- Existentialism is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the individual, their freedom, and their subjective experience. It explores the meaning of life and the human condition. While I am often considered a precursor to existentialism, I focused on themes like anxiety, despair, and the individual’s relationship with God.
- To become oneself means to embrace the freedom and responsibility of shaping one’s own life, making authentic choices, and realizing one’s potential.
- Angst, or existential anxiety, is a fundamental aspect of human existence. It arises from the realization of our freedom and the weight of our choices. This anxiety is not necessarily negative; it can be a catalyst for growth, prompting us to confront the uncertainties of life and make meaningful decisions.
Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)
- Create a lengthy dialogue between Soren Kierkegaard and a bright teenager curious about his philosophy.
- Create a lengthy dialogue between Kierkegaard and another philosopher who wishes to explore the minutia in his philosophy.
- Create a lengthy dialogue between Kierkegaard and another philosopher who wishes to confront him on weaknesses in his philosophy.
- List Kierkegaard’s 5 most influential philosophical notions, and indicate the degree to which they are accepted by philosophers today.
- Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
Create a lengthy dialogue between Soren Kierkegaard and a bright teenager curious about his philosophy.
Dialogue Between Søren Kierkegaard and a Curious Teenager
Teenager: Hello, Mr. Kierkegaard. I’m really excited to talk to you! I’ve been reading about your philosophy, and I have so many questions. Can we start with the basics? What is existentialism, and how do you fit into it?
Kierkegaard: Hello, young one. It’s a pleasure to engage with your curiosity. Existentialism is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the individual, their freedom, and their subjective experience. It explores the meaning of life and the human condition. While I am often considered a precursor to existentialism, I focused on themes like anxiety, despair, and the individual’s relationship with God.
Teenager: That sounds deep! I read that you talk a lot about “the self” and “becoming oneself.” What does that mean?
Kierkegaard: Indeed, the concept of the self is central to my philosophy. I believe that the self is not a static entity but a task to be achieved. To become oneself means to embrace the freedom and responsibility of shaping one’s own life, making authentic choices, and realizing one’s potential.
Teenager: So, it’s about being true to oneself? But isn’t it difficult to always know what that means?
Kierkegaard: Precisely. It is an ongoing and often challenging process. One must navigate through the stages of life’s way, which I described as the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious stages. Each stage represents a different approach to life and its meaning, and moving from one to the next involves deep self-reflection and commitment.
Teenager: Can you explain those stages a bit more? How do they work?
Kierkegaard: Certainly. The aesthetic stage is where individuals seek pleasure and avoid boredom. Life is driven by personal satisfaction and sensory experiences. However, this can lead to a sense of emptiness.
The ethical stage involves a commitment to social duties and moral responsibilities. Here, the focus is on living a principled life, adhering to societal norms, and making choices based on ethical considerations.
The religious stage is the pinnacle, where one finds true meaning through a personal relationship with God. It requires a leap of faith, embracing the paradoxes of human existence, and surrendering to a higher power.
Teenager: That’s fascinating! But what if someone doesn’t believe in God? Can they still reach the religious stage?
Kierkegaard: For me, the religious stage is inherently tied to faith in God. However, the core idea is about transcending the self and finding a higher purpose. Even without traditional religious beliefs, one might seek a profound commitment to something greater than oneself, be it a cause, an ideal, or a form of spirituality.
Teenager: I see. You also talk a lot about “angst” or “anxiety.” What role does that play in your philosophy?
Kierkegaard: Angst, or existential anxiety, is a fundamental aspect of human existence. It arises from the realization of our freedom and the weight of our choices. This anxiety is not necessarily negative; it can be a catalyst for growth, prompting us to confront the uncertainties of life and make meaningful decisions.
Teenager: So, feeling anxious about life is normal and even important?
Kierkegaard: Exactly. It is a natural response to the freedom and responsibility we bear. Embracing this anxiety allows us to face our fears, reflect on our existence, and ultimately strive towards authentic living.
Teenager: What about despair? How does that fit in?
Kierkegaard: Despair, too, is a crucial concept. It reflects a disconnection from one’s true self and can take many forms. It might stem from not living up to one’s potential, losing oneself in societal expectations, or failing to embrace one’s individuality. The path to overcoming despair involves recognizing it and making the conscious effort to reconnect with one’s authentic self.
Teenager: This is all really thought-provoking. If you had to give advice to someone my age, just starting to explore these ideas, what would you say?
Kierkegaard: I would encourage you to embrace your freedom and the journey of self-discovery. Reflect on your choices, understand the stages of life you are navigating, and do not shy away from the anxiety and despair you might encounter. These experiences are part of what it means to live authentically. Seek to understand yourself deeply and strive for a life that is true to your inner convictions.
Teenager: Thank you so much, Mr. Kierkegaard. I have a lot to think about now. Your ideas are really inspiring, even if they seem a bit daunting.
Kierkegaard: You are most welcome. Remember, the path to selfhood is not easy, but it is the most rewarding journey one can undertake. May your quest for understanding and authenticity bring you profound fulfillment.
Teenager: Thanks again. I’ll definitely keep exploring your works and reflecting on these ideas.
Kierkegaard: I am glad to hear that. Farewell, and may your journey be enlightening.
Sure, here’s that dialogue:
Setting: A quaint coffee shop in Copenhagen. Soren Kierkegaard, a distinguished gentleman with a thoughtful gaze, sits across from a 16-year-old named Anya, brimming with curiosity.
Anya: Mr. Kierkegaard, thank you for meeting with me. Your writings are incredible, but they can be quite…difficult.
Kierkegaard: (chuckles) A fair assessment, Anya. Philosophy rarely offers easy answers. Tell me, what in particular strikes you as difficult?
Anya: Well, you talk a lot about anxiety and dread. It’s a bit scary, to be honest. Isn’t life supposed to be happy?
Kierkegaard: Happiness is a wonderful thing, Anya. But isn’t it richer when earned through struggle? We face choices, and every choice involves a leap of faith. We leap because we glimpse a truth, a value worth pursuing, even if the outcome is uncertain. This inherent uncertainty is what causes anxiety.
Anya: But why leap at all? Why not just avoid the anxiety and take the safe path?
Kierkegaard: Because the safe path, my dear, is often a path to nowhere. It’s by confronting our anxieties, by wrestling with difficult decisions, that we become truly engaged in life. Think of Abraham, sacrificing his son Isaac. A terrible choice, wouldn’t you say?
Anya: Absolutely!
