Talk:Søren Kierkegaard/Archive 3

Labels

Was Kierkegaard a psychologist? If I, as a 21st century writer, published work of psychological interest, yet did not possess any degree, would I be categorized as such? Is there a double standard used for historical figures?

You are being completely anachronistic. In my opinion it is analogous to questioning what right Democritus has to be called an atomist. He does not have a degree in science, and his theory hardly resembles anything in modern atomic theory. Psychology in the context mid 19th century thought merely means that he advocated some sort of mind vitalist position. Psychological practice as we know it doesn't come into existence until the end of the century with Josef Breuer and Freud, let alone modern psychological theory and thus institutions which teach those theories. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please check this

The text displays this "Atheistic philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger [...]" As far as I'm concerned, Heidegger held deep religious beliefs (see "Being and time"). I think the label of "atheist" is completely mistaken. Please revise Anibal Venegas

I think that there is a point in questioning whether Kierkegaard was a psychologist or not. Certainly there are psychological themes in his writings, but that doesn't mean he is a psychologist. His writings were personal and religious in their aim. If you were to call hims a psychologist then you would also need to call Sastre and Nietzsche psychologists as well. I went ahead and deleted "interested in human psychology" since that was not his primary interest in his writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hateloveschool (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of all the labels that were bestowed upon him, I was surprised to see that poetic-dialectician was not one of themPhilrelig (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

He is listed on the Dialectician and Dialectic page, do you have more information on how he might have enriched or used the dialectical method? 173.228.96.18 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Seduction theorist?

Should he really be in Category:Seduction theorists? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

Just for the asking, is there any sense in supposing that his pseudonyms are actualy something more like heteronyms, like those of Fernando Pessoa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrado7mari (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If a heteronym is basically just a psuedonym that is a personality that could stand alone, then I guess they are more than just pseudonyms... especially in the second authorshipTeeteringtotter (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Journals

How often did he write in his Journals, what was his habit regarding journal entries? Can someone characterize the journal entries, the length, frequency, style, range of subject matter, degree of personal comment and observation or lack of personal inner-monologues?

If this is for homework, you're going to have to do some research. And if it isn't, those are still a lot of questions. All of those categories varied greatly. If you'd like to see some examples, go to [1] 71.31.150.145 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Recording underway

I'm audio recording this article. Is "Aabye" pronounced or-BEE-eh? 64.122.208.184 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's pronounced "AW boo". See this: [2] (look at the bottom of Page 13) FranksValli 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember that the Danes pronounce Kierkegaard with a silent-D, like "Kier-ge-gor" (Check out that OGG file for tips). Also Regine is pronounced "Rah-GEE-na" not "Re-Gene". Hope to hear it soon! Poor Yorick 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Part one done and loaded. Others getting recorded. .:DavuMaya:. 08:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know when is ready? 87.194.82.148 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ja ja ferdig i god tid, part two is almost done, may get part 3 done today. part 1 is currently available. .:DavuMaya:. 21:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Something about his death?

Why is this article mostly about an explanation of SK's philosophy and not about him as an individual? For instance, how about some information about his death? Seems like there is a lot written about the man's ideas in other forums that could better do justice to them than a Wikipedia article and that more words should have been spent on the man. Just an opinion. I do think his death should be spoken about, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.26.131 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP tries not to duplicate material and many times the ideas are combined into the person's biography (ie so we don't have a Kierkegaards philosophies page), in reading/recording the entire article there is a significant amount of his life in this besides his creations, it just appears to be inundated by all the rest. True there is not a lot about his death, I haven't heard though it was all that relevant, perhaps you could source material and edit the page, it's always open to new edits. .:DavuMaya:. 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

SK's philosophy is intricately linked with his life so when you're reading about his ideas, it's very much about his life. He didn't do very much other then write and think, though considered becoming a pastor at one point, was engaged to RO, there was the Corsair Affair and then his attack upon the Danish church. He hardly ever traveled outside of Copenhagen, much less Denmark. I think the article covers most of what occurred in his life. His death wasn't extremely except for personal accounts by his family members. There was controversy though as to whether he was going to receive a Christian funeral or not. Hateloveschool (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Kierkegaard, who had had a hump since his youth, suddenly deteriorated and within seven weeks died in hospital. It is suggested that "he died of Pott disease with paraplegia, a special form of tuberculosis with a characteristic course." " Kierkegaard’s subsequent symptom profile took an ascending course that is difficult to dismiss: spread to the abdominal and upper dorsal muscles, development of weakness of the arms (paresis) and facial nerve paresis, and eventually bulbar paralysis to which he finally succumbed."[3]RicHard-59 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject scope - Christianity

I just stumbled upon it. But the template on Wikiproject Christianity is listed twice. In one, this article, is rated as having low importance, in the other as high importance. Perhaps it should be correct accordingly to the right status of the article. Poderi (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrections needed...

