What was soren kierkegaard philosophy

It is impossible to give an exhaustive list of the important thinkers who owe an intellectual or existential debt to Kierkegaard. The diversity of the writers and thinkers mentioned above nevertheless testifies to the breadth and depth of his influence, which continues into the present age.

Published against his Will by S. Kierkegaard passed final theological examination - proposed to Regine Olsen, who accepted him broke off his engagement to Regine Olsen - defended his dissertation On the Concept of Irony with constant reference to Socrates Om Begrebet Ironi med stadigt Hensyn til Socrates - trip to Berlin, where he attended lectures by Schelling returned from Berlin Either-Or: A Fragment of Life edited by Victor Eremita Enten-Eller.

Af Johannes Climacus. Udgivet af S. Studier af Forskjellige. Kierkegaard Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift til de philosophiske Smuler. Udgiven af S. Kierkegaard En literair Anmeldelse af S. Kierkegaard Opbyggelige Taler i forskjellig Aand af S. Kierkegaard Kjerlighedens Gjerninger. Nogle christelige Overveielser i Talers Form, af S.

Kierkegaard Christelige Taler, af S. En ligefrem Meddelelse, Rapport til Historien, af S. Kierkegaard Lilien paa Marken og Fuglen under Himlen. Tre gudelige Taler af S. Tvende ethisk-religieuse Smaa-Afhandlinger. Af Anticlimacus. Af Anti-Climacus—Udgivet af S. Kierkegaard - An Edifying Discourse by S.

Kierkegaard En opbyggelig Tale. Kierkegaard Om min Forfatter-Virksomhed. Kierkegaard - Judge For Yourselves! Recommended to the present time for Self-Examination. Second series, by S. Kierkegaard - The Instant by S. Kierkegaard Guds Uforanderlighed. En Tale—Af S. Kierkegaard - Kierkegaard died November Adorno, Theodor W.

Billeskov Jansen, F. Bloom, Harold ed. En kritisk Fremstilling i Grundrids , Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Davenport John J. Derrida, Jacques, , The Gift of Death , trans. Evans, C. Ferreira, M. Bruce H. Kirmmse, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Reitzels Forlag. Knox, Macon: Mercer University Press. Hall, Ronald L. Hannay, Alastair and Gordon Marino eds.

Houe, Poul, , Gordon D. Jegstrup, Elsebet ed. Kirmmse, Bruce H. Laursen, Princeton, N. Law, David R. Lippitt, John and George Pattison eds. Malantschuk, Gregor, , Frihed og Eksistens. Malik, Habib C. Kirmmse, Pittsburgh, Pa. Podmore, Simon D.

Stewart, Jon ed. Taylor, Mark C. Academic Tools How to cite this entry. Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database. Hong and Edna H. Related Entries existentialism faith Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich individuals and individuation personal identity Socrates. Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.

Mirror Sites View this site from another server:. From the Papers of One Still Living. Et Livs-Fragment, udgivet af Victor Eremita. Dialektisk Lyrik af Johannes de Silentio. Three Edifying Discourses by S. Kierkegaard Tre opbyggelige Taler. Four Edifying Discourses by S. Sheldon, , p. Therefore — indeed, we believe, because of it — existentialist philosophy was in general, but especially in Kierkegaard's interpretation, so provocative and exciting a phenomenon within the modern Indian philosophical environment, both positive and negative.

Philosophy as a guide to the proper life of an individual. Existentialist philosophy was perceived as the bearer of new ideas in the realm of ethics and human relationships in an Indian setting. Its inspiration was seen to be the best precisely in this environment, and Indian philosophers reflected it the most.

Existentialists, according to famous the brahman guru Dutt, belong to the exceptions among thinkers, who did not perceive philosophy as pure speculation, as experiment with concepts or terms and the various combinations of terms, but who managed to comprehend the meaning of it — existentialism being seen as a means of a spiritually more meaningful and more beautiful appropriate human life, or as the effective instrument for improving the whole of humanity, especially from the moral point of view.

Existential philosophers are those, as guru K. Dutt points out, who drew attention to the direct connection between the inner relationship of human concern in everyday life in its finiteness on the one hand and the universal eternity and infiniteness on the other hand. Indian philosophers based their parallels between the classical and present form of Indian philosophy on the one hand and the beliefs of European existentialists on the other hand on similar observations.