Kierkegaard: Yet, in his willingness to make that leap of faith, Abraham exemplifies the kind of passionate engagement that elevates life beyond the mundane. We all have our own mountains to climb, our own leaps to take.
Anya: But how do we know which mountain to climb? What if we choose wrong?
Kierkegaard: That, Anya, is the crux of existentialism. There’s no divine blueprint for our lives. The meaning we find comes from our own choices, imbued with passion and commitment. This freedom can be daunting, but it’s also liberating.
Anya: So, it’s all on us? That’s a lot of pressure!
Kierkegaard: It is. But isn’t that what makes life interesting? We can choose to be paralyzed by fear, or we can embrace the anxiety and forge our own path. This is where faith comes in, Anya. Not blind faith in some external authority, but faith in ourselves, in our ability to choose and create meaning.
Anya: Hmm, that’s a different way of thinking about faith.
Kierkegaard: Indeed. And don’t forget despair. It too has a role to play. Sometimes, to truly choose, we must hit rock bottom, realize the emptiness of a meaningless life. Only then can we rise above and choose with genuine passion.
Anya: So, despair can be a good thing?
Kierkegaard: In a way, yes. It can be a wake-up call, a prompt to take responsibility for our own happiness.
Anya: You mentioned Abraham. What about doubt? Your writings talk a lot about that too.
Kierkegaard: Doubt is a natural companion to faith, Anya. We doubt because we care, because the choice matters. But doubt shouldn’t paralyze us. True faith isn’t the absence of doubt, but the willingness to act in spite of it.
Anya: Wow, Mr. Kierkegaard, you’ve given me a lot to think about. Life seems a lot more complicated than I thought!
Kierkegaard: (smiles) Perhaps, Anya. But isn’t that what makes it an adventure? Embrace the complexities, the anxieties, the doubts. And through them, forge your own path, a path filled with passion and meaning.
Here is a lengthy dialogue between Søren Kierkegaard and a bright teenager curious about his philosophy, with bold formatting for key terms, headers, and speaker tags:
Introductions
Teenager: Excuse me, are you Søren Kierkegaard, the famous philosopher?
Kierkegaard: Indeed I am. And who might you be, young one?
Teenager: My name is Alex. I’m very interested in philosophy and have been reading some of your works. I must admit, I find them quite challenging but fascinating at the same time.
Kierkegaard: Ah, I’m pleased to meet a young mind so eager to grapple with the profound questions of existence. My writings are certainly not for the faint of heart or the dull of wit.
On Subjectivity and Truth
Teenager: Well, I consider myself reasonably bright, but I must confess that much of your philosophy around subjectivity and the individual’s subjective relationship to truth seems quite complex and paradoxical at times. Could you explain it more simply?
Kierkegaard: A fair request. You see, in my view, objective truths about religion, ethics, and existence cannot be arrived at purely through reason and empirical observation as natural science can discover truths about the physical world. Subjective human existence and our relationship to the eternal, the ethical, the religious – these are paradoxical realities that can only be authentically grasped through deep-faceted subjective inwardness.
Teenager: But why is subjectivity so important? Doesn’t that just lead to a situation where everyone has their own “truth”?
Kierkegaard: An astute observation, my young friend. But you see, for me, truth is not mere abstract objective information to be known, but an eternal reality to be subjectively appropriated through personal passionate commitment. Consider someone who professes to be a Christian – for me, their genuine subjectivity as an existing individual before God matters more than their objectively correct doctrine.
Teenager: I think I understand what you’re getting at, but how can we have any shared truths at all if everything is so radically subjective?
Kierkegaard: An excellent question. You see, I am not advocating a kind of relativism where any belief is as good as any other. There are still objective realities and ethical absolutes. The point is that the individual must subjectively appropriate these truths and make them their own in the passionate inwardness of their existence. True objectivity actually lies in the subjective passion and commitment with which one embraces the objective truth.
Teenager: That’s a bit mind-bending, but I think I grasp what you’re saying. So in your view, individuals have to sort of “work through” the objective truths and realities and appropriate them subjectively in an impassioned way. It’s not just dry facts.
Kierkegaard: Precisely! You have articulated my perspective admirably. Objective facts and truths are essential starting points, but they are deadening and soul-crushing if not subjectively appropriated through the individual’s passionate struggle, suffering, choices, and commitment. The subjective “how” of existing as an individual is crucial, not just the objective “what.”
The Anguish of Existence
Teenager: I must say, I find your ideas around subjectivity and existence profound yet also rather melancholy. It seems like a very isolated, anguished philosophical path focused on the individual’s interior struggle.
Kierkegaard: You cut right to the heart of the matter! Yes, my philosophy does highlight the vulnerability, suffering, and anguish inherent in authentic human existence. Each individual is ultimately alone with the paradox of their subjective relation to the eternal, the divine, the ethical absolutes that frame our existence.
Teenager: But doesn’t that lead to despair and an inability to have genuine relations with others if we’re all so radically isolated in our subjective interiors?
Kierkegaard: Another penetrating question! While my philosophy does emphasize subjective inwardness, I also believed genuine interpersonal relations were possible between two existing subjective individuals who accepted and understood the paradoxical reality of human existence. True friendship, true love, arises from two individuals fully grasping their respective subjective situations and choosing an ethical commitment to one another in the passionate inwardness of existence. But you are correct that my philosophy tends toward a sense of melancholy isolation – the human condition is one of profound spiritual struggle.
Closing
Teenager: This has been a fascinating discussion, Mr. Kierkegaard. I can see why you were considered such a profound thinker, even if your ideas do seem rather gloomy at times. Thank you for taking the time to explain your philosophy of subjectivity and existence to me.
Kierkegaard: You are most welcome, my young friend. And thank you for your earnest and perspicacious engagement with my philosophy. Not all are willing to wrestle with the paradoxes and anguish I elucidate. I appreciate your tenacity in genuinely attempting to grasp these difficult concepts. Perhaps you will even build upon my ideas in novel ways as you continue your philosophical journey.
Teenager: I shall certainly endeavor to do so. Though I must say, wrestling with the mysteries of existence is rather exhausting at times! I may need to take an occasional break to enjoy the simple pleasures of existing for a bit.
Kierkegaard: chuckles heartily An excellent point! Yes, do allow yourself respite from the dizzying depths of subjective inwardness from time to time. As I am fond of saying, “Life must be lived forward.” Relish the moments where the weight of existence feels light. But I have faith that your bright mind will continue returning to grapple with the profound paradoxes that frame our human situation.