Notable ideas Regarded as the father of Existentialism, angst, existential despair, Three spheres of human existence, knight of faith, <DELETE COMMA/ADD IDEA?

Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Towards the end of the article, there is this line:

In addition, the obscurity of the Danish language, relative to German, Japanese, French, and English, made it nearly impossible for Kierkegaard to acquire non-Danish readers.

This is a minor point, but Japan was a nation still closed to the outside world, prior to the 1860s. Was it really a "non-obscure" language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.223.222 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

When Kierkegaard's philosophy arrived in Japan in the 1880s, the Japanese academia had already spread Kierkegaard's philosophy to South Asia and the Chinese by the end of 1910. Lu Xun, for example, was a Chinese writer who studied in Japan, acquiring knowledge of the West and Kierkegaard. It was not until the late 1910s that German academia had taken notice of Kierkegaard, 1920s for French, and 1930s for English. Poor Yorick (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe another picture than "Frederiks Kirke" (In daily talk "Marmorkirken" ("The Marble Church") (completed 1894, long after SAKs death) should be used ?? "Vor Frue Kirke" (the Lutheran Cathedral of Copenhagen and seat of Bishop Munster (SAK opponent) would be suitable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClausVind (talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of the "Influence and reception" section

Since there was already a small edit war (about a minor detail), I should probably write a few sentence on the discussion page about my recent and forthcoming edits. I've been interested in the reception of Kierkegaard in Germany for some time now (although my work on Wikipedia was about other topics, Philosophy is among my prime interests) and I recently found this discussed in a Ph.D. thesis from Freiburg. And I though that, when I am making notes about this anyway, I might as well add this to Wikipedia. I think that some further details about the reception of Kierkegaard are still missing in this article. Although most names are mentioned, it currently looks somehow like a list, and it would be nicer to have a text that roughly sorts the names by country (or better, language) and philosophical school. Zara1709 (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor Yorick made a friendly comment at my talk page, explaining his latest revert - however, there are reasons why I worded the additions the way I did. Since I have to rework those sentences step-by-step anyway, I will make the necessary notes in the edit summary. And if there are any unclarities thereafter, we can discuss that here. Zara1709 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Existentialism

