LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING IN PUBLICATION DATA ‘Thlorp, Nel Teepr etion to Heath ‘rans of iced lp Hg ox adn kv fre a 86 wih so Sealy pred the ators sy Copeage, 9 ‘ablogoehr Indes ide Fe etopar, Sen Aye 892855. 2, Hed erg Win Fics pte 3 Makin ioe Bupa ISHN oor ISBN obec pe who osco a a EE Femineoel ieee as vce Be does TRE nae BAS nes Seng pone Rec cas Te cumomon tation Soest imcae nel ae scek eae w Se NN ee eon eta eee TEC aman Serban Mech A Geena sth g0 a5 354 375 377 en 38 ae rial are EGMACRGI? INR EAI oy ate, tee ES? EAR we, EET mm a Sphe Meno ERE St RP etd), 172 Se, Kil 2a 92 SESS page wi ta on Sone soe rap ce Te ges 20 8 Sec Boe rece ABE en ‘Whetlaes aera 200 sae ce . See eye = = ‘Wold, ci pane SE aman Reha et ug idan EEA Sie sures ROA enamels ea nin sare Xe Ree ee eee ery p SB 2s Sp 6 ay ps) sagen lek 12 6 Ver ioscan ot gu.ase RR ae ye ho abe anto4 2027 38, 3 weonon ee ang Naa 3 30 30 Ens eee ae Eee BRE ee oe ee mon wns oe ene TEER moma TR Se ethan Reta ste : Sree, "313, 26, 327, 20,290) 236 24 2, sou * —_—=* 25 Se sihitan p amg Sass ch ition, Smah E60 eT Bay toe Sep Bh eS fon oh ae 8, Sing Fh SESS Saas Sean D Br an at ae Prete sicker ah a Seco at to 3 Senin o0 ue “Tae J 308 ‘Ss Ws 2 ‘Teme Wf, 28 SEE etn, aa 9am 328 ay. an 30 asm ne Tn SRE in te en Timing oo BSS AEs ik ed Thc FAS som = ‘Tome Rnb, 208 20,152 fade 37 sit Chorio, 308 Fata he Boar 26 38 Fong, RHE de Iperf Fees Bea gb, Gy 350 ait Sanat. eee initia in ees Ber ee BRR Rem cae ce en Retort mein, eA, rn lM a te Ser 53 30,1556 eae EE She ‘ata 8 ou a 98 BB ou ‘eed iy, unk Hse Bein oa Sect Beye eat we on atm sages itn, de, s ieee coe a Semin, 3 rE aT ae Misc’, 25 26294 Mig fae aoe e prere a eee Aeaee ewe aa an ie So eo wee i ei ey bh Sane Syn 30 3g Senne ee a Meh oem ‘Sitti ava BEE Sg 126 Sr hi seen in Mie ae Mee ln Matar sei aas Mites Pola ana a 38 00, 105, 285,385 1 ite 1 19 1 1p on sn a a Mana BG 18 9. ‘cay ol enon 22 ie, to Mme fal er 38, 9 44, 106 7 34 ean, LAW, 400,00 Neda Hans, Lae on ‘Newman, john Henry, 120, 153 Nenor Nomen 3363 Seta, BG spn Nedemeyes Gott Sieben so ion, MC Pe 2340 Nish KT, aon ah HS None 30 Nomen, Andes 288 SNpsin, eo ah eben, Adam s2 erty TK Seen 3 ‘he Regi a 255 36,229 tl ae, Sn Gel Cs an a6 a, 27 pean 2h 286 286 ap, Soa ya 3 0 Parmeie, 390 Pct Bs 3s uno, 2 2 35 3, “Me a ask A san fe se 2 Poke 5. Phtay tal ao, lon 105, 13 #1, 1a 8 ca 15, 3p snk sta peas aa Phe Jy at Phe tt 15 86 28, a gn Pt, ia 26 25 96 2pm 2 20,2 io 98 34 24 am SC am aa Prag foram a5. 3 38 raga 3 30 tome Peia ‘lsc ee, © A Sey "ig git of 35h St ioe Wan foun se HE a ae Bieri Tee Ferran ge Eos need pe ony a Bt 8 th thot neil eto, Kan, Senn ue fin on 0 wna wee 128,6 8 ac cuca Sree nm prey sieht tn Ear WP BEER EER pune = ebay, tp 88 an chan, Vii 2 158 a en trype 257 ge ab Sy 201 2582568 Garon Expimchon 25 Sn 95 nae Aa 232 ee Nan ns y_—_ ees ne Ca 67 738 27 Tei eigen 8 cone nebo fh and Kowa 36 35383 Sr Somaninn bse Fade Ry 08 ear cence aph coe Ta 5h OS B97, (Snel FM a ‘re an ont BCs 3200 aves, Hh 398 (Soames 52 ech Lig 26 Ei tne Heron 250% cencdusmstin, "aimee CER a mere la sm Lae Bakke a Bone aia adie ip sb sne sah us Thi Ns 28 ‘ite gen sp 9,63 7a, Baer Pa em Ne ee Feta ute Fak, Rano, 67 205% 280, osu ar so 6 7h “ton sg ale Hedge aoe oe, Fo 33 key, cate 7a ene Be 84 Pee cae tan, snag Rachmins, PW. aes 55 en rene Ai, 2 ities, Wiel, 250 Eel and ney, 85 7 Dinces 25, Sa ae eo 3 3 Drenbeqe, TA. WD 1 pict 8, os ean ae soasn gs gi Pr Ol “op 2” 2 a i aes atsy Cat Bath 29 a Retr e Gaik, Hetet 3G SEES aren ss Caan 3b 8 ted mar, ad a san, fon on cane ay tJ W688 9 en Son oe, Grae 6.69 Grands, NPS, 38.40.48 65, tty im ie, Aan 7, 08 Splnbourg,Thoma py Ne A a meri Pegs meee. Sere Bm eat moe i fete Eee an mike belt yn gaa eres eee E; se db anne Lae, 9295, cg Ae te 2 3, 50 lea tn lan, B80 Hes The engwenel Wnt ears, Reta 3 Ham apts 8 art Fm ser 85 Pad Secrest re iia Be Wea Hist Brute 8m 0.984, mg onus og cae os ae ey Shining mapmin ie in Hytomn Hog He, ne, eee Ls tfc 6 69 ible M Hy 259,308 ‘an on : a, He toes gn ‘0, pn stm 9,8 oe alg at Han FP a ow 1078 33 Hep aging (efron mare nih a voi am 8 pote tan 3058 $i Tyg sry ha 19 0,124 She a ha a ey 9 2 "ap tg, a 36 aba Pr, ose). 9m, er, Rah, on Feng een, a aa, gno sist a “Ved, Valdemas, Gulden i dash Digting (130; and ey 30) wae cat, Gemduig og Siren Kiekeganrd (Copenhagen: Gylendl, 959) werd ah Logit 8) WicHlincn tunes Ow Genealiaton og Genito rb Tra de maleate op hire Videwsaber (i) “ter Boar, Gch kr dewsche Phiophic ibis (en). A nd iegerd te sot Sid cape a cones wth few pe CaP og Dita iter of te Dah aad Sta ape Spialed witty were Bg tg sn al a ees Beaten SETAC arm, Re Se Nl ER ga a5 68 96 Package ah 3h Beir Gy on sees ‘Sng sod ogi ea 3, Nae. Sa, eh neh 28h 5 3 ‘nh, era La 38, ‘Aronia Valent 33 3a shee Sovran ah sons bon enkuan BBS achcinHins Chin 607, Berge Eon 15.17 pe egmany yn Aen. 48 748 enor Hse ode, Viele yom, fa, yer We ga a te 28 Bite, ee Seen, 2 nin anny, gpm 8 Boks My ay ‘ate Rk 9 on El i ms. 6 ‘aan ia kn Fin 6 im ‘et 0 m2 ‘Apso of Tn 30 eh a he Ae Sk 3m asm Howeman A as 6, aap Mare 7,338 46 Mee Shh, tomes Be Fe, a AF a, ‘Austin, Sty 5204 112, 185 uae, Fr ven 986,95 e108, “png ess 1, ra oe ee Blige 0 Ait ued FL in ipl, Lee 90 4904, Bure iri 3 sea bogey Rovakan, Ka Pehla der de Wiens ik ven Ge (Kowsters 85). no Gada Here Lien 00 Trcihed og Faroning (Co- chug, Qi) Ra RE U2 Dank ere Kei et itende Aahundede utitbok, Wales, Siren Kirepsds Der cece Denke inden Wor (atin: Trost Sho 1) sng Gh op Komen et red Gender Tore Seeing 90) se Ma ce Gor ay et a) SUE Zar Repudrccheie dered” 3) Santer aetrch Eine Done, Keree Dartalig der Sfeielen Snir (Sxt)t oH. Shue (dein, ba tion: pec Caled Deer ans Jb Ona (Nee York Harpe Tro 58 smi Eo Hogs Ler on Go (95) Sa skeplaimar os Theloichr Pain (96) SER EBL Denton der Pedra ar Theor rete st Wie DE Volndang der deuce Leas in dr “Spupllrphe Sehlisg (93) sue hoatnes-Du Veta Ss Mechen 2 ner kus” ‘ond Tiernan VI G9) 7 oi dmg Rogers (Copenhagen: Rese og Bagger, 1954). — Retin” Teli dF) See NH tio ih (a Ui 99) SN ele om pads: Nort ea rch Mis TR) Ropar Bing (Lands Sweden CK, Glee Fetus ey) ep ten Eakoh tne “Kear Dre Teg Pan in iow Jobe ad Nis Tul, IEG Klrtegeard Cigar (New Yok Harpe & Rw. Spade Beige: Gcwsy Edson hppa sug, Genre Ly Scant Roowidge aguas 08 ‘Kierkegaardian Subjectivity,” Kierkegaardiana, X (1977), 18 —scaedes Veen of the Ones. Aruent” Fanta tan) oonby Senza, Joli, Hepes Aucune der grechitchen Phiowophie: ‘Kleine Sbrifien sur grechichen Phorophie (156), Stephan, Hort, Gechihte der detichen evangelachen Theoogie 2 dem deatichon dels, (938, reed. Man Shit (96. Stilings P.M, Philomphiske Berapninger over dew Speculative opts Betydning Jor Videnchaben (243). Stohchasider Kahrs I, Die romantiche Trone in Theorie und Getlang (90). ‘Thaning, Ky Memeste fet vol LI (198). ‘Thomas, J. Heywood, Subjectivity and Parador (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 95). ‘Thomsen, Anton, Hegel, Udeitingen of bans Flt til 1806 (oe. “Thomsen Olu FG. Howite of hans Sid om “Viens Bribed™ (sai. ‘home Red, Kierkegua's Piowophy of Religion (Prncaon: Prncton Univerty re, 98. ‘Thatta, Nie, "Tasoto di Kirkegaard © Hamann” Studi “Kerkepeion (Bee, ly, 195), 9-959. a Rarkeands Vere s Hope Borchnrgschiche ‘Gausgur Veg W. Kabarnmer 93). EI Sren Rirkgonds Bie En Beto (Copeogen: Munkagsrs 197). "De Hicoriche Meade in der Kirepard Fnchung ch cin Beal beleues” SympotionRikcpewdine (053), aoa —PRihegeeds Verh 20 Hegel” Theologiche Ze “hit (Baek 99), 00008 —S"Thtrhegind op den flofse Lele" Kireperd ieee IV (9), “Tlarop, Nic cd, Kiekeprdioa (Copenhagen: Spon Kir egaud Sle 155.) ‘Tiel Ey Kiekegords Gland (060). “eendlenburg, Frcich A, Logche Unteruchangen (ai). share, Eidich, History of Phavophy eae orn the th Geran eon by GsorgeS. Mori 2 ol (New Yorks C. ‘Selmer & Compa, 7). aS Ginndriss dr Gucicht ter Philosophie (9.icroty Tow atc Shs Le of Rirkgod (Pinon: Pinson ‘ety bee 96) Lae beige: Hite 8) ee eet Kin of Pot hei: O- "Saat enna Des Mange Grape "Das Vern evichen, Wael wd Sea or gestae Deen: Symposin Ki dan 5) ee ha og Post M: Mai” Kerwin wi Gop ao Renkegurts Ter om Spring of bate Vil Tele Rirkpedenn) om se NE ar SA eres Gap) 2 ociedes Dink hos SK," Denk elogik Titi ioe) 0 ox, Roane (Cpeshgen: Muka Cpt etd ton: Rerkgoea Wry oe rh Ca et Aapnay Pag Ho 1). at Wee Coa per Bnet Deca” Thr 3X ones ak Pin, Die Grmdeen de rien Dogma si ifnentsand dC) a en agen (om Ma rt a tice Ur edu Te 8. Ch Mohee, Aut, The Rikeard Inde (Leiden: il) Med We, Le waiving de Kierkegurd (Paie Beahese Mi. Getic der ten See de Php = 1 Naso Rant Hep > le (490) i nt of Gast arr C9 a Neat tiny of Darth Larne (Copa ier 1 I hams dr Grave ud ie Kick ine rips ie sn) alc Fo Beate Sto wok 208 (88). ae a ee tine ee sn der Sate (8). Nip amen Las By og Ett’ Dre of hae tea ne Goenage: Manhogars 5) » rab [Newmia, John Henry, Ae Bizay in Aid of « Grammer of Auent (New York: Catholic Publication Society, x87, South Bend, Indiana: Univerty of Nowe Date Pres, 198) ane Hin F Chil er reir Ragin, a 955) Nordea, Keestn, Hedepgere Opgar med dem slovfche Te ‘ion (196). ‘Nyholm, Arger, Religion og Polit, en Monrad Stade (147). raced, Bgeges |. Myer og Henrich Stes, 3 ot (729). Paulos, IEG, Die endlich ofenbur gewordene postive Phio- sophie der Ofenbarang (843). Pile Ey Irom ls Daeinsorn Bei Siren Kierkegaard (6). Plu, N. ME, Jakob Peer Mynstor rom Kraten op Teolog (1938). “Li om SKs Chaonsnusde” Telogist Tissot (Co- huge, 197), 424 PE Schlermacker i Danmark (1938). Rebuy Wakes, Kierhepaurd wand der Vefibrer (Munich: Rina, 8). Reute, Hans. Kickegurdsrelgionsphiowphircke Gedanken ie Verkns 0 Heels relgionsphiorphivchem Sytem (ips 19). Reyburn, He Ay The Ethical Theory of Hege (Onor, x3). Rode Viel, “Bidrag en danke Sudemertrenings Hinore” eat Unt (i) H.P, autvonsprotakl Over Soren Kierhgauds Bogs tig (Copenhagen: et Ronglie Bible, 396). atom Seen Rieregard som Boge” Fund of Fos: cng 1 Det Kongige Biotehy Salinger, VIL (1981, wi. Rohe Boer, Swen Kierkgaord, tee. Alan Mocsy Willams (London: Allen & Unwin 96), Rohde Sven Bard, Zucilel wad Erkennein Lands Universitet “Keil, NF And ol. No-4 9p). Rome, Bestice K, The Philoophy 0) Maciranche (Chicago: lene Regnery Company, 198) Roos, Cth, Kierequrd og Goethe (195) Roow, H, Syren Riekegard and Catholic, tans Richard M. racket (Weiser, Maryland: The Newnan Pres, 95)boggy Heber, Jan Loti, Pre Stier Bnd (Coebage: Rel Fo. 860), oreo ttaytler Votrend Jhon Ladi Heber vod Monn Drip Bnd (9) Hei Bhs Role Big Ener lr Tilia (a) LOE segment of Sen Kiker rine Uaeiting "regard Ser, i (Copenhgen yen 191) ee Rerkrcnd rege Dieting (Coens: endo 9). et 2 ng ad Tine nn Mage 8 etd Rainn (Onda lake 1) akan Sy und Method n Hegel Papi (). Hison Th, Sots nash dem Gade sine Sel (83). Hees Roget iceegs Rew of iterate” Symp “on Kieegurtones (i), ices Romney (Copenhagen: Gye 0 Fiameleth Sen Soren Riegrd:Intraorl Biboge "page Np Nei Fag, Aro Buse) Te eeu Opto Sleater (Capen: ‘isl Buck) —ATSiter (3. = Termindogth Ondbog sf Swen Kieregerds Semlde area in XV of SK Soe Vokes 2h (Spthagens Gilden, 20193), pol. of SK OSE ted (Copestage: Cylendal wr). ick” Etansl Conic er nner comglken Phslope veka (a0 pee Hsing el, A Hoy of Moder Phierophy, 2 aly wane 1 ee es Boe Pian) Denke Hofer 9) Pinten Tyatlond cher Hes (i). Toten |hiener Dekamert on Hep Ente (99) FEae