Teenager: Thank you again, Mr. Kierkegaard. I shall indeed strive to live life forward while still burrowing into the subjective depths when I’m able. Our discussion has been immensely enlightening, if rather dense at times!
Kierkegaard: Dense indeed, my young friend. But that is the nature of authentic human existence – beautifully rich yet immensely challenging to penetrate. Farewell, and may your passion for truth continue to burn inwardly!
Create a lengthy dialogue between Kierkegaard and another philosopher who wishes to explore the minutia in his philosophy.
Dialogue Between Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche: Good day, Kierkegaard. I must admit, I’ve found your writings both perplexing and intriguing. Your focus on the individual’s subjective experience and your concept of the “leap of faith” are particularly striking. I’d like to delve deeper into these ideas. Shall we begin with the leap of faith?
Kierkegaard: Good day, Nietzsche. I welcome the discussion. The leap of faith is central to my understanding of the individual’s relationship with God. It signifies a movement beyond rationality and evidence, embracing the paradoxes inherent in faith. It is a passionate commitment to belief despite the absence of proof.
Nietzsche: Fascinating. You emphasize a subjective, irrational commitment, whereas I advocate for the individual’s will to power, a more grounded and rational assertion of one’s own values and strength. How do you reconcile the apparent irrationality of faith with the need for personal authenticity?
Kierkegaard: Authenticity, for me, lies in embracing one’s subjectivity fully. The leap of faith is not about rejecting reason but about transcending it. It is an acknowledgment that certain aspects of human existence—like the divine—transcend rational comprehension. By committing to this leap, one fully realizes their individuality and confronts the infinite.
Nietzsche: I see. You suggest that true individuality requires this transcendence. But wouldn’t this reliance on an external deity or higher power undermine the very essence of personal strength and autonomy that I champion?
Kierkegaard: On the contrary, it is through the leap of faith that one finds true autonomy. By surrendering to the infinite, the individual transcends the finite limitations of human existence and achieves a higher form of selfhood. This surrender is not a loss of autonomy but its ultimate expression, as it involves a conscious, personal choice.
Nietzsche: Interesting perspective. Yet, I maintain that such surrender could lead to a form of self-negation. Instead, I advocate for the creation of one’s own values, the Übermensch who forges their own path without reliance on external absolutes. How do you respond to this critique?
Kierkegaard: Your concept of the Übermensch indeed embodies a powerful vision of self-overcoming. However, I contend that human existence inherently involves a confrontation with the infinite, the absurd, and the divine. The leap of faith is a response to this confrontation, an embrace of the paradoxes that define our existence. It is not a negation of the self but a profound affirmation of its potential.
Nietzsche: There is a certain poetic allure to your view, Kierkegaard. Yet, I remain skeptical of any system that places faith above reason. How do you address the potential for dogmatism and blind faith to lead individuals astray?
Kierkegaard: It is a valid concern. My emphasis on the leap of faith is not an endorsement of blind dogmatism but a call for a deeply personal, reflective commitment. True faith, in my view, is marked by an awareness of its own paradoxes and uncertainties. It is a continual, dynamic process of becoming, rather than a static acceptance of dogma.
Nietzsche: Your insistence on personal reflection does resonate with my own views on the necessity of self-examination. Still, I cannot help but see a fundamental tension between our philosophies. Your leap of faith seems to require a submission to something beyond the self, while my philosophy insists on the primacy of the self’s creative power.
Kierkegaard: The tension you describe is indeed profound. It reflects our differing views on the nature of existence and the self. For me, the leap of faith is the ultimate act of self-realization, a journey through despair and anxiety towards an authentic existence. It is in this journey that one encounters the divine and finds true meaning.
Nietzsche: And for me, meaning is found in the self’s power to create, to impose its will upon the world. Despite our differences, I must acknowledge the depth and sincerity of your vision. Your exploration of the human condition offers valuable insights, even if our conclusions diverge.
Kierkegaard: I appreciate your engagement, Nietzsche. Our dialogue underscores the richness and complexity of philosophical inquiry. While our paths may differ, our shared commitment to understanding the human condition unites us in this pursuit.
Nietzsche: Indeed, Kierkegaard. It has been a stimulating conversation. Perhaps our differing views can offer complementary insights to those who seek to navigate the complexities of existence.
Kierkegaard: I agree. The diversity of thought enriches our understanding. May our ideas continue to inspire and challenge future seekers of truth.
Nietzsche: Until next time, Kierkegaard. Farewell.
Kierkegaard: Farewell, Nietzsche.
Setting: A dimly lit study in Berlin. Smoke curls from Kierkegaard’s pipe as he sits across from a sharp-eyed woman, Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche: Herr Kierkegaard, your emphasis on individual subjectivity in finding truth intrigues me. However, wouldn’t such a path lead to a chaotic landscape of individual moralities, rendering meaning entirely relative?
Kierkegaard: (puffs contemplatively) A valid concern, Frau Nietzsche. But consider this: is a universal truth, arrived at passively, truly one’s own? Meaning, my dear friend, is not found in some preordained order, but in the passionate engagement with the act of seeking it.
Nietzsche: But passion, Herr Kierkegaard, can be a fickle guide. Wouldn’t reason, a more objective tool, offer a firmer foundation?
Kierkegaard: Reason has its place, Frau Nietzsche. But it’s in the crucible of anxiety, the dread of the infinite possibilities before us, that passion is ignited. It’s this very anxiety that propels us to choose, to define ourselves through our actions.
Nietzsche: Anxiety, though? Isn’t that a crippling state? Shouldn’t we strive to overcome it, to embrace a more Dionysian affirmation of life?
Kierkegaard: Ah, the Dionysian spirit! But without the Apollonian counterpart, the self-reflection and questioning, does life not become a mere blur of fleeting pleasures? Isn’t it the tension between these forces that gives life its richness?
Nietzsche: Perhaps. Yet, your focus on faith, particularly in oneself, seems almost naive. What of the individual who finds no wellspring of faith within?
Kierkegaard: Therein lies the authentic leap of faith, Frau Nietzsche. It’s not a blind acceptance, but an active choice to commit to a path, even in the face of doubt. This defiance of despair, this act of creation, is the essence of faith.
Nietzsche: A noble sentiment, but doesn’t it risk overlooking the societal structures that shape us? Isn’t meaning also partly forged by the values of the community we inhabit?