Classic Existentialist You literally cannot find a book about Existentialism that doesn't discuss Kierkegaard and he is routinely considered the (co-)founder of the movement and certainly the initial figure in Christian Existentialism. I see no consensus for declaring him to not be an Existentialist and there is ample evidence that he is considered one, so I don't see a rationale for declaring that categories such as Christian Existentialists are inappropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Kierkegaard provided the philosophical basis for Existentialism, no doubt. Going by this reasoning though; one can add the Category Thomism to Aristotle's article. Poor Yorick (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite No one would consider Aristotle a Thomist, whereas virtually anyone who is educated on the subject would consider Kierkegaard an Existentialist. While it is the case that Aristotle provided some foundation for Aquinas' thought (as did countless other philosophers, prophets, and theologians), Kierkegaard had a direct and undeniable influence upon Existentialism such that he is frequently called its founder. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope we're not splitting hairs on this, because I agree with your second sentence; but just because Kierkegaard is a direct and undeniable influence on Existentialism doesn't NECESSARILY make him an existentialist himself. Hegel had a direct and undeniable influence on Marx, but we just can't say Hegel is a Marxist. Kierkegaard likewise had direct and undeniable influence on Sartre, Heidegger, et al., but we wouldn't say Kierkegaard is an existentialist. (I believe Heidegger made the same argument himself, trying to prevent being co-opted by Sartre and existentialism). Poor Yorick (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting hairs I do think that your argument is valid and furthermore relevant - there is a debate about how to properly "handle" Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in light of later developments in Existentialism. That having been said 1.) unlike Heidegger, Kierkegaard never repudiated the term "Existentialist," as it was coined after his death and 2.) regardless of their self-identification, if a source(s) that is reliable and verifiable can be presented to justify this category (several can) and if this category is a defining, non-trivial characteristic of the topic (it is), then the article should be included. Certainly you are not arguing that Kierkegaard isn't considered an Existentialist by a number of credible and verifiable sources, correct? If such is the case, then it is appropriate to include him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally 100% agree that Kierkegaard is the Father or Founder of Existentialism. And I won't argue with credible books on Existentialism that explicitly say that. Certainly a book on Thomism or Marxism would have at least an excerpt or extract from a relevant writing from Aristotle and Hegel respectively, just as a book on Existentialism would have an excerpt from Kierkegaard's Writings. But the fact remains Kierkegaard does predate existentalism. I suggest creating a category, forerunners to Existentialism or Existentialist Forerunners, or something of the like, and include, SK, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, and Kafka to name a few in that more accurate category. Poor Yorick (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You lost me I'm not sure how you can say that Kierkegaard founded and preceded Existentialism. If you wanted to create a category for proto-Existentialists and only populate it with four members, my guess is that it would be deleted and upmerged into Category:Existentialists anyway. If you are still of the opinion that Category:Christian Existentialists is inappropriate for this article, I'm going to try to get some others' input, since it is still pretty easy to get sources to support that assertion and my assumption is that consensus would be on the side of considering him a Christian Existentialist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kierkegaard provided the tools and philosophical grounding for Existentialism through Heidegger/Sartre, Humanistic psychology through Frankl/May, Neo-orthodoxy through Barth, and Absurdism through Camus, etc etc, but Kierkegaard predates all of these movements. Calling Kierkegaard an Existentialist is as correct as calling him an Absurdist or a Neo-Orthodoxist. Just because he can be interpreted as an existentialist or postmodernist or neo-orthodoxist (as I wrote in the opening paragraph), categorizing him as such are anachronistically misleading. At best, Kierkegaard is an exceptionally original philosopher whose works do not fit neatly into any one philosophical tradition, but nevertheless, his works have been appropriated as a forerunner or father to many movements, including Absurdism, Neo-Orthodoxy, Postmodernism, Humanistic Psychology, and most notably, Existentialism. Poor Yorick (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. as for only 4 members in Existental Forerunners Category, it need not be so; Kaufmann pointed to Shakespeare as expressing certain themes, Kierkegaard himself pointed to Socrates; even some people consider Karl Jaspers, Augustine and the Buddha to predate it. Poor Yorick (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Existentialism I appreciate your position, but I'm still trenchant in mine: many verifiable and credible sources consider him an Existentialist and those can be cited to justify inclusion. Again, if you are not convinced, I'd be happy to put the matter to a broader consensus. Regarding pre-Existentialists, I have noted on List of Existentialists that there are a variety of figures who have been retroactively considered (Little "e") existentialists, but do not classically fit into the movement within Continental philosophy known as "Existentialism." This is fine and well, but also reaches a point of absurdity and uselessness if it is applied simply because someone has read or appropriated (e.g.) Shakespeare as an Existentialist (although far be it from me to contradict Walter Kaufmann.) In a similar respect, you could consider Chuang-Tzu or Jesus as "anarchists", but they are clearly unrelated (at best weakly related) to the philosophical movement from the mid-19th century that constitutes modern-day Anarchism. The same cannot be said of Kierkegaard in relation to Existentialism: he is either the founder or an immediate predecessor upon whose works the movement itself is founded. If I grant you that he is not an Existentialist per se (again, there is an argument to be made), he was clearly and directly instrumental in laying the groudwork for its founding; the same cannot be said of Shakespeare. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"he was clearly and directly instrumental in laying the groudwork for its founding" I agree with that. He is the father of Existentialism, but he is not an Existentialist in the Existentialist school. I guess we should put it up to a vote. But if we do add Category:Existentialists and/or Category:Christian Existentialists permanently then I suggest we add Kierkegaard to