Separate theoretical specification and distinct scientific-theoretical but also historical and sociological contexts, in which the terms, categories and concepts of both great system of opinions and the groups of thoughts were used, were not so important for Indian philosophers, for various reasons.

First of all there was not enough sense of the historicity of human existence going all the way to non-historicity of their philosophical thinking, but also because of current Indian thinking being strongly ideologically connected to the distant classical orthodox or non-orthodox philosophical-religious systems.

These were the conceptual notions of early Buddhism. Everything that we experience, even life itself, is suffering, agony, torment, said historical Gautama Buddha. For Kierkegaard, the image of suffering is primarily the image of suffering of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was born into this world in order to suffer. For Indian thinkers, the most appealing one was the existentialist epistemology which was associated with the criticism of rationalism.

The rationalism of European origin, which according to many Indian thinkers, incorrectly divided the world into subject and object, and in such a way ripped apart and basically destroyed the unity of perception of the world. Existentialists have argued, as well as Indian supporters of Advaita-Vedanta—purely mystical thinkers but also somewhat skeptical Neo-Vedantas, that its big mistake was that it did not prevent this essential lapse from happening.

The rationalist reduction of existence—of a particular being—to a mere object of consciousness is not in accordance with the understanding of existence as a unity of subject and object.

The Upanishad thinkers, in this case, just like the existential philosophers, did not understand man primarily as a rational being. What is more, the authors of the Upanishads did not understand the person to be gifted with specific physiological instincts, thus excluding people systematically from the realm of living creatures.

In any case, a person is not an entity that is irrevocably appointed beforehand. In both cases it is a unique experience which goes far beyond any kind of communication. We discover the image of a person as a being whose essence is identical with the substance of the world in the Upanishads, the last part of the Vedantas, the basic philosophical texts of ancient India of Vedic times.

The authors of the Upanishads were asking whether and if, what kind of dependency there is between what is inside me as an individual soul and what is around me the absolute spiritual principle of the whole cosmos.

This was one of the basic questions of the Upanishads. That is atman, that is you, Shvetaketu. There is a complex and definite answer to the question of many later commentators and interpreters of the Upanishads in this formulation.

The question is: is there anything that is the one and only cause of the differences in the whole world and knowing this one and only thing would suffice in order to know everything? If I can discover this one and only thing, there is no other secret and from the ethical point of view I am positioned beyond all good and evil.

Identification of atman with brahma, or human soul with God contains within itself the understanding of the essential unity of everything alive in the whole world, the essential kinship of a person with all the living nature that is, just as a person, filled with the Highest spirit and on the other hand having great possibilities for the development of a human being, towards which Hinduism instinctively aims.

This kind of identification is the way to liberation, it is the way to salvation, redemption. The whole philosophy of the Upanishads, the philosophy of the Vedantas veda-antah, the end of the Vedantas, shortcut for the Upanishads and their teaching , is characterized by the vision of the basic unity of the world: the divine essence of everything is present in every single being and it is deeply rooted in the whole reality as the basic essence and, at the same time, as its organic and inseparable component, element, and entity.

At this point we get to the key problem that tormented the first philosophers of ancient India. The epistemological problems, the examination of the origin of human knowledge and its character, its foundation and possibilities were directly connected to the basic, essential ontological question: what is the character of being and what is the cause of being in its wholeness.

It is no accident that the Indian followers of existential philosophy pointed out these parts of Upanishadic teaching. The examples of the means of mediation are religion, the state, church, science, culture, education, society, etc. Specific reverbation of the existentialist thoughts in India in the 20th century was dependent on the frequently accidental choice of opinions and works of specific European authors.

The attitude of Indian thinkers was formed in relationship to the basic existential categories, and their function concerning the understanding of human reality, despite the variety and diversity of philosophical, political, atheistic Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus , or religious Jaspers, Marcel, Berdjajev opinions of existentialists.

They did not adhere to a clearly articulated position concerning specific works of specific philosophers, including the variety of their philosophical opinions. The Indian recipients unified and organized frequently even simplified a variety of opinions of European existentialists in that they used existential categories nothingness, death, anxiety, uneasiness, loneliness, concern, freedom, everydayness, absurdity, etc.