SS Goudie Sy po Troop Eten (99) Hn Sren Regn lr (Copenhagen: Mang 95) He Selgin flvpike Boy (98). Dorma sy SS Reni et Go) TS onto (389- jens 2 vole. (Gite: . Bertelsmann, oer — Soren Kierkegarés Hisoriefilsof (Copenhagen: Nyt Not tk Forlag, Arnold Buse, 192) Holme, Paul Ly “Kierkegead and Logi." Kierkegerdna, (957) 354. Hyppolie Jes, Gender ot sractre de le PMnomenologie de Terris de Hegel, vl (Pris: Auber, 194) jn, Fran, Die Phioophie Hegel al tontemplative Gotedebre ‘91. Jaspers Kel, Scaling (105). Jeter, Hane, De dancke Stenderforamlingers Hinore (193) Jenin Kaod, Nogle Kierkegasrdneadier (Copenhagen: Nyt ‘Nore Fora, 93). Adsjong, KLE, Hegel wed Pltn (191), egentn,egea, A Treatieof Format Logic 5 woe (New York Ruse 192) Kall, Ange Kierepoordiudie ¢ Norden (Copenhagen: Hage: up). imal ye Libei Symbolic Eeceine Orem (0843), Koitermeyer, H, Sckling und die romantche Schule (Munich Reiahara, 199). Koch, Hal, Den date Kiker Historie (105) Koktanek, A.M, Schelingr Senate und Kierkegaard (198). ownerap Ben, ed J.-P. Monsters Vsiadagboger, 1335185 Gon). or Frue Kirke og Menigheds Historie 193) Kile, Seer, Sgren Kierhegaard: Barndom og ungdom (Cope igen! Aeshchoog 95). Kuby, Vitor, Modigelens Grandactning: Kierhepurd Studie, 1 (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1915). Late, JN. Claes (195) euegaag, Hans, Denkjormen, 20d ed (195), Lind, W, Dar Ringen Lathers um de Frees der Thalogie oon ‘er Phiorophie, 2nd ed. (1955). Lindatiny, Vales, “Ero ooh agape i Klekepsads aking Teflxionr Kring. Pee Lanning, Semidighedens Situation, ‘Rirkepordina, (1955), 12512 a" Siaderartoog (983). Lagerup, K. Ey “Chritentum ohne den historic Jesus" Oris "Lisersrany, XVI (962), 10 Ling, Per Sumiigheden Staton (3954),36 ogre Bohlin, Torsten, KierRegaords dogmatic Uikldning i dese hidor risa sonmanhang (Stekhole: Diakonsyrels Forlag, 935). aNGoren Kierkegaard etre Sekidning med kid arse vit bereppet “Den cnskile™ (Socom: Diakosinyeies "38. orp, Moen, Chron Melbeck (195)- EN lohan Ludvig Heiberg UI (94) ean, Prithiot, en age Saren Kierhepcard (Copenhagen: Levin te Muakaguards Pol, 13). ‘Brand, Frith, and Rams Be, Sren Kirkepard og Pengene “Copenhagen: Levin & Musksgard 93) Brétien, Emile, History of Phioropy, vol Vi, The Ninctenth "Century (Chicago: Univesy of Chicago Press 668). Bayar, Wills, and Stengren, George Ly The Reich of Learning (New York: Putnam, 168). Buber, Martin, “Upphivande aw etken” Ev eit, en eld, RUN, Anthen (955) 9p 9457 Bugg, K-E, Stolen jor Liver (15). Chevalier, acquey Histor dels Pende LIV (19551964). ‘Ghrnensca, Arild, “Zed Kirkeguadstodien” Spmposion Kirke nardian (1955), PP 34 Erm Sea Kicskegaards Inddeingspeici." Kierkegaard ena (1959), 21-97 a sscenRiesKepandt Indviduainspincp” Den tele. uk Tider (95). Cchatensen, Vill, Seren Kieeguords Ve til Kristendommen (Copenhagen: Mankigaaed, 95) Clausens H. Ny Det Nye Testaments Hermenestit (840) see Optepnelier om mit Levneds og min Tide Hire (187) ‘Connell, Desmond, The Vision of God Malebranche's Scholae "Sources (New York: Homans Pres 167) CCopleston Frederick, A History of Phlovphy, vo. "Fete to ‘Neewarhe™” (Westminster, Maryland: The Newinan Pres con ay the oni fe Comedy 8 Se adr hl od Ser Pn mm Gate cen | ._—=—_santritzizis:is;s’ Di ee ature Ga, Than Ra 9) —enfemet Deal of Extnce (9). a ogre + Philoophie wad Chrientum bei Soren Kierkegaard (Mu ich: Kaiser, #9) Diltey, Wilhelm, Die fugendgeschchte Hegel (Berlin, 1915). Erdmann, Johann Eauaed, Grundvisr der Geschichte dr Philo sophie, edo. (878). PLB und Sel ach sem Begrf wad ire Verklnis 2 cinander (Halle 183) Ficht,Immanvel Herman, Beirage sur Charateis der meweren Phiovphie (1838); 30 e. (381) — Ueler Gegenat, Wendepanks und Ziel hewtger Pio “phe, 3 sls (8321838). alpaca der dle Zakoofe der Theslgi, in trem Veshiltnine 28 Speklstion uad Mythologie” isch far Phiarophie wed spekaltive Thealoge (1839) Fischer, Kuno, Geschichte der neuern Piovophie and ed. (19:1). Forchhammer, Peer Wilhelm, Die Ashener und Solvates: Die (Gevcilichon und der Revolution (383) Fi Ol, Danck Literetarhistori TV (195) Garlick, Heshert M, The dn-Chrdionay of Kerkegard (The Hague: Marinas Nijho 195). Geinar, Eduard, Soren Kierkepoord, hone Limuditing op For {atesrkromed, 6 vol. (Copenhagen: GEC. Gads Fata teab8) Gila, Benne, The Christian Phisrophy of St. Thomas Aguinar (New York: Random Howse 195). Grate, G, Gy Die Salbnaufaung des elisicben Glabens, ine ‘elgions-pbilovopircke Studie aber Kierhegaerd (163). Geass, Rabe, The Grek Myths (New York: George Brazile 55). Vibe, gut Lerbuc de chicken Gans (83). Himane, Nils, Phlphie der deutschen Ue, 08 (Gs). Hat Kai Hater rete oder Dogri der evenelch Tuherichen Rice heed ol (Lepi.189). Hag Sty Seder ower D. . Monrad om regi Psoliged Go) Hei ehan Ludvig, "Det opie Sytem. Fese Afbanding indcolcndePaaiapbere 23° Poses, Na» (838). Re- frites Johan cig Ferg Prone Sie, vol > {opentage: C- A Retacs Pra, 86).a ingot [icskepnad, Spten, Eiter(Or, 2 volt, tans, Waker Lowrie (Peaceton: Prineton Unicity Press 144 1959) ST Reur cad Trembling snd The Sickness Unto Death as. Walter Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton Univerty Press, 195. JohennesClinacu: or, De Ormibus Dubitendum Est sod A Sermon trans Te, Croxal (Stanfod, Californi: Sanford University res 1958). The foun of Kierkegaard, seed and rans, Alexander ‘Dru (New Yorks Harper Torhbooks 195) Siem Kierkegoar's Journals nd Papers 7 vols ed and Twins Howard Vi Hong and Edna H. Hoag (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University res, 19871978) A Liters end Documents, tans. Henle Rosca, Kiere- Toords Writings, vole XXV (Princeton: Prieeton Uaiversty Pres 178). On thority