• Category:Absurdists,
• Category:Kyoto School,
• Category:Dialectial theologians,
• Category:Gestalt therapists,
• Category:Postmodernists,
• Category:Poststructuralists,
• Category:Humanistic psychologists,
• Category:Neo-orthdoxists,

among many others, because he is a founder or an immediate predecessor to all of these movements as much as he is for Existentialism. Either we categorize him in all of what he has substantially influenced (and he has influenced all of these) or we keep the categories limited to within his lifetime. Just remember, putting Kierkegaard under Existentialists is anachronistically incorrect. Putting him under Category:Existentialists is like putting Hegel under Category:Marxists, Freud under Category:Lacanian psychoanalysts, and William James under Category:Neo-Pragmatists. James (and Pierce) influenced Rorty and the other Neo-Pragmatists, just as Kierkegaard (and Nietzsche) influenced Sartre and the other Existentialists. So James is a precursor (or forerunner) to Neo-pragmatism, just as Kierkegaard is a precursor (or forerunner) to Existentialism. This is why modern credible sources like Stanford Encyclopedia and A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism by Hubert Dreyfus, call Kierkegaard a PRECURSOR to existentialism, not an existentialist. Poor Yorick (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime and categorization Well, my earlier point was that I was of the opinion that he did found Existentialism, and consequently it existed during his lifetime. I would be fine with adding any of those categories if someone could provide sources. As WP:CAT states, "An article should be placed in all the categories to which it logically belongs, subject to the duplicate categorization rule stated below. It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." There is no qualification about retroactive categorization as far as I'm aware. It certainly seems logical and clear to me that Kierkegaard is widely considered a Christian Existentialist. If you are positing that there are equally strong arguments for him being considered (e.g.) a humanistic psychologist, then feel free to add that as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Kierkegaard called any of those things in reliable sources? That's the only question. Our job is not remotely to decide whether Kierkegaard was an existentialist; our job is to relate what reliable sources say he was. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if Kierkegaard can be considered the founder of "Existentialism", but certainly Existential Philosophy would not have been the same without him. This is a huge terminological issue. Both Jaspers and Heidegger have refused the label "Existentialist" (although I can't give you a citation a.t.m.). Considering that they are discussed in the article Existentialism, that article would need to be renamed.Zara1709 (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-identification Just because Jaspers refused the title of "Existentialist," that doesn't mean he wasn't. It is not the case that all articles are categorized based on an individual's self-assessment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of discussing personal opinions about how Kierkegaard fits into the existentialist category I suggest you provide quotes from reliable sources that identify him either as a non-existentialist or as an existentialist. Then hold up those sources against eachother. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Another line of reasoning you should consider is what are wikipedia categories used for? They are used to group related concepts so that it is easier for readers to find them - I believe that having a category of "christian existentialists" is virtually meaningless if one cannot find kierkegaard in it.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Christian Existentialism is a trend within the greater tradition of Existentialism, founded by Søren Kierkegaard." The category already has a link to Kierkegaard in the introductory blurb, but as the sources say, he is a precursor to Existentialism, both atheistic and Christian; he was not a part of it. Poor Yorick (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are both well-taken points. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

• Kierkegaard, Julia Watkin

Page 1 and 2, Kierkegaard has been erronously been referred as existentialist: "misinterpreted in ways that obscure the burning purpose of his writings entirely."

• Existentialism, Steven Earnshaw

Page 2 and 3, Kierkegaard recognized as first forerunner of existentialism, NOT as an existentialist himself

• The Kierkegaard reader, Jonathan Rée and Jane Chamberlain

Page 3-5, Kierkegaard is not an existentialist, but is just phase of interpretation, along with biographical and deconstructionist readings.

"Kierkegaard himself knew nothing of the concept of existentialism".

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Peer-reviewed Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Kierkegaard is listed as an important precursor to existentialism and postmodernism, but he is NOT an existentialist or a postmodernist himself. (The Postmodernism article also mentions Marx as an important precursor to Postmodernism... does that make Marx a Postmodernist? No.)

• Kierkegaard as religious thinker, David Jay Gouwens

Page 9-11, Kierkegaard's categorization as an existentialist "is a caricature in need of a critique".

• Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard

Page 48, "There can be no attempt, that is, to "fit" Kierkegaard, into some overarching scheme, such as the history of German Romanticism, or of idealism, or even of the history of Existentialism. However he is "placed" in any such history, Kierkegaard remains inassimilable to it".