The availability of his works played an important role. Indian thinkers living in Great Britain at that time, knew a large and substantial part of his works, especially those parts translated into English from original Danish. The high quality English translations were done on the basis of Danish originals and by experts with a knowledge of the original works of Kierkegaard like Alexander Dru, David F. Swenson, Douglas V. It was considered to be the basis and the starting point for the initial thinking about human problems, as established by existentialism.

There were not only philosophers but also writers — both novelists and poets — and artists from all the other areas of art. They were, in a good way, dependent on existentialism. They tried to provide proof that European existentialism arose in different connections, in different forms and in different words expressing original, classical thoughts that were present in ancient thought-systems; they arose at times from different circumstances but they have much in common with existential philosophy.

The second group consists of thinkers who categorically refused existentialism and commented on it ironically and sarcastically. These key existentialist themes include the notions of commitment and responsibility, absurdity, anxiety, and authenticity. After listening to this lecture, answer the following questions: What is the problem with the way in which Christianity is practiced in contemporary society, according to Kierkegaard?

Is it even possible to be a Christian in the radical sense suggested by Kierkegaard? What does Kierkegaard mean when he says that Christianity is founded on a paradox?

How does Kierkegaard formulate his view that individual existence is a category? Read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. As you read and take notes, answer the following questions, focusing on Chapters 3 through 5: What is the distinction that Kierkegaard draws between the aesthetic and the ethical?

What does Kierkegaard mean when he says "for religion is the only power which can deliver the aesthetical out of its conflict with the ethical"? What is the religious? Also do the following: Think about Abraham's decision to sacrifice his son. Answer the following questions: Why is Abraham so willing to do this? How does Kierkegaard justify Abraham's behavior? Jot down your thoughts about what Kierkegaard means by the "teleological suspension of the ethical".

What makes Abraham a "knight of faith", according to Kierkegaard? Write down definitions for Kierkegaard's notions of "the aesthetical", "the ethical", and "the religious" as they are used in Chapters 3 through 5. Be sure to include the differences among these concepts in your notes. When is the leap of faith necessary, according to Kierkegaard? Could you, or would you, make such a leap? Is there a place for reason and reasoned argument within Kierkegaard's view of life?

Listen to this discussion of Kierkegaard's The Sickness unto Death. He falls back into the realm of aesthetics, of mere possibility, a figment for the psyche rather than the spirit. Philosophical Fragments , the first book by the pseudonym Johannes Climacus, tackles the question of how there can be an historical point of departure for an eternal truth.

He introduces the paradox of the Christian incarnation as the stumbling block for any attempts by reason to ascend logically to the divine.

The idea that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God could simultaneously be incarnated as a finite human being, in time, to die on the cross is an offense to reason. It is even too absurd an idea for humans to have invented, according to Climacus, so the idea itself must have a transcendent origin. In order for humans to encounter transcendent, eternal truth other than through recollection, the condition for reception of that truth must also have come from outside.

If we have Christian faith, it is Christ as teacher who is the condition for receiving this truth — and he is conceived, precisely, as an incursion of the transcendent deity into the realm of human immanence. Some take this to mean that his view of faith is contrary to reason, or transcendent of reason — in either case, exclusive of reason. His principle target is Hegelianism, but he is also trying to distinguish pagan especially Platonic epistemology from Christian epistemology.

This includes the experience of reason, as well as ethics and aesthetics. Ethics, for example, might be teleologically suspended in faith, but is recouped within Christian faith — though it comes to have another meaning.

Similarly aesthetics is transfigured under Christian faith, from self-serving reflections confined to the realm of possibility, to the beauty inherent in altruistic self-effacing acts of love. Reason itself comes to have another meaning under Christian faith, so that it no longer takes offense at the paradox, but recognizes its necessity given the exigencies of relating the transcendent to the immanent without reduction. Reason is recontextualized within existence, rather than being elevated to absorb the whole of existence.

Although much of its content is devoted to satirical broadsides at J. Heiberg, H. If we assume the reader is to learn something from the process of reading the book, then he or she will not be in a position to understand the conclusions of the book until they have worked their way through the content.