end Revelation [The Book on Adler, ans Walter Lowcie (Princeton: Princton University Pres, 19555 reprinted, Harper Torcbook, 196) SS Phitoophicel Fragments, introduction and commentary by ‘Nie Thularup, cans, David Swenson and Howard V. Hong, tnd teved edt (Princeton! Prinewon University Pres, 19). A, The Point of View for My Work a1 an Author, a0 ater Lawrie (New York: Hapet Toctooks, 1) The Present Age and The Difeence Between o Gens and ‘a po, tana. Alezander Dru (New York: Harper Toce- ook 199) 5 Parity af Heart 1 10 Will One Thing, wans. Douglas V. ‘tere (Nev York: Harper Terchbooks, 93 194. Repetition, scans, Waker Lowe (Pinecon.Princeon ‘University Pres, 94) Saget on Lifes Way, cans. Walter Lownie (Princeton Prine University Pres, 1940). — Thonghtcon Crcil Situations in Haran Life ans Da id Fs Swenson (Minneapolis Augibury Publishing House, 1). a Training in Chron, as, Waler Lowrie (Pineton: Princeton University res ton) Two Agere and tens. Howard V. Hong and Ena H. Hong, Kierepeurd's Weng, sl XIV (Princeton: Princeton Uaniversicy Pres, 1978), 2s sisopaty —, Works of Love, tans. Howaed V- Hong and Ed H, Hong, ‘(New York: Harpe Torebooks, 196). B. Stony Sounas Abbagnan, Nicol, Stra dell Poof and ed (163). ‘Ales: A.D, Den ierede Subjective’ dens viigese Skkkeer Gt). Popudie Foredras over Hegel bjecie Logie (1), ‘haus, By Die Theloge Martin Lathes (if). ‘Ammondicn, Waldemar, Siren Kierkepeards Unedom (912). ‘Andere, Oskar, Bistop Hans Lane Martenen, Hans Li, Ud siting og arbeide (93) Andersen, Vilhelm, Goth,» vol (9153916) ee Miuareret dark Litertarhiore vl 1 (33). Pout Mgr Fee Cio of Sheer, 3 Ud (i). Tike op Typer af dans and Hire (18). ‘asinas, Tha, Expostio nper libra Boctht De Trine (Rome, Torin: Maiti, 1930). > Summa Contrs Genes (Rome, Turin: Marit 193). Stmna Thetoie 5 vos (Madd: Bibles de Avores iiianos 1951. ‘Aries Skat, HEL. Mates (93). ‘Bangs K. Mogi far Chron Lindberg (95). Bagge Pork DG. MonadsStasanker (1936) ‘Banh, Heinrich, “Kierkegaard, der Denke" Zwishen den Zeiten (Munich, 65). Ban, Kash Die protetenche Theloge im 19. Iarhunders (ae. ‘aus, Gy Die obriiche Lebre om der Verethnang in ihrer feschictichen Eatwictlng von der sen Zeit Bi af die fenene (188), ‘Bejtholn, Lary, Meddeeens Dinetit, (Copeshagens Musk ard 92). Benkton, B (98) Beyer, WR, Heget Bilder, Krk der HegetDewtungen (16). Bills Jase Ff, Danmarks Diptera volt (99) Bache My Hiory of Formal Lope, tani ano v0 “Thomas (Nae Dame, Indiana’ Univesity of ‘Notre Dame Pres 1961) ‘Dew natuligateologins problem hor Kal Barth— eS, ‘Sos Dinner th Dahan Swedish spb raped Be ey were ag Tay pneu erad oes |A. Prauoay Sovncts (Heo avo Krsncxonts) 1 Dasich and German ‘Basid, HP ey Kirhepuard Eterlade Papier (16:81, Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedic, Sniche Werke, Jubii abe, ef Hamann Glocknet, 0 vols. (Seutgat: Frommann, tgari9g ate 95) ‘ierkegardy pre, Sfiatend wvidenshabelgEftersteilty wie ‘net indedaing og Kommentar af Niels Thuis, 2 voli (Copestagen: Gyenda, 163). ST Eimiede Varker of. 8B. Drachman, JL, Heiberg, and HHO. Lange, and ed, LXV (Copenhagen: Gyldendalse Bog andl, 12099). a" semlede Varker, ed, A.B, Dracheana, JL. Heiberg and THO. Lange, 3rd od revised by Pee P. Rohde, 20 (Copen Ingen: Gyldcdal, 19584578) Seen Kierepaards Paper, ed P. A. Heiberg and Victor ‘Ruhr, and expved dion, ed. Niels Thubteop, with index (ole XIV.EV1) by Nils Jorgen Capplien, 25 vols. (Copen- agen’ Gydendal, 968-7). “Thulsrp, Niels ely Breve of Akuiyker sedrrende Soren ‘Rierkegsard 3 wo (Copenhagen: Monksgaar, 19531959) 2 English ‘Transations Hegeh, Georg Wilhelm Pidvich, Aesthetic: Lecares on Fine Art, 2 oly tran. T, M, Keox (Ovford: Crendon Press 1975) SEiny Theologica Writing, tans. TM. Koox (Chicago: ‘University of Chicago Prensa reprinted, Univesity of Pensslania Pres 197) —S Lectares on the Hiory of Philosophy, 3 vol tans, ES. aldane and Frances H, Sion (Londoa’ Rouledge & Kegan Paul 1963) 2 grey Lectures om the Philosophy of Religion, oe, tes. EB. Spees and J. Burdon Sandeson (New York: Humanises Pres 198). Thess Logi (Pax ofthe Bneyclopedia| tans. Willan Wllice (Oxford: Clarendon Pres, 182). The Phenomenology of Mind ans J.B. Bile (Landon Alla ¢ Unwin, 19) =, The Philoroply of Fine drt 4 volt aos. PPB. Ormaton (New York: Hacker Are Books, 175) The Phasophy of History, wan. J. See (New York: Dover Publstiony, 955). = Hegel Philosophy of Mind [Pare sof the Encylopedia) veins Wiliam Wallace (Oxford: Clarendon Pres, 84,1971). a" Pherophy of Right tans, T. M. Kaox (London: Oxlord Universi Press 153) — Hegts Scene of Loge 2 vols rans. W- 1. Johnston and 1G. Srathers (London Allen t Uawi, 125). — Hiegts Science of Logie, tans, AV. Miler (London: Al en fe Unwin 199) ictkegnrd Seen, Armed Newry and An Open Leter, tans "Howard V. Hong and Edaa H. Hong (Bloomington, Indiana Tiana University Press, 98). Hack Upon "Christendom tans Wales Lowrie (Pine ton! Princton University Press 194). —Ghnitian Diseurer, ane. Waker Lowrie (Peacton: Princeton University Press, 9) 1 The Concept 0} Dres, ans. Waker Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton University Pres 1957). The Concept of Irony, tans. Lee M. Capel (New York Harper & Row, 195) a Cntuding Uncen Poster ane. David F-Smenon ‘nd Walter Lowee (Pnceton: Princeton Univescy Pres, ED) Ghia the Life of a» etre tans. Stephen Ces (Lon: ‘don: Clinss New Yerk: Harper Toechbooks 19). ‘Bling Discourer, 2 vole, tan. David F- Sweoun and Lilian Marvin Swetson (Minneapolis: Avgiburg Pebshing Howse, 196). éifing Dixcourser. A sleion, wan David F. Swenson ‘snd Lillian Marvin Swenson (New York: Harper Tarchbooks, 193.1 Coveremen “The conclusion of the