Now THOSE are good arguments.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As it's been a week now, if there are no further objections, I will take the liberty in removing the incorrect categorizations. Poor Yorick (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been changed? As has been argued by the unknown user citing the SEP, I must disagree with characterising Kierkegaard as an extentialist or as a postmodernist. He may have influenced this thought, but in the same way Hegel could be sited as a postmodernist as he also influenced the post-modernist thought (albeit in a negative way in the sense that philosophical postmodernism is a reaction to Hegel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.80.64 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a professor of philosophy and teach the existentialism course regularly. The texts range from the Book of Job and Hamlet all the way to Sartre. The first two I always characterize as predecessors, but I always characterize Kierkegaard as the first existentialist. I have never even heard of any academic in any humanities discipline who would say that this is like calling Freud a Lacanian. Existentialism is not a self-defined school of thought, but a *historian's* category. By this reasoning above, we could not call pre-Revolutionary France "pre-Revolutionary France" because no one in pre-Revolutionary France called their time "pre-Revolutionary France." You could just as easily say that Plato should not be categorized under Platonism because that word does not appear in any European language until long after Plato is dead. And the Cambridge Companion comment should be understood as comparable to saying that he transcends classification, which is primarily a value judgment. Agent Cooper (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this article could say that Kierkegaard was the unintentional founder of existentialism.Vorbee (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

English pronunciation

This should include non-rhotic versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-rhotic speakers can simply ignore syllable-coda /r/. However, I'm not sure about this pronunciation: /ˈkɪərkəɡɒr/. Who pronounces it that way? I didn't think English allowed words to end in /ɒr/. Is it meant to be /ˈkɪərkəɡɔr/? Lfh (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion?

On the profile sidebar it says his religion is "Western Philosophy"? That's not a religion. He was a devout Christian. What is the reason for having "Western Philosophy" as his religion, when he was undoubtedly a Christian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.56.65 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the word on the sidebar is not religion but region. Still I believe you are right. Yes you are right. Kierkegaards religion was Christianity. He believed Jesus to be the God - the eternal that came to exist in time. And I hope the current trend in the article with the contributor “Soup“ will emphasize that. Kierkegaard himself stated in several published works from the late forties and early fifties, that all his “aestetic writings“ (That is what later readers has called philosophy) was strategic or tactical. However he was also a passionate ennemy of the church. He wrote in the fifties that he never went to church. He distinguished between christinity and “christendom“ the latter being a routine to show your obedience. However, in my opinion, we must keep large sections about his philosophical writings. Without them he would never have been read or known. He knew that himself and wrote it. We must also remember that not many readers are interested in christian dogmatic writings. So even if K's works could be labeled as such, we should not overload the article with stuff thats unreadably for almost everybody. I am danish and not really writing english, so I wont be a great editor on the article, but... good luck. --83.200.159.62 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Mio Nielsen

In Our Time programme about this

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Kierkegaard|b009fycc}}.

James F. (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Major Copy Edit

I've just finished a major copy edit of this article, as per the template request. There is still a great deal of repetition here and some clarification needed, but I'm not Kieregaard expert; I'll leave that to the philosophers.

A second copy edit should be undertaken, but only after some additional content clean-up.

I've removed this section, below, as potentially repetitive and potentially WP:OR. With polish and expurgation it would make a valuable addition to the article:

Kierkegaard in the context of his age

Kierkegaard in the context of his age Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts. Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784) Kierkegaard seems to have decided to follow Kant's advice. He relates the life of Christ to the life of Christianity in a story about a poor man and a rich man. Christ was just a poor carpenter’s son while on earth and as that poor carpenter’s son he said, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself.” This poor single individual is making this claim. The world thought it must be some kind of lunacy. But, nonetheless, this lowly individual says, “when I become rich everyone will pay me a call”. And it did happen, he did become the richest of the rich and everybody paid him a call, but none of them could ever remember that he was a poor man because they consigned it to forgetfulness. The Holy Roman Empire was the richest of the rich and everyone visited Christ. Then the world changed and Christ was still rich, he did draw all to him when he was on high, but the world began to doubt him. The end of the Middle Ages is now seen as a new beginning for humanity. In 1601, Francis Bacon said, “What is truth?” “What is religion?” “What is power? “What is custom and education?” The world had visited Christ enough and paid him homage with no satisfactory affect. Bacon thought reason should be the guide for mankind, not the faith forced on everyone by the Holy Roman Empire. By 1781 Immanuel Kant began to doubt if reason could guide man, he also doubted if experience could guide man. Between 1793, and 1806, the whole world was turned upside down. Louis XVI, God's chosen representative of the people was beheaded and Napoleon I crowned himself Emperor of France. Before this time it was the Pope who crowned the Emperors. Kierkegaard noted that philosophers and scientists were asking "What is a Christian?" He knew this would only lead to making Christianity objective instead of subjective. Everything would be related to the numerical. Philosophers and scientists might then define the "what" of faith and love and hope. Kierkegaard had faith in the "how" of the Christian and the "how" of faith and love and hope. But the world had made a fantastic leap of faith from the year 1806 to ancient greek philosophy and created a Philosophy of religion. Now the world remembered that Christ was just the poor son of a carpenter, but, for Kierkegaard, he is still present to every generation and he is still drawing all to himself from on high. He said, "Faust fulfills this idea. Anyone who has a notion of what it means for a person to live on spirit also knows what the hunger of doubt means and knows that the doubter hungers just as much for the daily bread of life as for the nourishment of spirit. Faust wanted to conquer the outer world at the expense of his inner self. Kierkegaard says, "The unhappy person is one who has his ideal, the content of his life, the fullness of his consciousness, the essence of his being, in some manner outside of himself. He is always absent, never present to himself." But the whole Western World turned outward in their "longing" for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". There is the desire to teach people the freedom that is “without God in the world.” ... This bond service is found to be a burdensome encumbrance and therefore there is a more or less open intent to depose God in order to install human beings – in the rights of humanity? No, it is not needed; God has already done that – in the rights of God. Works of Love Hong 1995 p. 115 Kierkegaard made a conscious decision to write about how to become a Christian hero. He said, "Christian heroism is to risk unreservedly being oneself, an individual human being, this specific individual human being alone before God, alone in this enormous exertion and this enormous accountability." A human being is spirit, a synthesis of freedom and necessity, but this spirit must relate to some third thing. It must become the infinite self "naked and abstract in contrast to the fully clothed self of immediacy". He uses the category of choice and the single individual throughout his writings to express his idea of the necessity of a personal relationship with Christ. This relationship is related to the consciousness of sin and faith and the possibility of offending Christ. the modern age has abolished Christ, has either thrown him out completely and taken his teaching or has made him fantastical (...) Essentially, Christ is remodeled. Practice in Christianity Hong 1991 p. 128 Soren Kierkegaard said, "It is easier to become a Christian if I am not a Christian than to become a Christian if I am one" because everyone in Denmark is naturally born into Christendom. There was no personal decision involved in the transition from not being a Christian to becoming a Christian. He wondered how on earth anyone can "find out what Christianity is without becoming a Christian oneself." And regarded it a " ludicrous contradiction if an existing person asked what Christianity is in terms of existence and then spent his whole life deliberating on that-for in that case when should he exist in it?" So Soren Kierkegaard said, "I am not a Christian." "My thinking goes something like this: if it is the highest good, then it is better that I definitely know that I do not possess it, so that I can aspire to it with all my might, than to be entranced in illusion and to imagine that I possess it and consequently do not even consider aspiring." Christianity has nothing to do with what happens on the outside, it only pertains to the inner spiritual world. He says, "One can see now how extraordinarily (supposing any extraordinariness remains) –how extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of humanity it betrays, how it connives it only unconsciously with offence by making Christianity out to be some miserable object that in the end must be rescued by a defense. It is therefore certain and true that the person who first thought of defending Christianity in Christendom is de facto (in fact) a Judas No. 2; he too betrays with a kiss, except his treason is that of stupidity. To defend something is to discredit it. Kierkegaard said, "Faith is: that the self in being itself and in wanting to be itself is grounded transparently in God." "Too often believers express the opposite of sin as virtue. But the opposite of sin is faith., which is why in Romans 14:23 it says ‘Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.’ And this is one of the most crucial definitions in all of Christianity, that the opposite of sin is faith." It all seems hard to understand but do we need reason or faith here? Kierkegaard answers, "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 comprehend Christianity, 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 discover merely the possibility of offence. Therefore, I thank you for requiring only faith and I pray you will continue to increase it." "When love forgives the miracle of faith happens" This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism. Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? Kierkegaard was concerned with how humanity will face the future. His view is that each single individual has a choice. He says: "How, then, shall we face the future? When the sailor is out on the ocean, when everything is changing all around him, when the waves are born and die, he does not stare down into the waves, because they are changing. He looks up at the stars. Why? Because they are faithful; they have the same location now that they had for our ancestors and will have for generations to come. By what means does he conquer the changeable? By the eternal. By the eternal, one can conquer the future, because the eternal is the ground of the future, and therefore through it the future can be fathomed. What, then, is the eternal power in a human being? It is faith. What is the expectancy of faith? Victory-or, as Scripture so earnestly and so movingly teaches us, that all things must serve for good those who love God." Johannes Climacus, the only pseudonym edited by Kierkegaard, sums this up nicely in Concluding Unscientific Postscript: "The subjective thinker is not a poet even if he is also a poet, not an ethicist even if he is also an ethicist, but is also a dialectician and is himself essentially existing, whereas the poet’s existence is inessential in relation to the poem, and likewise the ethicist’s in relation to the teaching, and the dialectician’s in relation to the thought. ... To exist is an art. The subjective thinker is esthetic enough for his life to have esthetic content, ethical enough to regulate it, dialectical enough in thinking to master it. (...) The subjective thinker’s task is to understand himself in existence. " His question has never been what is existence, that's a question for philosophers, historians, and scientists. His question has always been how is an individual to live in existence. The person who has his life entirely vested in what is outside of himself is lost, Victor Erimeta, the pseudonymous editor of Either/Or says this is due to the philosophical "deficiency" which wants to make "the external the internal and the internal the external". Philosophy remedied this deficiency by becoming a theological system. "Dear Reader: I wonder if you may not sometimes have felt inclined to doubt a little the correctness of the familiar philosophic maxim that the external is the internal and the internal the external. … For my part I have always been heretically-minded on this point in philosophy, and have therefore early accustomed myself, as far as possible, to institute observations and inquiries concerning it. Either/Or Vol I Preface p. 3 Swenson

