r/kierkegaard

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.

I've been having enormous difficulty with a lot of The Present Age. Is this normal?

For background, I loved Sickness Unto Death. That was a difficult read, too. The difference I'm finding between the two is that you can spend enough time with a passage from SuD and eventually understand it. With The Present Age, I find myself being able to parse the sentences easily, but have no idea why they are included or what he's getting at.

Common problem? If not, the kindest thing you can do is tell me that my readings skills are not what I think they are lol

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?