By the time they reach the end they will be conditioned by what they have read to understand the conclusion. But a preface presents the conclusions to the book at the outset. It is really an anticipatory postface rather than a preface. The reader will really only be able to understand it after having read the book. It is meant for orientation of the reader on embarking on the voyage of self-development represented by the book. But if it is a direct bridge into the book, the subject matter itself, then it is really part of the book rather than a preface.

The former must be used as a contingent starting point, commensurate with the limited knowledge of the reader, as a point of induction into logic. The particular can retrospectively be subsumed within the universal, but cannot be expanded to become the universal. The pseudonymous author of Prefaces , Nicholas Notabene, is a pedant whose wife has forbidden him to be an author. Only once the divine has come to us in the incarnation or through direct revelation can we retrospectively understand the status of our prefatory lives as mere prefaces.

For Kierkegaard there is only one book — the bible. But it forms part of the same polemic against immanent human efforts to reach the divine.

Sin is inescapable. Sin ultimately consists in being outside of God. Only Jesus Christ, the God-man, is not in sin. Sin consciousness comes into being as part of human psychological development. It is absent from the innocent immediacy of childhood.

It awakens with sexual desire — when we want to possess another. Desire is here understood as a lack that we want to fill. Possession, or incorporation of the other, is thought to be the way to fulfill the desire. This is the beginning of self-alienation and the loss of innocent immediacy. Self-alienation is a necessary stage on the way to becoming a self.

A self is a synthesis of finite and infinite, temporal and eternal, body and soul, held together by spirit. Only with the diremption of these aspects of the self, through self-alienation, does spirit arise. Long before it gets to this stage, the person feels anxiety in the face of self-alienation. Like vertigo, it is the simultaneous fascination and fear of the abyss — a hypnotic possibility of falling that induces the dizziness to actually fall.

The main arena for the exercise of freedom is in becoming a self. Each of these entails risk — and hence anxiety. One of the risks involved is the possibility of falling prey to the demonic.

Kierkegaard feared that his convoluted, indirect writing could be his own form of the demonic, and ultimately opted for more direct forms of communication. Stages repeats the same stages that have already been traversed in the preceding works, apparently without making any progress. It consists in a group of men at a banquet, each discoursing in turn on the nature of erotic love.

It was enclosed in a box with the key locked inside — a symbol of the demonic. As we read through Stages it looks as though we are progressing from the aesthetic, through the ethical to the religious. Concluding Unscientific Postscript repeats these movements of Stages. It proclaims itself to be only a postscript to the Philosophical Fragments , which any attentive reader of that book could have written, and contains an extensive review of the pseudonymous authorship to date.

The self-proclaimed humorist, Johannes Climacus takes up the problematic of Philosophical Fragments of whether there can be an historical point of departure for eternal truth. It posits a radical divide between immanence and transcendence, a discontinuity between temporality and eternity, yet also claims that the eternal came into existence in time.

It is supposed to mark the gulf between Christianity and all other forms of faith. The paradox of the Christian incarnation is presented as an offense to reason, which can only be overcome by a leap of faith. But even a leap is under the control of the individual. It might take more courage and induce more anxiety than the steady step-by-step ascension of a ladder. One is out over fathoms. But Climacus is a humorist. He represents in the modality of possibility what can only be experienced in the modality of actuality.

At the end of Concluding Unscientific Postscript , Climacus explicitly revokes everything he has said — though he is careful to add that to say something and revoke it is not the same as never having said it at all. That is, at the end of the pseudonymous scala paradisi , the pseudonymous author proclaims that what he has said is misleading — because it presents a continuity between immanent human categories of thought and the divine in the form of analogy.

But there is no analogy to the divine. It is sui generis. They are meant to augment the faith and love of the Christian reader. Deliberations, while they may ostensibly deal with the same subject matter, imply that the reader stands outside the matter being weighed.

But this is in a particular sense. In weighing something on a scale, we measure two weights against one another. In deliberating, the reader weighs the temporal significance of the subject matter against its eternal significance. It is meant to turn the normal, worldly view topsy-turvy. Furthermore, one of the explicit themes of these discourses is edification. But because of the framework of deliberation, the discourses about edification are not necessarily for edification.

Kierkegaard uses yet other related genres besides deliberations and edifying discourses.