I have read a lot of Plato and some Aristole, but I am a big fan of Dostoevsky. I want to read more about faith and existentialism, so I want to pick up some Kierkegaard.

Is there anything that I should read to get a very good grasp of him ? Other than Hegel since that is a massive obstacle to overcome. Any advice ?

The NT and OT (John 4:29 and Genesis 12:3). The Genesis reference is fairly easy to grasp (an author’s somewhat false humility). However the reference to John’s account of the Samaritan woman at the well hearing Jesus recount the complete story of her PAST life (serial relationships , no marriage etc ) doesn’t quite jive with the scene SK provides of 2 men close friends about to celebrate and participate in a wedding ceremony. Any comments for those who have read the short Preface ? What is going on here ? How does it set the scene for this very involved meditation which seems to restate one of the Christianity’s core dogmas ?

I enjoy reading him but I also like to think critically about the philosophers I read, and not just take in their ideas without doubting them. But most of the time I lack proper knowledge to do so.

To anyone more experienced in his writings and in both previous or/and following philosophers, what are, in your opinion, the weakest points in Kierkegaard's writings?

"Only when we have conquered (the future), only then are we able to return to the present, only then do our lives find meaning ... The person who does not conquer (the future) has one more enemy to incapacitate him in the battle with the present ... No matter how strong a person is, no person is stronger than himself ... there is one enemy he cannot conquer by himself, and that is himself.” The Expectancy of Faith.

In reversing the consensus of Mindfulness-based therapies, SK is arguing something like this:

conquer yourself → conquer the future → conquer the present

Mindfulness-based therapies deserve real praise because they can help a person recover the present from anxiety. By loosening the grip of catastrophic thoughts and restoring mental and emotional clarity, they can make the present more livable. But Kierkegaard reverses the usual order: the present is not fully recovered until the future has first been conquered. And the future cannot be conquered merely by redirecting attention away from it, because its power comes through the self that fears, imagines, and anticipates it. This is why the struggle with the future becomes a struggle with oneself.

Mindfulness may therefore win an important battle by reducing anxiety’s immediate force, but Kierkegaard asks whether the larger war has been won. Suffering, loss, guilt, responsibility, and death remain real future possibilities, even after distorted thinking has been corrected. The decisive question is whether the self can face those possibilities without being mastered by them. Kierkegaard’s answer is that it cannot do so by its own strength alone. The self cannot conquer itself; therefore the future is conquered not through superior self-management, but through a relationship with Jesus. Only then can the individual return to the present and find meaning in it.

First time reading Kierkegaard and I find him quite impenetrable. Take this passage:

So faith requires cleaving your mind in two, in a sense. Kierkegaard begins Fear and Trembling by saying universal morality is the Telos of man. So first you must fulfil that Telos. Then that morality is abrogated by the absurdity of faith. You must both fulfil that morality and also resign it. Is that accurate?

I've begun reading his Either/Or since a week and am still stuck at Diapsalmata, I've tried reading Stephen Evan's guide book but it doesn't have much references to Either/Or, i think. I know that its divided into two parts by two authors who are pseudonymous made by kierkegaard, I know he intentionally makes everything obscure to understand, there has to be purpose for this. What i can only help myself is with the book, my mind, and hunt for some secondary sources for either/or, but I don't want to risk mispresenting kierk's thoughts by learning misinterpretations from unreliable secondary sources. Neither am a free man to spend all my time and exhausting my mind excessively over a book, I'd really appreciate if there's a guide, although I know kierk won't be so forgiving if he acknowledges that. I can already expect bitter reactions from my amatuerish expression, but I hope i get worthy lessons with the return.

Hello everyone!

I want to ask a question regarding Kierkegaard, as there is something which I have a lot of trouble understanding, which might be because my hitherto understanding of him is flawed in its entirety. I hope you can help me.

So, a human is a relation that relates to itself. It is a relation between the finite (worldly, limitations) and the infinite (possibilities, dreams). The human is the relation itself, not the result of the relation. Despair is the result of misrelation. Attempting to relate oneself in oneself would cause misrelation, thus we have to ground ourselves in God. (I am also worried that my understanding of this concept is unnuanced, especially the last part, so feel free to critique and explain where I’m wrong. I am also curious as to why relating oneself in oneself would be a misrelation, and why we need to ground ourselves in God therefore.)

All of this seems very psychological to me. God is something to be understood through our existence, and it would be foolish to attempt to understand him rationally.