investigation in ths chaper can be biy ated “Corepunding to dhe examination of Kierkegaard’ Papier from this period (Chapter VI pra, sertiny of the Works reveals that ‘Kirkegaard id notin any patieulaly extensive degree seem 0 Ihave continued any genuine sady of Hegel during these years. AL though in this area we can sae only more ores well funded. “Conjectures it anit thee necessary reseratione—be aid that there is very lite wo indcate tat Kierkegaard read Hegel “even teen whole volumes” from begining end. On the contrary, he {many quotation and allsons" show shat he parla inven- ively and with neveralackening ral attention read inthe seren- {een whole volumes in Phenomenology of the Spin in The ‘Satnceof Logi, in bth the litle Philrophische Propideti and the rge Encyclopedia of the Philorphial Science, i. the hitovephy of Righh, inthe Lecarer on Pine Aton Philorophy of Religion, on the Piloophy of History, and on the History of Philvophy. Only the sesion oa the pilosophy of nature in the Encylopedia seins ta hove let 0 mark on Kierkegaard. Perhaps head not read ea all perhaps be thought that Sern had spoken thou ie sufcieny In addition to thse there would be his reading of the wating ofthe Hegelas, together wih the ant-Hegeian fogian ‘Trendleburg’s works and articles especialy. ‘Nor can we sy that Kirkeguad's over irerpreaton of Hegel incl changed sgnieanaly during this period Te became more ttibing, and on varios points (logs, philosophy of history, ethic fie) it became more profound; bat Kerkepuard did ot wish 10 be aor wat he, a historian of philoophy. His eflors were aot Primarily directed toward undereanding and presenting, Heels Blwrphy-—ae Chalbsus, Edman, Michel, and others in his Time dnd nowhere inhi work (ay more than in is Papier) ‘do we find even an outline of coherent presentation of Hels floophy. We ind quotation alons scaunts of Hegel's views tn invidal topes and probles most ofen very eo connected ‘Mids rita ctluation The natural explanation fo ths isthae the Ina thing for Kierkegnard was to work out his own Authorship {ind toca the problem that appeated whim as exiting thinker. ‘tnt a posite Mei nd exe nthe revit mented dion of Riaparé wots wih coments, an coneaon Both she diet, and the a lease equally important indirect cashes vith Hegelinn speculation ae ast were, concomiat ercumstances {h the Authorship. He found this clash elled for mainly on the brio he fat tha aecording to his inerpreation of Hegel phils fophy it consined a. wrong. anthropology 20d. reprehenble theology, and partly on the buss ofthe face thatthe rightwing Hegel espoclly Martnse, employed the methods sod alleged revit of Heglan philowphy in thology, which thereby in Kierkeguand+ esimste, was completly corrupted, Thecupon ‘Kierkegaard undertook both an evalsion of Hegels owa system va totaly, expesilly with relrence oie method and latetion, bt without noteworthy zfeence to (or knowledge of) thi system's storal and special principles and an evaluation ofthe Hegelian ‘Specially the rightwing Hegesnr, stem to go further San ‘legel Tp both eases the evustion war completely negative.Conding Unni Poni ‘hinge pst, expecially the world historia, and if one ignores ‘elfunderanding, hen one can atin to condarions i the ad ‘onl vena while dint fom tha, whats chracterii of the Sobjectve ari that he cannot farish eonlsons a alin he ‘Now speculative thought tis atrted has come othe conclusion tha it has uderstoad Chrsianty both in its words Tegiinacy and in ts fundameatal uth, to which i ded the re nar that teens smo to have done sal greater work of ar, tty to gp farther onthe othe ide of Chistnity so tat it has teal eturned to esthendom: one bat got a soeiled Christian ‘pectin onthe eoreal evel just as on the paca level we ve eached the pone that everybody chinks that he is Chistian, ‘Set over agit this conse ate of airy, em frst be made ‘ear what Christianity and heathendom are in thee pore sate, tefore there cn be any posible talk of “mediating” them—as sperlative thought has done woo hasty. This cafeation was wi ‘estaken in the Philovophieel Progmerte The conclusion was that the central point of Chriianty te paraxial, that i x not ay ddoctine in the speclaivepiloophical sense (ce especially the ‘ote om p39 ofthe Porte, but expenses an exten con- teadicon, namely tha an exsting ran’ ceroal salvation is worked fut in time, through the fat that e elas himvelt to something that paraxial hs become historical, togeber with the fat cat ‘Chisianiy is communication of exitnce (Kerygms, a ite fe quently called owadays, ie i eats one to patie in the tue existence, which is a0 ireconcable conta t specslaton, {lnc to follow the path of speculation sans to ee fom the ethical rely of exitene i quite the same way atthe etheteatitude toward fei igh frm realy "Thee is no cominvows or gradual ranstion from non Faith to ath this anton can take place only by 2 leap 0 thie aon. elves saying tht the way of spculition cannot be felowed by an ‘iting man. Specsstion cannot incorporate the problem of the ‘Ponsript a all Te i speculative philsophy there i any alk of leap what is meant by ti wometing emily dierent. TE there is any tlk of Fut, what i meant by iis something ently it ferent TE thx i any ta thereof pathos, wha i meant by ies ‘something entirely diferene fom the exiting man's ifn ansity for his eternal alvaton If they speak of cles, wat is meant there i omehing emiely diferent from the quaative dale » onclaing Utne Rosie ‘of fat which belongs within the sphere of fedom, which is us Known to pecultion, but t9 which sphere all poblem of existence Telong. That an exitig mats passionate concern transforms this ‘man's whole existence cannot come within the purview of specu: ‘don, Th, the pouty abjaive thinkers devote themselves Spcuating about cannot be spoken ofa all excep a a mien prsbilay of + ype similar to the dlmeresed ehee’spyeudo- post, about which speolton knows thing Spsclative. thought iy unaware of and canot incorporate cisentl patos; nor i it aware of nor ean i aclu existe Aisle, which ihe second moment of Faith, a paths its ise moment, This dials ie present from the fact that the easing ‘man shoul eelte imwef 10 the paradoxical revelation of Christ fa! expes thi relation in hit own existence, which even Before the encounter with the sevelation of Chris i paradoticl in the wider sens by being pt togetbers ayaa Upon the encounter ‘with hit revelation it becomes paredosical ina narrower sense by {ing bound to svat nether ean nor shouldbe reveals Jodge Wiliam fom his lowee ethical age demanded tu ving in the hidden interior, tempt the coizer movement inward ela ing one elatvly to the relative, abstly to the abot ‘Sprite thought kaows abou the sages onthe way of knowl ‘edge; but i does nt Know and cannoe include the sages on the sway ofextenc, Ife’ way—which teans the way to the tre ie, ‘hat of Faith. rainy speculative thought recognizes gl and sin, tnt aot as eitentlly crcl element only 3 Felive ompoaents in the allravising sytem, where ching is stable, whereever thing i in Bax. Speculative though i hopeless poopy sin. ply by the strength of st special lglg and itis imponbe as theology fom the fet thar wishes to conceive that which is Ihumanly imposible wo coesve, suey the paradox. In Kerke- ifard’s views speclatie thought, expecially in Hegel's venion, ‘elnge in moseum for coma and uns discoveries Brey decribed, suche Keskegaad's understanding and eal sion of Hegelan speculaon in Conelading Unscintife Portript Sd iti onthe bus of this overall iterpretion that che many Individual pins whee cits rendered again one or another thing in Hegel must be undertaod Tis pot assay necessary to follow thee individ items pols fo point inthe present say, Since sch 2 pus hasaleady een undertaken st leat fe the ‘maori of them inthe eon ofthe work already meatoned.m% Goncding Unie Paint fon the concur, the rejection je complete and ie bred on hin Snthropolgy a well on the seolgy that gts his achopology ie meaning and justicaon: “Then i it shown im the Posscrps how Kierkegaads whole previous Authorship contains 4 rained indret polemic agsinst ‘peclation. Speculation har ignored the problems of existence and Inisonstrucd the relition to Chriianty by uodertanding i az harmonious isead of dicharmoniou “Aer hit (pp apf) he develope im greater deal dhe theory of tbc abject andthe aabjectve thinker in a continued diet Sod indrcs aah with Hegel in uch 2 way tha iis on continuous errboratin ofthe chief entation ofthe prevent dy, that at bot tom Hegel's and Kierkegaard thought have ating in common, ‘ren hough there fe may contact tt clearly show Kirkegaard’ ‘dies and hs taking af postions fs wth regard to the Hegehans lone, then wih regard fo Hegel hime and Boaly inthe same ‘lege toward Both the mater and hie ditples equally included in the common deigaton “speculation” of "he sytem.” “The proces of clafcaton—or the wry of a cure a P. A “Heiberg clled iin anotber connections continued. There ‘sno need to mention more tha afew tpi instances of to to give an insight ito ie course and seu “The Pevtpt aise that aburace thinking is undertaken under the perspective of eternity, and i lake sway from exenee, which cannot be in the txnguiity of eee, but is always in ces n Becoming, aie the word in which the ak of existence Fetobe solved. Then it mntin that thinking extence,sbjaive ‘hou, far Som being eer than absrct inking on the entry, mare df, since it ee i to ehik (and in faith wo felt oneself to) the individual, not the univer fone thinks of the univer ins purely abstract way, oe can speak ony in priciple offer example, immorality but onthe bai of abaract thinking (Gd for Kierkegaard hie geniney comical sation, p37) fone cannot expen himel onceraing a single, existing man's i iso a Nigly speed way of rocking entice been opions of ‘ons Matai and/or Been hie omm tough td fat a te ‘if oe wih to le hi sop an aptly, on wl have toy to nd imamate ab ap there tone wth tne ow the sive pth Roly oF Concding Unie Potcrine ‘morality. Comespondingly, Hegelian philosophy maintains that the Principle of contadicion as been overcome, snd in tit respect fe can be core inthe realm of pure though and pure beng; ut boeing man finds himvel in these pre spheres, 0 tht the ‘hrogaton af the principle of comraditio is val) without Sa tere" However, fone maitaine that the abrogation ofthe pia: dpe of condition i alo valid inthe sphere of exitene, then ‘hr aserson fatal, ice in thin case mean the aon of the dilerence between good and eil and thus of all bie, and con fisenly enough the sytem has no ethics inthe tational sense titer, whereas for the exiting man, the sabeive thinker, the teh the oly important reality, hs absolute interest as he puts ‘A lite later he asserts shat even if one grants legacy to sgeciation (here represented by Roserana’ Prycologie and ‘iel’s Phenomenology ofthe Spit) in ts mockery of the ancent threfld division of man into body, sul, and spi, and concedes Ik the mere of ving defined man ar spit and wihia ths ex plains the elements of soul conciousness, end spint a develop ental levels in he same subject, til it doesnot follow from this that we can, without farther adoytranfer this om the word ist toccl developmen othe individual (pp. 3893). When, without fore qusliiextion, somone anes that the unfolding