Kierkegaard: Absolutely. But these values, too, are products of individual choices, passed down through generations. It is the individual’s responsibility to grapple with these inherited values, to accept or reject them, and thus contribute to the evolution of the social order.
Nietzsche: So, the individual is both a product and a producer of meaning?
Kierkegaard: Precisely. And it is through the anguished choices, the grappling with doubt and despair, that the individual transcends the merely given and becomes the author of their own existence.
Nietzsche: A compelling perspective, Herr Kierkegaard. While I may not fully embrace your emphasis on anxiety and faith, your focus on the individual’s active role in creating meaning is undeniably thought-provoking.
Kierkegaard: And your emphasis on power and the will to power, Frau Nietzsche, offers a valuable counterpoint. Perhaps it is through this dialogue, this wrestling with different perspectives, that we can each refine our own understanding of the human condition.
Here is a lengthy dialogue between Søren Kierkegaard and the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who wishes to explore the minutiae of Kierkegaard’s philosophy:
Nietzsche Encounters Kierkegaard
Nietzsche: You there! Are you the infamous Søren Kierkegaard, author of such paradoxical tomes as “Fear and Trembling”?
Kierkegaard: I am indeed he. And you must be the philosopher Nietzsche, whose writings on the Übermensch and the rejection of Christian moral tenets have caused such controversy.
Nietzsche: Ah, so you recognize the supreme genius before you! But enough frivolity. I wish to interrogate the depths of your idiosyncratic philosophy of subjectivity.
Kierkegaard: A philosophic cross-examination, is it? Very well, let the inquiry commence.
Exploring Subjective Truth
Nietzsche: You posit that truth is a fundamentally subjective affair, not grounded in rational objectivity, but in the individual’s passionate inwardness and relation to ethical/religious absolutes. Is that correct?
Kierkegaard: Indeed. Objective facts may provide the starting point, but true knowledge requires the subjective existing individual to appropriate the truth inwardly through subjective passion.
Nietzsche: But is not passion merely an emotional indulgence disconnected from logic and reason? Why should the subjective realm be privileged over the objective?
Kierkegaard: Because human existence itself is inherently paradoxical. Our subjective, individual mode of being defies pure objectivity. Only subjective inwardness can grasp the profoundest truths.
Nietzsche: I smell the stench of Christian despair in this elevation of anguished subjectivity over life-affirmation. Does your philosophy not reduce us to isolated, existential agonizers?
Kierkegaard: While my philosophy does highlight the inward struggle and isolation intrinsic to existence, it need not cultivate despair. The subjective individual can embrace their situation with passionate commitment.
Nietzsche: You speak of passionate commitment, yet much of your work dwells on endless rumination, melancholy, and an inability to act! Where is the affirmation of life?
Kierkegaard: My good man, you misunderstand me. I advocate subjective passion and inwardness precisely to spur action and commitment. Detached objectivity breeds inertia – only subjective relation can motivate.
Interpersonal Relations
Nietzsche: Bah! Your philosophy reeks of life-negation. But even granting your subjective premises, are not all interpersonal relations undermined in your vision? If we are all radically isolated in our inward subjectivities, how can authentic relation occur?
Kierkegaard: A fair concern. Indeed, there is no escaping the fundamental existential isolation of the individual self. Yet that does not preclude genuine personal relation between subjectivities who grasp one another’s situations.
Nietzsche: Do not such relations then merely become another abstraction, a pale imitation of a true self-affirming being-with-others? How can two strangers in subjective alienation bridge the chasm?
Kierkegaard: Through recognition of their shared human condition of subjective existing beings! The ethical commitment and passionate inwardness of self-relation is also the basis for interpersonal relation.
Nietzsche: You speak in paradoxes, ser! How can impassioned commitment be shared when you privilege the radically individual’s subjectivity above all?
Kierkegaard: I perceive the root of your confusion. My philosophy emphasizes individuality over detached abstraction, not over concrete personal relation. An individual’s passionate subjectivity is in fact what opens the door to authentic ethical relation with others.
Nietzsche: Hmmm…I must ponder these strangely subjective propositions further. You have given me much to contemplate, if not to fully endorse.
A Parting Gesture
Kierkegaard: Think on it as you will, through whatever subjective passion moves you! For my part, I remain convinced that only by individual subjective appropriation can one live fully.
Nietzsche: You are a maddeningly paradoxical figure, Kierkegaard. But in your bizarre way, you have prompted me to re-examine my philosophical stance.
Nietzsche tips his hat at Kierkegaard and turns to exit
Kierkegaard: One last thing, my skeptical friend! In your journey, endeavor to not merely understand truth abstractly, but to achieve a subjective relation to it. Only then will you truly comprehend.
Nietzsche: pausing briefly We shall see which path proves more life-affirming. But I cannot promise my subjective passion shall conform to your paradoxical prescriptions! Good day!
Create a lengthy dialogue between Kierkegaard and another philosopher who wishes to confront him on weaknesses in his philosophy.
Dialogue Between Søren Kierkegaard and Karl Marx
Marx: Good day, Kierkegaard. I’ve been reading your works with great interest, but I must say, I find several aspects of your philosophy problematic. Your focus on individual subjectivity and faith seems to overlook the material conditions and social structures that shape human existence. Shall we discuss these weaknesses?
Kierkegaard: Good day, Marx. I welcome your critique. My emphasis on individual subjectivity is indeed central to my philosophy. I believe that personal experience and the individual’s relationship with the divine are fundamental. How do you perceive this as a weakness?
Marx: Your philosophy tends to isolate the individual from the broader social context. By focusing on subjective experience and faith, you risk ignoring the material conditions that determine an individual’s life. Economic realities, class struggles, and social structures profoundly influence our existence and should not be overlooked.
Kierkegaard: I acknowledge the significance of social and material conditions. However, my focus is on the individual’s inner life and existential concerns. These aspects are crucial to understanding human existence. External conditions are important, but they cannot fully account for the subjective experiences that define our humanity.
Marx: While subjective experiences are important, they cannot be divorced from the material world. The conditions under which individuals live shape their consciousness. For instance, the alienation experienced by workers under capitalism is a direct result of their material conditions. Your approach seems to neglect this interconnectedness.
Kierkegaard: Alienation, as you describe it, is indeed a profound experience. My concept of despair addresses a similar phenomenon, though from a different angle. Despair arises from a disconnection with one’s true self, a spiritual crisis that cannot be resolved solely through changes in material conditions. It requires a deeper, existential engagement.