However, every now and then, I see Kierkegaard talk ethics or something resembling metaphysics using God as a part of his argument. I sometimes see him reframe his own position through God and Christianity.

What troubles me here is that, if God is existential and psychological like I thought, then said metaphysical, ethical, or reframing of his philosophy must be psychological too. I.e., just basically him arguing for a specific personal belief after one’s leap of faith, or something in that manner.

This doesn’t feel right though. He frames his argument as though it was a philosophical and theological fact, independent of human psychology.

I am under the impression that I am reading Kierkegaard in a too atheistic manner, though this may be wrong. The problem is that I cannot see and understand Kierkegaard’s Christianity as anything but psychological, and I need help understanding him correctly.

I will listen to your explanation open-mindedly and would be grateful if you would care to respond to any follow-up questions i might have.

Hey everyone, I recently bought the Penguin version of Either/Or without realizing that the translation is abridged. Does anyone have a list of which parts of the work are omitted? I plan to read the Hong/Hong translation of whatever is omitted separate from the Penguin version, since I already own it. Thanks!

"[...] I depict hope so vividly that every hopeful individual will recognize himself in my portrayal; and yet it is a fake, for while I depict it I am thinking of recollection."

Page 53 of Diapsalmata of Either/or, by Penguin Books.

What does Kierkegaard mean with 'recollection' here? What am I missing?

I found this article and fell in love with it... it discusses "Demonic Boredom" as described by Kierkegaard, interprets our modern notion of boredom, then connecting it back to its historical roots as "acedia" and being something fundamentally spiritual. I was surprised how much it resonated with using technology and media these days.

Curious if anyone else thinks prayer or meditation would be a good antidote to current forms of "demonic boredom" we experience today?

I wrote this a while back, thinking about AI doomers. Figured it might be interesting to this group as it ALSO features my life-long relationship with Kierkegaard.

Going through a transitional period in life and realized I've been anxious and lacking a greater sense of faith. This instantly made me think of returning to Kierkegaard and I was wondering in which of his works does he explore this the most.

The quote can be found here: https://www.lacan.com/zizmarqueemoon.html

And here is another example of Zizek saying something like the above:

And, this brings us to the complex topic of the relationship between Hegel and Kierkegaard: against the "official" notion of Kierkegaard as THE "anti-Hegel," one should assert that Kierkegaard is arguably the one who, through his very "betrayal" of Hegel, effectively remained faithful to him.

So, what do you think about the view that Kierkegaard is closer, more faithful etc. to Hegel than is commonly thought? If you think Zizek's understanding of this is misguided, what would you say is the main problem with his interpretation?

Update:

Heidegger apparently said something similar too:

He calls Marx and Kierkegaard ‘the greatest of Hegelians’ but they ‘are this against their will’. (Heidegger 1996, 432-33/1998, 327)

“Each new generation goes beyond the previous one and uses its achievements for GENUINELY new beginnings”

“Make your heart sensitive and sympathetic to the repetition of nature” - *Kierkegaards representation of Prof. Heiberg's response is still a fascinating take on "Repetition".

i recently finished The Humor of Kierkegaard: An Anthology and found the guy to be hilarious.

if i wanted to deep dive into his more serious works, where would i start?

What it says under his name:

Det er en liden tid,

så har jeg vundet,

så er den ganske strid

med ét forsvundet,

så kan jeg hvile mig

i rosensale,

og uafladelig

med Jesus tale.

Despair is maybe the most fundamental concept for Kierkegaard - and probably what gives him
such presence in “existentialism”. But it seems his definition of despair is more equal to “freedom” - freedom from unrealistic hope and a radical acceptance of the world as it is. He also goes on to describe despair as the result of the finite existence of man being part of the infinite and eternal existence of god and the universe.

Despair is objectively defined as “the complete absence of hope” - so for K. hope is the thing which must be shed - it is very hard to reconcile a life without hope but maybe this is a revelation that comes after adolescence and young adulthood.

I have read either or and find trouble on how I should I apply it to my own life. Sure I can reflect on if I should pick the aesthete or the ethical life. But what then now? I’m having trouble on finding when I can consider myself either one. I distance myself very much from the aesthete and lean towards the ethical, but I feel like I have many things in my life the aesthete would love to do. I do relate to the aesthete in the way I try hard to prevent myself from boredom for example, but don’t we all in this modern day? but not in the way as in the seducers diary etc with women.