Fear i am understanding Kierkegaard in a wrong manner.
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.