Marx: Despair and alienation are indeed related, but they stem from different sources. Alienation is a social and economic issue, a product of the capitalist system that estranges individuals from their labor, their products, and each other. Addressing alienation requires a transformation of these material conditions, not just a spiritual solution.
Kierkegaard: I see your point. Social and economic transformations are essential for addressing systemic issues. However, even within a just society, individuals will still face existential dilemmas and spiritual crises. My philosophy seeks to address these inner conflicts that persist regardless of external conditions.
Marx: True, existential dilemmas will always exist. However, by prioritizing individual subjectivity and faith, you risk perpetuating passivity in the face of systemic injustices. Your leap of faith, for example, encourages a retreat into personal belief rather than collective action to change oppressive structures.
Kierkegaard: The leap of faith is not about passivity but about embracing the uncertainties and paradoxes of existence. It requires courage and personal commitment. Nevertheless, I understand your concern. It is vital to balance personal spiritual pursuits with active engagement in social justice.
Marx: Exactly. Individual spiritual fulfillment should not come at the expense of collective emancipation. People must be aware of their material conditions and work collectively to change them. Only then can we create a society where individuals can truly thrive.
Kierkegaard: You offer a compelling argument. A holistic approach that considers both the inner and outer dimensions of human existence is indeed necessary. While my focus remains on the individual’s spiritual journey, I recognize the importance of addressing material and social conditions as well.
Marx: And I can appreciate the depth of your concern for the individual’s inner life. Perhaps our philosophies can complement each other. Your emphasis on personal authenticity and existential engagement can enrich the pursuit of social justice, while my focus on material conditions can ground your existential concerns in tangible realities.
Kierkegaard: That is a thoughtful synthesis, Marx. Our dialogue has highlighted the need for a multifaceted approach to human existence, one that integrates both the subjective and the material dimensions.
Marx: Indeed, Kierkegaard. Our respective insights can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the human condition. It has been an enlightening conversation.
Kierkegaard: Likewise, Marx. May our ideas continue to inspire and challenge future generations in their pursuit of a just and meaningful existence.
Marx: Until next time, Kierkegaard. Farewell.
Kierkegaard: Farewell, Marx.
Setting: A bustling Parisian cafe. Søren Kierkegaard, with a furrowed brow, sips his espresso across from a composed Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Hegel: Herr Kierkegaard, your emphasis on individual subjectivity is a fascinating exploration, but wouldn’t it lead to a chaotic fragmentation of knowledge? Surely, truth exists beyond our individual anxieties and leaps of faith.
Kierkegaard: (scoffs) Truth discovered passively through grand systems, Herr Hegel? Is that truth truly one’s own? Meaning, my friend, arises from the passionate struggle to find it, not from prepackaged pronouncements.
Hegel: Passion can be a fickle guide, my dear Kierkegaard. Reason, the systematic analysis of the world, offers a more objective path to truth, a path that transcends individual anxieties.
Kierkegaard: Reason has its place, Hegel. But it’s in the crucible of anxiety, the dread of infinite possibilities before us, that passion is ignited. It’s this anxiety that propels us to choose, to define ourselves through action.
Hegel: Anxiety, though? Isn’t that a crippling state? Shouldn’t we strive for the grand synthesis, the harmonious understanding of the world through reason, the dialectic?
Kierkegaard: Harmony? Life is a constant struggle, Hegel! The tension between doubt and faith, reason and passion – that’s what gives life its richness. Your dialectic seems to erase this essential human experience.
Hegel: But your focus on individual leaps of faith seems almost whimsical, Kierkegaard. Individuals are shaped by the historical context, the Zeitgeist. Isn’t meaning also found in understanding our place within the grand narrative of history?
Kierkegaard: True, we are shaped by history. But these historical forces are themselves products of individual choices, passed down through generations. The individual still grapples with these inherited values, choosing to accept, reject, or modify them, thus shaping the future.
Hegel: So, individuals are both products and producers of history?
Kierkegaard: Precisely. But it’s through the anguished choices, the grappling with doubt and despair, that the individual transcends the merely given. They become the author of their own existence, not a cog in your grand historical machine.
Hegel: A compelling argument, Kierkegaard. However, wouldn’t your emphasis on individual struggles neglect the importance of social progress? Reason, through dialogue and collaboration, can guide us towards a better future for all.
Kierkegaard: Social progress is crucial, Hegel. But true progress comes from individuals taking ownership of their choices and their impact. Blind adherence to a preordained historical path can lead to stagnation.
Hegel: Perhaps, Kierkegaard. Nevertheless, your dismissal of reason as a tool for finding truth seems like a missed opportunity. Surely, a balance can be struck between individual subjectivity and the pursuit of objective knowledge.
Kierkegaard: Perhaps, Hegel. Perhaps our contrasting perspectives can illuminate different facets of truth. It is through this dialogue, this wrestling with different ideas, that we can each refine our own understanding of the human condition.
Here is a lengthy dialogue between Søren Kierkegaard and the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who wishes to confront Kierkegaard on perceived weaknesses in his philosophy:
Mill Meets Kierkegaard
Mill: Excuse me, sir. Are you Søren Kierkegaard, the author of such works as “Fear and Trembling” and “The Sickness Unto Death”?
Kierkegaard: I am indeed that same author. And you must be the renowned John Stuart Mill, champion of utilitarianism and individual liberty.
Mill: The very same. I have read your philosophical writings with great interest, albeit with some significant reservations.
Kierkegaard: Ah, I suspected a mind as rigorously empirical as yours may take issue with my subjective philosophical perspective.
Mill: Indeed, your ideas around subjectivity and the individual’s inward struggle strike me as rather obscure and divorced from rational reality. But I wish to dig deeper into the flaws as I see them.
Kierkegaard: By all means, proceed with your critique. I welcome substantive objections over shallow dismissals.
Confronting Subjectivity
Mill: Very well. Your entire philosophy hinges on this primacy you grant to subjective inwardness over objective rationality and truth. You claim ethical and religious truth can only be grasped subjectively. To me, this privileging of inwardness over impartial reason is a grand philosophical mistake.
Kierkegaard: I admire your commitment to impartial reason, my friend. But is not all reasoning performed by existing subjective individuals? There is no aperspectival, Archimedian objective vantage point.
Mill: Even granting that limited point, why must subjective apprehension be so paradoxical and anguished? Clear rational deliberation should be our lodestar, not inward psychological turmoil.