of world [story ad ofthe individual proceed ident this must indiste that in each generation only imperfect copies of man te boro— who together in all thi impertecton should produce the peceet, Wold soy, Sige tii hate abjectv hiker’ ito under. stand hisuelt in his exvence (p. 34), and in order to fll this tank be must we imagination aswell ae feling and thinking thet {ee docs not accomplish the tack “iene” (speculatively) but athe de of the work alo sys untientfcaly aban ari "To undersand one in existence was the Greck principe, senile in Socrates, ai isthe Chitin prince, except th find with Christy the tel ha obsined far exper determina: ‘ns than Grece had the capacity to give it. Howeve, he specular te proiple i it shonld he snary formulated, peeped ignore lbundrstandng forthe rake of en understanding of every. ‘Hayman in the cel redg af he Por, ny be tier Kichgpid ha aly peo he be Ioan boy in “The “Empat ew tsConcuing Vsti Pont plac it must happen by alp-whichcbjecne, speculative plo phy dos not reaoprize "existence a human isan wncompleted exience, inthe future, in proce within time, and if loge is essentially temporal, then ‘exunly 2 logis phiorophial system ean be formated but act 2 sat of being, The enence 10 which every human is bound i Ayoamie. Logi on the other hand, state Hence Hegel tempt to bing moverent imo logic, so as thereby to be ale ta work out 1 Tog! sytem of being san imposible endeavor. If existence fe human je an unfisabed endesvr, thea the efore mos i al ‘drumeance be an effort toward one of another goa, and con feqoentyethce becomes eri The exsiog man's endeavor i tinply an expresion of bis ethical sttude (p10) provided by whatever gale strives for, HegeTs attempt (Inthe Phiflorphy of Right) to nettle the ei endeavor by declaring ite ebicl {oil achieved only showy, then—in a Geld ether than the logis {he imposibity of the stem: it hlds tar ii alnclasive, but Blacks the mow imnportant thing ethics. The sbjeive thiaker ‘sin the fil analysis interpret che whole speculative endeavor 43+ comical atempr to do what is imposible for an existing human. In genera speclaon does not recognize the peoblems of niece, for hey ae evidently only puto problem thas com fered things in logic by trying to incorporate movement iat i, while ignoring eth, All fits guidance hasbeen misleading, The ‘ving man’s dechion, his etal choice, is ao recognized by ‘peclation, Tested, oe el i the word torical The sts thon is no bezerefen with the concept of eth, with which the ‘exiting man har a duty to come into the right elation, This concepe fan be defined expiry er iealitiealy, bat in eber cae iis ‘td a something objective. In aster ofthese two inant is tra sought i the way that he xing individual muse sek tamely tach as subject, im which the exiting subject has day to immerse himeelé. The ecogaiion of wath that can be tn the Passrpt ge Ceuely the expesign “warn see” ic sed ype wi periion” Ife el te eignoe "det ‘lone eye nod denied i Inthe coer m2 lctert ten deve mul bao ew ay Im ing Post (nop tempera iru; totearenpng smug fe fo mle ‘tie canes a te perp ray upd head a2 iting atl nly win hry a Oe rte Man ‘gen Kod of progres by hich se gas bck os Conaaing Unie Pott hui inthis way i defined as essential, whereas ll ther kaow- dg i unimportant Beeause does noc concer existence, Know ‘age gained in the tonal way, a4 for example, mathematal Knowledge, as wll as kaowledge obtained in the empitcl 2), such a historia knowledge, mus thus be asiied a uimportat, wl the alleged speclatie knowledge i neither important aot ‘inimportat, bot simply an expenion of fasay. ‘Bren without taking Christianity directly into consideration, one cx a Sates ha en ay tha bei ‘On the other hand, from she Chrnian perspective subjectivity ‘i mtrth, 2, the exising man is in sng wheres the truth that by taterng into ime becomes the partdox (cl. Phowphial Frag ‘ments cant now emerge trough mia’ self knowledge (which in is higher development results ia. Sorat ot speculative, sl Knowledge), bu emerges through a divine revelation of the eenal ‘ruth which has Become present inti, “The truth ofthis revestio, the paradox inthe Chitin seas cannot be undertood speculatively ithe, That i speculation, by ‘denying the absolute diference between God aod_ man, withes to abolih the paradox and therewith thac on which Ctestanity stands oF fall Simla, speculation wishes to abolish the pat ori of si, faith andthe forgiveness of sn "The colon of thee recone up to his pint, if in spite of Cimacus's (ie. Kierkegaard) admonition against peaking of ‘eacluvons in 4 wobjetve thinker, we can so sen i then hat Speealiton has misconstrued what it means tobe buraa, since it Understands ran, at Jae the speculative man, as simply cea ‘which no exiting man ser cane, Quite im the same way i has Inisunderstod what Chilstaniy i since recaltion wibe 0 con- ‘ive the inconceivable. If thas minunderaned the ewo dimen tions the te determination of their mutual relations given snd Barimoniovsreltion is a dinorted determination "Thus in the Poterpt there is no evidence that Kierkegaard ‘benevolent intends to employ cern viewpoints and ingredient ‘fom the Hegelian system co modify hem, complete ther, silly to the way astra helene through she ages have dane with oer philoopherr—as for example, Aso, Kany, Heidegger” "One igh ala real te “eee hese inerreson” technique mich te Chin bat of he ar mie aps vegeene Point Conading lem ofthe wath of Cristy and comes wo the conchsion that on the way of objecvty an exiting pton can scarcely sce the subee- tive problem ofthe individual's ction to Critianty. Te the mala porto ofthe work he deals with the subj pole