changed

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (/ˈsɔrən ˈkɪərkəɡɑrd/ or /ˈkɪərkəɡɔr/; Danish: [ˈsœːɐn ˈkʰiɐ̯kəˌɡ̊ɒˀ] ^ⓘ) (5 May 1813 – 11 November 1855) was a deeply religious Danish Theologian who took an interest in the new culture developing in the first half of the nineteenth century. The Age of Reason had replaced the age of faith established by the Holy Roman Empire. Kierkegaard devoted his life to the affirmation of the Lutheran faith against Reason and all forms of speculation in the realm of Christianity. In 1842 he heard every philosopher say, "Everything must be doubted," so he began doubting everything until he heard the philosphers say, "One must not waste time on doubting, but must just begin straight away on philosophy." He had been brought up to believe that "even an ordinary person endeavors to do what he says, though it may happen that he does something else through ignorance, because he does not understand himself. Yet this cannot happen with the philosopher." Four years later he wrote, "it should immediately be borne in mind that the issue is not about the truth of Christianity but about the individual’s relation to Christianity, consequently not about the indifferent individual’s systematic eagerness to arrange the truths of Christianity in paragraphs but rather about the concern of the infinitely interested individual with regard to his own relation to such a doctrine". 11614soup 11:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section prior to 13 October 2010 was as follows:

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (/ˈsɔrən ˈkɪərkəɡɑrd/ or /ˈkɪərkəɡɔr/; Danish: [ˈsœːɐn ˈkʰiɐ̯kəˌɡ̊ɒˀ] ^ⓘ) (5 May 1813 – 11 November 1855) was a Danish philosopher, theologian, religious author, and psychologist. He strongly criticized the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel and the Christianity of the State Church versus the Free Church. Much of his philosophical work deals with the issues of how one lives, focusing on the priority of concrete human reality over abstract thinking and highlighting the importance of personal choice and commitment. His theological work focuses on Christian ethics, institution of the Church, and on the difference between purely objective proofs of Christianity and a subjective relationship to Jesus Christ, the God-Man, which comes from faith. His psychological works explore the emotions and feelings of individuals when faced with life choices. His thinking was influenced by Socrates and the Socratic method. Kierkegaard's early work was written under various pseudonymous characters who present their own distinctive viewpoints and interact with each other in complex dialogue. He assigns pseudonyms to explore particular viewpoints in-depth, which may take up several books in some instances, and Kierkegaard, or another pseudonym, critiques that position. He wrote many Upbuilding Discourses under his own name and dedicated them to the "single individual" who might want to discover the meaning of his works. He wrote, "Science and scholarship want to teach that becoming objective is the way. Christianity teaches that the way is to become subjective, to become a subject." The scientist can learn about the world by observation but can the scientist learn about the inner workings of the spiritual world by observation? Kierkegaard said no, and he said it emphatically. In 1847 Kierkegaard described his own view of the single individual. "God is not like a human being; it is not important for God to have visible evidence so that he can see if his cause has been victorious or not; he sees in secret just as well. Moreover, it is so far from being the case that you should help God to learn anew that it is rather he who will help you to learn anew, so that you are weaned from the worldly point of view that insists on visible evidence. (...) A decision in the external sphere is what Christianity does not want; (...) rather it wants to test the individual’s faith."

Which seems better than the current lead section in my opinion. I haven't read through the talk page and page history to see if there was a specific reason why this was changed, but the edit summary on 13 October by 11614soup says only 'replaced the lead with what I have now'. I personally think the introductiory section prior to 13 October was better, in that it contained more information, and also the current language of the introduction is rather unencyclopedic ('In 1842 he heard every philosopher say, "Everything must be doubted,"'), and there are some rather dubious historical interpretations ('The Age of Reason had replaced the age of faith established by the Holy Roman Empire'). I'm suggesting that if other people share my opinion then the lead section should be reverted back to how it was prior to 13 October. Matthew Fennell (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way I don't know that much about Kierkegaard, I'm just basing what I say on a general coneption of a good Wikipedia article. Matthew Fennell (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion. The current lead, aside from the obvious factual errors already pointed out, reads a bit like something from Simple English Wikipedia: "...was a Danish theologian and philosopher who took an interest in the new culture developing in the first half of the nineteenth century.". Really? He "took an interest"?. I am a bit worried upon reading this, that in fact the entire article recently has undergone extensive revision by 1164soup. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion too. I came to the discussion page after reading "In 1842 he heard every philosopher say"....

--Dia^ (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Prior to 13 October the article lead was Kierkegaard in the context of his age (it's under major copy edit) I replaced that lead with 'replaced the lead with what I have now' and then it was reverted to the earlier lead. I third the motion. However, I think that Johannes Climacus is an important piece of Kierkegaardian liturature and have linked to the book. Much of commentator's biographical information about him comes straight from that book. --11614soup--11614soup 03:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

General Comment on the Article. This seems to have diverged from a concise article into a theme paper. The inclusion of so many quotes actually distracts the reader. The language used obfuscates rather than clarifies the subject's thought and contribution. I actually switched to the Danish version of Wikipedia, on the assumption that Danes would give a decent account of their foremost philosopher. I google translated the article and got what I needed. My experience should be a cautionary tale to the contributing editors to the English version of this article. KTyson (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

His last name?

Should the Danish spelling Kierkegård be added as an alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fottry55i6 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Does his name mean "churchyard"? If so, this might have affected his outlook.Lestrade (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

A literal translation would be "churchyard", yes, however his name is still spelt "Kierkegaard" in Denmark today. It was spelt with "aa" in his own time, and proper names of persons are not included in the orthography reforms of 1948 which made the "å" mandatory. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair the name most likely does not derive from "churchyard", though. It most likely stems from its other literal Danish translation "churchfarm" (i.e. "the farm by the church"), given to the family that had a farm near the church, just like there are persons in Denmark today with the surnames "Østergård" and "Vestergård" ("the eastern farm" and "the western farm") etc, that has similar origins. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That’s my understanding. His name should’ve probably been *Kierkegård except that the Danes hadn’t adopted the symbol å yet (they didn’t do so til 1948). Thus, the Danes still spell his name as he spelled it, Kierkegaard.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can also translate kierke (church) gård (yard) as "graveyard", since the church yard is where graves normally go. Ken McE (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

But it is not correct in this case, because the name refers to the farm by the church as mentioned by Saddhiyama above. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)