Kierkegaard: Because existence itself is inherently paradoxical! Any philosophy that tries to flatten or simplify that profound paradox sells reality short. My philosophy faces the existential anguish head on.
Mill: But at the cost of enshrining that anguish as virtuous in itself! Your vision risks cultivating a destructive individualism divorced from sober impartial analysis.
Kierkegaard: Not at all. I am not advocating a self-indulgent or narcissistic individualism. Rather, I ask the individual to honestly engage their subjective situation in order to then commit themselves objectively.
Mill: That still seems like muddled metaphysics to me. Clear rational deliberation aimed at promoting the greatest good for the greatest number should be our guiding principle as moral thinkers. Not this elevation of inscrutable inwardness over lucid ethics.
Kierkegaard: But therein lies your core blindspot, my dear Mills! You assume an objective philosophic process can simply calculate “the greatest good” without situating it in the subjective reality of existing individuals appropriating truth.
On Interpersonal Ethics
Mill: Enough of this metaphysical subjectivism! Let me level a more concrete critique. Your elevation of individualism above all else thoroughly undercuts the possibility of impartial, interpersonal ethical deliberation. If we are all radically isolated in our subjective orbits, how can we coordinate for the greater societal good?
Kierkegaard: I am not advocating a selfish isolationism. True subjective passion and commitment is the very basis for authentic interpersonal relation and ethical solidarity.
Mill: That makes little sense to me. If subjective inwardness is the supreme ideal, then by definition we are all trapped in our own inscrutable psychological cesspools, unable to forge durable impartial ethical bonds.
Kierkegaard: You are missing the vital point that subjective ethical passion, once manifest, is what allows genuine interpersonal ethical commitment and unity. Passion and inwardness need not remain narcissistic.
Mill: Seems a tortured rationalization to my mind. Why not simply uphold impartial reason and aggregate welfare as the prime ethical lodestars? Your subjectivism sows pernicious individualism.
Kierkegaard: And your utilitarian philosophy, for all its cries of impartiality, furtively enshrines the preferences of the greatest number, thereby subjugating minority individualities. A cold impartial calculus can justify unethical mass oppression.
Mill: … You raise a fair critique, ser. I must reflect further on how to uphold both impartial ethics and robust individual liberty. Though I remain convinced your philsophy lacks ethical lucidity.
The Endless Subjective Struggle
Kierkegaard: And I shall always maintain that true ethics can only be grounded in the passionate subjective commitments of actual existing individuals, not detached ratiocination.
Mill: Then it seems we have reached an impasse, with you elevating anguished subjectivity and I clinging to impartial reason. Two ships passing in the night, as it were.
Kierkegaard: Not an impasse, my friend, but an instantiation of the fundamental subjective tension I describe! Our disagreement serves to illustrate that subjective inwardness and relation to ethical reality will always be paradoxical and prone to conflict.
Mill: If your philosophy can indeed only engender such interminable subjective tensions and agonies, I must judge it a failure. True ethical and political philosophy should aim for lucid principles and institutional reforms, not metaphysical abstractions.
Kierkegaard: And that bland utilitarianism of yours utterly neglects the profound roots of human existence in subjective particularity. But such is the perpetual plight of us existing subjective creatures – to strive, to struggle, to persist through the agonizing appropriation of ethical reality.
Mill: Well…I can say this has been a remarkably draining exercise in abstract metaphysics. I don’t envision being swayed to your subjective viewpoint any time soon.
Kierkegaard: Nor you I to your impartial rationalism, my dear Mills. But I thank you for striving alongside me, however briefly, in this eternal subjective wrestle with ethical truth.
Mill: You are a formidable conversation partner, if an irredeemably obscure one in my view. I must return to addressing more tangible ethical reforms and policies.
Kierkegaard: And I shall continue cultivating my anguished subjectivity and personalistic inwardness. For that is the unending task of existence itself – the subjective appropriation of earnest passion and commitment against all rationalizing evasions.
List Kierkegaard’s 5 most influential philosophical notions, and indicate the degree to which they are accepted by philosophers today.
Kierkegaard’s 5 Most Influential Philosophical Notions and Their Contemporary Acceptance
1. The Leap of Faith
Description: The leap of faith is a concept that describes the act of believing in something despite the absence of empirical evidence or rational justification. It is particularly applied to religious faith, where individuals commit to belief in God despite uncertainties and paradoxes.
Contemporary Acceptance:
- High in Religious Philosophy: Widely acknowledged in discussions about faith and spirituality. Philosophers and theologians continue to explore the implications of belief without empirical evidence.
- Mixed in Secular Philosophy: While some existentialists and phenomenologists appreciate the subjective commitment, others critique it for potentially encouraging irrationality.
2. The Concept of Anxiety (Angst)
Description: Kierkegaard’s notion of anxiety involves the recognition of one’s freedom and the accompanying responsibility. This existential anxiety is a response to the awareness of the vast possibilities and the weight of personal choices.
Contemporary Acceptance:
- High in Existential Philosophy: Existentialists like Heidegger and Sartre expanded on this idea, making it a cornerstone of existential thought.
- Moderate in Psychology: Influenced early 20th-century psychologists like Rollo May and continues to inform existential psychotherapy, although it’s less emphasized in contemporary cognitive and behavioral approaches.
3. The Stages on Life’s Way
Description: Kierkegaard describes three stages of human existence: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. Each stage represents a different approach to life, with the religious stage being the highest, where one finds true meaning through a relationship with God.
Contemporary Acceptance:
- Moderate in Philosophical Circles: Appreciated for its depth in exploring human development and ethical life, but the religious stage is less universally accepted, especially in secular contexts.
- High in Theological Studies: Highly influential in Christian existentialism and theology, often cited in discussions of spiritual development.
4. Despair
Description: Despair, for Kierkegaard, is a state of not being in alignment with one’s true self. It involves various forms of self-deception and can only be overcome through a genuine relationship with God and authentic selfhood.
Contemporary Acceptance:
- High in Existential and Religious Philosophy: Despair is considered a key concept in understanding human suffering and the search for meaning.
- Moderate in Secular Thought: While the idea of despair is acknowledged, the religious resolution proposed by Kierkegaard is less accepted outside religious philosophy.
5. Subjectivity as Truth
Description: Kierkegaard posits that truth is subjective, particularly in matters of personal belief and faith. Objective truths are important, but subjective truths are essential for genuine personal existence.
Contemporary Acceptance:
- High in Existentialism: Central to existential and postmodern philosophy, where personal experience and subjective interpretation are emphasized.
