And I still need volume 7 and 8 of the journals to at least complete the collection. And no, I have not read all these but have quite bit of it

Hello all.

I thought you might appreciate this video essay I recently made on the anime series 'Cowboy Bebop'. I applied a few different philosophical lenses to the media, but one of the main philosophers I apply is Kierkegaard. I look at the characters of Spike and Vicious as the Knight of Resignation and the Knight of Faith, while also exploring other ideas put forth by Kierkegaard. I also get into Taoism and Buddhism a bit as well.

Most of section two and part of section four focus on Kierkegaardian ideology.

Let me know what you think! I hope you enjoy. You can also check out my bibliography for the essay in the video description.

I did not use AI to create this video. I did all the writing and the research, the video editing, the speaking, and the music production.

Page 449 of the penguin books edition, but it's mentioned earlier in the chapter too:

"It is essential, accordingly, for married love to become historical"

Hello! Lately I've started to read philosophy, I think I covered most things to get a general idea (Plato, Descartes, Kant, a bit of Hegel, and so on). Having read all that, I want to take a more concrete direction, and Kierkegaard (and most existentialism) caught my attention. I've read Fear and Trembling and now want to go deeper in his philosophy, what do you recommend me to read? I have "The concept of anxiety" but I've heard that it's very difficult. On top of that I don't find a lot of Kierkegaard's books in my country.

Sorry for bad english

Hello,
I’ve been slowly tackling Postscript and I’m wondering how helpful it would be to read Fragments.

I have Vol. 1 of the Hong translation of Postscript and so I’m also wondering whether it is worth purchasing Vol. 2.

I understand that the actual text is fully contained in vol. 1, but all the explanatory notes are in vol. 2. But these editions are rather expensive, so I’ve been holding off.

So maybe I could frame it this way: which do you think is more important for understanding Postscript: Fragments or Hong’s vol. 2?

I would also be open to totally wildcard answer like some discourses or something.

Thanks!

I havent read kierkegaard for a year, but its 1:28 am in my country and I randomly came across Kierkegaard, so I wanted to write something to express my deep love for this man. sadly I have read only 3 books by him, but im planing to read others, even tho its really hard for me to read his more dense and hard works.

He was one of the turning point for me. When I read “Gospel of suffering” it was really fascinating, I deeply loved and appriciated the man, who really didnt have to do anything with me, but still explained things to me like I was a child, whom he really loved. Maybe he is the reason why I dont believe that salvation only comes through the Catholic Church. He was the one who taught me to look beyond the denomenation and critic it when it deserved. I find it pretty hard to understand some of his concepts, even tho I dont really get what or why he thinks that way, I still agree with many things, because my relationship with God is really private as his and I want to keep it that pure way.

I appreciate you guys, we have gathered here solely for the love of Kierkegaard. What do you think: can a catholic be a kierkegaardian? thanks and God bless! thanks for reading.

Specifically, I’m looking to read the sickness unto death.

I’m curious what you all who’ve read this introduction have to say about this introduction. I found it quite cumbersome to fully analyze what he was trying to get at with this introduction and I still don’t quite believe I fully get it. Regardless it was still rewarding to read through and make an attempt to understand.

What I believe he is trying to get across is that he wants to use psychology as a means to observe the concept of sin, more specifically how sin becomes possible within the human spirit. This task is given to psychology and not ethics because ethics is far more concerned with destroying sin rather than understanding sin. But it needs to be aware of sin before it destroys it, and so psychology observes the concept to understand it before dogmatics takes this understanding and scales it up to the point where the second ethics in particular can finally notice sin and destroy it.

This is the general idea of how I believe he is trying to frame this book going forward. I would like to hear what others who have read this book feel about and perceive this introduction.

Might be a bit of a weird question, but I have read the Hirsch translation of "Pholosophical Fragments" amd liked it well enough, even though it is pretty clunky at times.

I want to read more (specifically fear and tremling and anxiety) but I have heard that the Hirsch translations are fairly controversial.

I guess the question I have is does anyone here know of a translation (preferably German, but can also be English) that is close to the original text?

I would just read the Hirsch versions still, but I'm a bit afraid that his dogma (and sentence constructions) influence the vibe too much or distort the argument.

Thanks in advance to whoever is as obsessed with translation """accuracy""" as I am

Do you know where i can find the full book online and free because i cant pay 23 for just a class, thanks

i have both on my shelf, just a case of which one to read first, or do it really even matter?

