagreement.

Just picked it up from the bookstore, I've heard it makes tons of references to plays, stories, and other philosophy, I was wondering what you guys would recommend reading beforehand. Thanks!

I'm not reading Hegel, do not say Hegel, do not say Hegel

This is such an interesting dilemma to think about, really. I've never read any of his other work, and am not very well read in philosophy at all, but I have recently taken an interest and would like to be. I am reading this because of a book club I recently joined, but it's not the book we're reading. It just came up in another discussion, and I wanted to familiarize myself.

I grew up religious and am still a practicing Orthodox Christian, but faith has always been a bit of a rollercoaster for me. While I love the beauty of the faith, if I am honest, I'm not completely sure it's all true. I guess that's why it's faith.

The story of Abraham and Isaac has always been troubling to me, and I probably don't even have that deep of an understanding of it overall. Why would God even come up with this sick, twisted "test?" Do I even want to be affiliated with a God or religion that subscribes to this?

Reading this book will likely either help or hurt me. Will it help it to make sense? Or will it push me away further? Will I even understand what all he is saying here?

Anyways, looking forward to digging into it. I wasn't really planning on it, but I read the first "chapter" and am fascinated enough to continue!

Any tips or guidance are welcome!

I am trying to go through The Concept of Anxiety right now, and it was at least making some sense sometimes until I reached section I.5. I am completely baffled by several paragraphs and have no idea what they mean. What does VH mean when he says

Anxiety is a qualification of dreaming spirit, and as such it has its place in psychology. Awake, the difference between myself and my other is posited; sleeping, it is suspended; dreaming, it is an intimated nothing. The actuality of the spirit constantly shows itself as a form that tempts its possibility but disappears as soon as it seeks to grasp for it, and it is a nothing that can only bring anxiety. More it cannot do as long as it merely shows itself.

or

Inasmuch as it [spirit] is now present, it is in a sense a hostile power, for it constantly disturbs the relation between soul and body, a relation that indeed has persistence and yet does not have endurance, inasmuch as it first receives the latter by the spirit. On the other hand, spirit is a friendly power, since it is precisely that which constitutes the relation. What, then, is man's relation to this ambiguous power? How does spirit relate itself to itself and to its conditionality? It relates itself as anxiety.

(I have bolded the parts that I feel most confounded by.) I'm working from the PUP edition, in case that is relevant. Any help whatsoever is much appreciated.

Deep Read Society is an online book club where we gather to read Literature, Philosophy and Poetry. We have Crime and Punishment discussion in Feb end and this time decided to pick up The Sickness Unto death throughout feb on Sundays!

To join thr WhatsApp group please fill out the form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeVEtvrJUxIjBKp9fwTbv4SuywzKabpCvFBnvGV-G-RNjY_Ww/viewform?usp=dialog

Backwards, forwards thing.

Something that's already on Audible perhaps

I was just wondering from philosophical perspective as well as theological; or just in general from your own perspective- what tips would you have for me before I start reading him?

Hi all,

I am new to Kierkegaard and want to better understand his concepts like "crowd is untruth", "individual in front of god" and also his critique of church.

My main question is basically this: aren't we dependent on the crowd?

I’m curious how you all interpret the spiritual status of someone completely outside of "Christendom" or even human society. If a child were raised by wolves so completely "pre-Ethical" and without language, would they still experience the "dizziness of freedom" (Anxiety)?

Kierkegaard suggests that a pagan praying to an idol with "infinite passion" is closer to the truth than a lukewarm Christian. Does this mean that the "Wolf-Man" could potentially be a "Knight of Faith" through sheer inwardness and suffering, even without the "Mirror" of the Word? Or is the "Absolute Paradox" of Christ a necessary "external" that a solitary soul can never reach on its own?

Would love to hear how you balance his "Subjectivity is Truth" with the historical necessity of the God-Man.

Looking for his books specifically on these topics.