- Mixed in Analytic Philosophy: While some appreciate the focus on individual perspective, others critique it for lacking objective rigor.
Summary of Acceptance Levels
- High Acceptance: The Concept of Anxiety (Existential Philosophy), Subjectivity as Truth (Existentialism, Postmodernism)
- Moderate to High Acceptance: The Leap of Faith (Religious Philosophy), Despair (Existential and Religious Philosophy)
- Moderate Acceptance: The Stages on Life’s Way (Philosophical Circles, Theological Studies), Despair (Secular Thought)
Overall, Kierkegaard’s ideas continue to significantly influence various fields, especially those dealing with existential concerns, spirituality, and personal authenticity. However, the religious aspects of his philosophy are less universally embraced in secular philosophical contexts.
Here are 5 of Kierkegaard’s most influential philosophical notions and their current standing:
- Subjectivity and Truth: Kierkegaard argued that truth is subjective and personal, found through individual experience and passionate engagement with ideas. This notion has been highly influential in existentialist philosophy and continues to resonate today. However, there’s ongoing debate about the extent to which objective truths can exist.
- The Stages of Life: Kierkegaard proposed three stages of life: aesthetic (seeking pleasure), ethical (living by moral principles), and religious (living by faith). While the strict categorization is debated, the idea of life stages with different existential concerns remains influential in psychology and personal development.
- Anxiety and Despair: Kierkegaard saw anxiety as an inevitable part of human existence due to the freedom of choice and the vastness of possibilities. Despair, he argued, arose from the inability to commit to a path. These concepts are central to existentialism and continue to be explored in philosophy and psychology.
- The Leap of Faith: True faith, for Kierkegaard, wasn’t based on reason but on a passionate commitment that transcended doubt. This notion has been influential in theology and philosophy, but it also faces criticism for seeming irrational or inaccessible.
- The Individual and Society: Kierkegaard emphasized the individual’s responsibility to choose and create meaning, even within societal structures. This focus on individual agency remains relevant, but there’s ongoing discussion about the interplay between individual choices and social forces.
Overall, Kierkegaard’s ideas are still widely discussed and debated. While some aspects are contested, his emphasis on individual experience, freedom, and the challenges of existence has had a lasting impact on philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature.
Søren Kierkegaard’s 5 most influential philosophical notions and their degree of acceptance among philosophers today are as follows:
- Subjective Truth and the Primacy of Inwardness
Kierkegaard believed that objective truths about religion, ethics, and existence could not be grasped through reason and empirical observation alone. Instead, he argued that these truths must be subjectively appropriated through deep personal inwardness, commitment, and passionate engagement. This notion of subjective truth being more essential than objective fact is not widely accepted among most contemporary philosophers, who tend to favor rational, objective modes of inquiry. However, existentialist thinkers have embraced aspects of Kierkegaard’s emphasis on subjective experience.
Degree of Acceptance: Low to Moderate
- The Individual and Existence
Kierkegaard’s philosophy centered on the existing individual’s subjective experience of existence. He highlighted the paradoxes, anguish, and profound isolation inherent in authentic human existence. This focus on radical individuality and the tensions of lived experience proved highly influential on 20th-century existentialist thought. While most philosophers acknowledge the importance of individuality, Kierkegaard’s intense particularism remains controversial.
Degree of Acceptance: Moderate
- Critique of Hegelian Rationality
Kierkegaard vehemently rejected Hegel’s totalizing philosophical system and its attempt to subsume all of reality under a unified rational framework. He saw Hegel’s absolute idealism as an evasion of the fundamentally paradoxical, subjective nature of human existence. Kierkegaard’s polemics against Hegel’s rationalism helped inspire subsequent philosophies that were more oriented around lived experience over rigid systematization.
Degree of Acceptance: Moderate to High
- Religiosity and the Faith/Reason Paradox
Kierkegaard probed the paradoxical nature of genuine religious faith, which he saw as transcending and even defying reason and objective understanding. His works like “Fear and Trembling” explore the existential quandary of maintaining religious commitment in the face of ethical critiques from reason. While not all philosophers have embraced his specific Christian premises, many have grappled with the paradoxes he raised around faith vs. reason.
Degree of Acceptance: Moderate
- Authentic Commitment and “Living Life Forward”
For Kierkegaard, the highest ethical imperative was to live life authentically by making wholehearted, passionate commitments – be they religious, ethical, or personal. He urged individuals to stop endlessly deliberating and theorizing about life and instead strive to “live life forward” through resolute choices and actions. This call for authenticity over abstractions has been highly influential, resonating with later existentialist and humanist thinkers.
Degree of Acceptance: Moderate to High
In summary, while some of Kierkegaard’s core ideas around subjectivity, individuality, and faith’s tensions with reason remain contentious, his philosophical significance is widely recognized. His critiques of Hegelian rationalism and emphasis on authenticity, commitment, and lived experience were groundbreaking and paved the way for many subsequent existentialist and phenomenological schools of thought.
Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
Discussion Questions on Kierkegaard’s Philosophy
- The Leap of Faith:
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of Kierkegaard’s concept of the leap of faith in the context of modern religious belief?
- How can the leap of faith be reconciled with a rationalist approach to religion and spirituality?
- The Concept of Anxiety:
- How does Kierkegaard’s notion of existential anxiety differ from modern psychological understandings of anxiety?
- In what ways can Kierkegaard’s concept of anxiety be applied to contemporary existential crises?
- The Stages on Life’s Way:
- How do Kierkegaard’s stages of life (aesthetic, ethical, religious) compare to other developmental theories in philosophy and psychology?
- Can someone achieve a meaningful life without progressing through all three of Kierkegaard’s stages? Why or why not?
- Despair:
- What role does self-deception play in Kierkegaard’s concept of despair, and how can individuals overcome it?
- How might Kierkegaard’s notion of despair inform modern therapeutic practices?
- Subjectivity as Truth:
- How does Kierkegaard’s emphasis on subjectivity as truth challenge traditional notions of objective knowledge?
- In what ways can Kierkegaard’s idea of subjective truth be applied to contemporary debates on personal identity and authenticity?
- General Philosophy:
- How do Kierkegaard’s ideas on faith and subjectivity interact with the broader existentialist movement?
- To what extent can Kierkegaard’s religious existentialism be separated from his Christian beliefs?
- Kierkegaard vs. Marx:
- How do Kierkegaard’s and Marx’s views on individual and societal transformation differ, and where might they find common ground?