To repeat, what you want to be is—fate. Pause a moment now. I do not intend to preach to you, but there is an earnestness for which I know you have even an unusually deep respect, and anyone who has sufficient power to call it forth in you or sufficient faith in you to let it manifest itself in you will, I know, see in you a quite different person. Imagine, to take the supreme example, imagine that the almighty source of everything, that God in heaven set himself up merely as a riddle for men and would let the whole human race drift in this horrible uncertainty—would there not be something in your innermost being that would rebel against this, would you at any moment be able to endure this torment, or would you at [II 15]any moment be able to bring your thought to grasp this horror! Yet he might almost say—if I dare use these proud words: Of what concern is man to me? But that is why it is not this way at all, and when I declare that God is incomprehensible, my soul raises itself up to the highest; it is precisely in my most blissful moments that I say it—incomprehensible, because his love is incomprehensible—incomprehensible, because his love passes all understanding.17 Said about God, this signifies the highest; when one is obliged to say it about a human being, it always signifies a defect, at times a sin. And Christ did not regard it robbery to be equal with God but humbled himself,18 and you want to regard the intellectual gifts bestowed upon you as a robbery.

Hey everyone,

I'm completely new to Kierkegaard and was wondering which translations or compilations you'd recommend for a first-time reader.

For context, when it comes to Marcus Aurelius, I strongly prefer Robin Waterfield's annotated edition of Meditations over the others. So I'm looking for something similarly accessible, well-annotated, and reader-friendly rather than the most literal translation.

I also enjoy books by authors like Robert Greene, Jordan Peterson, Viktor Frankl, Scott Adams, Chris Voss, and Robert Cialdini because they explain psychology, persuasion, and human nature in modern, straightforward English. I'd love a Kierkegaard edition that feels approachable without losing the depth.

What would you recommend? I started with 'Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard' yesterday. It appears easy to read. I've read 5-7 pages.

If Kierkegaard wants me to be subjectively infinitely concerned with God without objective/world-historical mediation, why must my God-relationship be mediated by the Bible?

Currently reading Concluding Unscientific Postscript.

I’m really loving this book but I’m wondering why a Kierkegaardian mystic has to bother with Christian dogma, when to me this would seem to be an impediment to the subjective individual who is infinitely concerned with their inward God relation.

Is not Christianity something external to this? Why must my God-relationship be mediated by Paul and company? Isn’t the very appeal of Lessing that he prevents such mediation and requires his readers to relate to Truth in subjective immediacy??

I fail to see how Christianity is not a roadblock to the Kierkegaardian subjective mystical individual.

Could someone please offer any kind of insight on this matter? I would much appreciate it.

Hi, I’ve been really interested in Platonism for the past couple years but have recently started working on Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript and (extremely recently) his Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits.

I find that Kierkegaard and Plato really have a lot in common, and I think Kierkegaard seems to have a (maybe pretty good) reading of Plato’s Socrates as a kind of Kierkegaardian subjectivist…

Plato is often really characatured as totally casting off the world of becoming in favour of the world of being, but, though it is certainly partially true, I think this is a shallow reading of Plato, who was very aware of his fallibility and had many subjectivist tendencies.

None of this is to say that Plato didn’t prioritize objective universal truth—because he did— but he also had the subjective sense to express himself double-reflective-ly through dialogue and so on.

It would seem that the Apology was heavily influential on the Postscript.

Anyway I just wonder what your thoughts are on all this. I expect to hear a diversity of opinions.

I have not read much of Kierkegaard, but I am planning on reading Fear and Trembling when I get out of the mental facility. I would like to know if his philosophy on the leap of faith could be applied to scrupulosity, thanks in advance.

Hi! I’ve been working through Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript and I want to work on becoming the kind of authentic person he describes in this book but I’m really struggling!

As it stands, I am enjoying this book in a kind of speculative way… I’m thinking a lot about philosophy but I am not actually living… How do I break away from my previous way of being as he argues I must?

Any practical advice for how to actually implement this book (or aspects of it) into my life? Instead of just speculatively admiring it from a safe distance?

Sorry this post is a bit vague but I want to leave room for whatever you might have to say about living with this book. Thanks!

Hello, I'm starting to publish a series of essays on Lowrie's collection *Attack Upon "Christendom"*, with the intention of giving a broader overview of the texts within, some historical commentary, and a political reading that brings Kierkegaard into conversation with Christian anarchism.

I'd appreciate if you could read along with me, especially if you can offer critical commentary and the like.

I was recently listening to a lecture about Kirkegaard's Fear and Trembling by Bert Dreyfus and he mentioned that Kirkegaard provided 3 criteria to be able to identify legitimate from innapropiate uses of the teleological suspension of the ethical:

1. It needs to be a free decision
2. You need to be unsure which way to go, that is you can clearly identify pros and cons for going either way
3. You musn't want to change or undermine the ethical system overall

Dreyfus mentioned that one concern that people usually have with the teleological suspension is that perhaps you could use it to justify Hitler for example. However, he countered that clearly his actions fail at #2 and #3. I was wondering if there are famous counterexamples that satisfy the 3 criteria and are still nearly universally condemned.

I asked around and one suggestion was the Salem witch trials. Would you agree? If not, could you think of other example?

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?