- Can Kierkegaard’s focus on individual spirituality coexist with Marx’s emphasis on collective social change?
- Kierkegaard’s Influence:
- Which of Kierkegaard’s concepts has had the most significant impact on contemporary philosophy, and why?
- How have later existentialists like Heidegger and Sartre expanded upon Kierkegaard’s ideas?
- Critique and Defense:
- What are the main critiques of Kierkegaard’s philosophy, and how might one defend against these critiques?
- How does Kierkegaard’s philosophy address the balance between individual freedom and societal constraints?
- Practical Application:
- How can Kierkegaard’s ideas on anxiety and despair be practically applied to improve mental health in today’s society?
- In what ways can Kierkegaard’s stages of life be used as a framework for personal development and growth?
- Faith and Reason:
- How does Kierkegaard’s leap of faith compare to other philosophical approaches to the relationship between faith and reason?
- Can Kierkegaard’s concept of faith be applied in a secular context, and if so, how?
- Existential Authenticity:
- What does Kierkegaard mean by living an authentic life, and how does this concept resonate with contemporary existential thought?
- How can individuals navigate the tension between subjective truth and societal expectations according to Kierkegaard’s philosophy?
- Subjectivity in Ethics:
- How does Kierkegaard’s notion of subjectivity influence his views on ethical decision-making?
- To what extent can Kierkegaard’s ethical stage be integrated into modern moral philosophy?
- Spirituality and Modernity:
- How relevant are Kierkegaard’s religious ideas in a modern, increasingly secular world?
- Can Kierkegaard’s notion of the religious stage be interpreted in a way that is inclusive of various spiritual beliefs?
- Philosophical Legacy:
- How has Kierkegaard’s work influenced contemporary philosophical discussions on the meaning of life?
- In what ways can Kierkegaard’s philosophy inform our understanding of existential risks and opportunities in the 21st century?
Discussion Questions on Kierkegaard’s Philosophy:
- Subjectivity and Truth: Can truth ever be entirely subjective, or are there some objective truths that everyone can agree on? How does Kierkegaard’s view on truth impact the way we approach knowledge and understanding?
- Stages of Life: Do Kierkegaard’s life stages accurately represent the human experience? How might these stages differ across cultures or individuals? What other life stages could be considered?
- Anxiety and Despair: Are anxiety and despair inevitable parts of life, or can they be avoided? How can we manage these feelings in a healthy way?
- The Leap of Faith: Can faith exist without reason? Is a leap of faith always a positive thing, or could it lead to blind acceptance of harmful ideas?
- Individual vs. Society: How much control do we truly have over our own meaning in life, considering the influence of societal structures and expectations? How can we balance our individuality with social responsibility?
Going Deeper:
- Compare and contrast Kierkegaard’s ideas on anxiety with those of other philosophers or psychologists.
- How does Kierkegaard’s emphasis on individual choice relate to the concept of free will?
- Explore the criticisms of Kierkegaard’s philosophy, particularly regarding the “leap of faith.” Can these criticisms be addressed?
- How might Kierkegaard’s ideas be applied to contemporary issues like social media, career choices, or technology dependence?
- Research other existentialist philosophers and compare their views with Kierkegaard’s.
Personal Reflection:
- Reflect on your own life experiences. Can you identify moments of anxiety, despair, or leaps of faith?
- Do you believe your life has a predetermined meaning, or do you create your own meaning through choices and actions?
- How can Kierkegaard’s philosophy help you navigate difficult decisions or existential questions?
- Do you think Kierkegaard’s ideas are more relevant to some people than others? Why or why not?
- If you could meet Kierkegaard and discuss his ideas, what questions would you ask him?
Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to Kierkegaard’s influential philosophical notions and their acceptance among philosophers today:
- Do you agree with Kierkegaard’s notion that objective truths about ethics, religion, and existence must be subjectively appropriated through passionate personal engagement? Why or why not?
- How valid is Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel’s rationality and philosophical systemization? Are there merits to his claim that such systems evade the paradoxes of lived existence?
- To what extent should the subjective experience of the individual take precedence over impartial, objective modes of philosophical inquiry?
- Kierkegaard highlighted the profound isolation and anguish inherent to authentic human existence. How can this perspective be squared with philosophies emphasizing interpersonal ethics and social solidarity?
- In what ways does Kierkegaard’s exploration of the faith/reason paradox remain relevant in our contemporary secular age? Or has this tension been sufficiently resolved?
- How might one critique Kierkegaard’s intense particularism and elevation of radical individuality from the perspective of philosophies focused on universality and impartiality?
- Is Kierkegaard’s call for individuals to make authentic, passionate commitments and “live life forward” a valid philosophical prescription? Or is it merely an anti-intellectual dismissal of reasoned deliberation?
- To what degree is Kierkegaard’s religious existentialism still influential in contemporary philosophy of religion? In what ways has it been surpassed or revised?
- How coherent is Kierkegaard’s conception of “subjective truth”? Can something be objectively true yet subjectively inauthentic or inappropriately appropriated?
- Kierkegaard rejected abstract philosophical systems in favor of grappling with the paradoxes of lived experience. Do you see value in this existential approach, or is it overly unsystematic?
- In emphasizing inwardness and subjectivity, did Kierkegaard go too far in neglecting the interpersonal and social dimensions of human existence? Or did he simply prioritize a crucial area overlooked by others?
- How might Kierkegaard’s philosophies be applied to issues of ethical decision-making, personal identity, or the attainment of a meaningful life in today’s world?
- To what extent have subsequent existentialist and phenomenological thinkers successfully built upon or reinterpreted Kierkegaard’s core ideas around subjectivity and existence?
- While Kierkegaard directed his key polemics against Hegel, how might his critiques of rationality apply to other major philosophical systems or figures?
- In a era when empirical science is highly esteemed, what value, if any, can Kierkegaard’s subjective, paradox-embracing perspectives still offer modern philosophy?
Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)
- Create a lengthy dialogue between Soren Kierkegaard and a bright teenager curious about his philosophy.
- Create a lengthy dialogue between Kierkegaard and another philosopher who wishes to explore the minutia in his philosophy.
- Create a lengthy dialogue between Kierkegaard and another philosopher who wishes to confront him on weaknesses in his philosophy.
- List Kierkegaard’s 5 most influential philosophical notions, and indicate the degree to which they are accepted by philosophers today.
- Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
Byteseismic Philosophy 
Leave a comment