il a {he same time deepening his anthropology and hie theology and ‘lacing them ia constant confit with Hegel andthe right wing, Hegeiane expecially Martenen, whose name, however, he docs oot mention except i the drafts fr the work “The procedure employed by the subjective thinker, who is com stanly sen in oppnition tthe objective, eth peculativ hiker, dcr ot uilize the Hegelian daletical method, but as che sab tie express, is mimic, pathetic, and die: The result isnot tnd war oot supposed tobe “scent” ie, objective and specu: tive, but preci in opponion thereto: aa unscentic exieial entributon, which soresponds exactly with man egal ax exst- ing (om one of the stager outlined) in tntrth unt he moment when Chrisianey communists 19 man exlsence in truth, and thereby both expune ad judges che lower stages of exinence TI we compre the presuppositions, goaly and methods of Hegel and Klrkeguard only inne as they have bees belly described here and in what ha leady been side becomes evident that the two thinkers as thinkers Bacally have nothing in common. ‘Obvious his reitionship does nt exciede a malstude of com ‘act on parla points onthe pat of Kierkegaard s for example, in termnology, in the interpretation of histrial’aed individ Philompil phenomena and the like; but if the relation i Isaly a as been presented er, then cis inherently abvins why Kieskegaard 2 relety and reenledy, diay apd indie Ty andenook his confrontation with Hegel and his diiples. He dio because, in hit view, the specaationrepeeeated a disor foncet of man and a ditored concept of Chetan, ven if Spevltin could speculatively apprehend everything powsble other than the indvidenl man and his eoret relation to Chrsiany, ierkegard found i at bee trivial and at wor, dinacting fama ‘what ws for hin the ony esti thing "Now is the rlaonship acy ar it as been sketched and claimed hee? This questa can Best be answered from the Cam ‘lading Unicentife Poaucrpt ill, not by presenting once more nd interpreting whole though content but by making ela ts reasoning with parcularemphass onthe aspects that have diet Significance for understanding the ration to Hegel Concbing Unite Paerint Inia, tbe Tovoducion sys tha the problem of dhe sing exiting individual slain to Chetan ued, and {Catatntind that the aida enon oe ange oly tye then ater nol schlaraiy pval Het ot alos seston (peril the Iter which cms go yond’ ath ara given pin of depatre, nota culmination aster Kiecegard ce hl Porth ete pinto iw thre the pole ofthe th of Chistian in toe th forte xing an. Tha he “Spee acount cancer be hth one wrk obtain {neatly rable seu of wha he Chiation dosti rely i (Coneding Uncntic Poti 25), oe be eel theo tat oe sk though the way of mug to eonepraiae fd they philvphily valle the teh Chen, Bat the pen sheenising ma’ relion to Chisonty dos ot merge ol forte cbjtve acount, wher hitaia be Gtsron the path of hitoral reach we cannot reach beyond probly toca, or sealtie, beee the speculative ap fevsch mlvndervandr be wh Cian ad wt Ste humn Aer thi harp cash, which rela in a ample jon af Hegelian sgcunion in wich what is fr Reskegard the {cil problem, she sje problem ofthe individual elation {2 chen cana emerge) the qosion of haw man be Sdrtod tbe sao nd hi me doe 0 tha the ‘ubjeive pete can appear. thi conneson the poem of Phovophied Frapment how Chesanity sould be defn, i ee lows he ajc hk nhc Lloes Leng is taken a «yp of jee shiker wholes hime nde fon nether «stem tor Shed oncuins wal bu whoa subjesie shir street in'hi own uncomplcdengence which atl ia» proce of be ‘ming [orden] and in the way of ght. Like every eng ituman the sobjecve thinker has the eternal within hy while he iin teaorliys bu he ds no ike the oj tinker, be ‘en addr othe sppoiion tht Sine irony becoming eral “The pardon for she see thinker ais fm the et that Cheataniy cams hat rnge am abate rth ito time and Aleman the decion of ehry individ eising haan in tine There cm be no tall of aay saghfrwardtaniion frm ‘Anca elt othe ternal econ. Inston ito takem ratte Posie 17, Conduding Unsciemic Pasript In each ofthe foregoing pueudonymous works, Kierkegaard dealt via singe sin theme, withthe reat that along the way be Aiely aod indirely wok up related questions for dscsion and ane to overal colons tht dino agze with those of spel tive thought. Inthe Porverpit there is also only one singe main fqesion, nately, how man must be comstiwted s that there an ‘ny problem al of how man enters into the corzect relation to Christianity. But while working out the solution for this main ‘question Kieskepuard discus so many other problems of log, Tretaphysic, ets and the philosophy of history thatthe work is onftontation aot jist with Hegel but with the ewo tadions ge sought co calcein his system, andi its posite conent the pot of departore not oaly for Kieskegaerds own further Work fsa thinker but alo for the philosophical and theologial dre of ltr times" TAs in the foregoing prewdonymous weeks so in the Posteri ierkegaed is completely unsympathetic toward Hegel. In only 2 ‘ery few places t ese, dae e mention Hege! andthe Heglians by ame, bu speaks inead of "speculation" ihe rodecn spel ton "the Sytem,” “Christan Speculation,” “the since." These terms mean basicly the same thing, and che designation "Un ‘iu in the tile was obviouty chown to underscore the dif ference, "That Kierkegead is completely unaympatheic ward “specu: vio’ ss fequent aad trikngly emphasized inthe Porrpt, both inthe work ie and inthe eeatre abou Kiskegnard hat ‘Rul be soperfuous to deste tin moe detail onerore ine. ‘On the other hand it perhaps nt superBoous to eck claritin of why he was unsympathetic ‘This queion can be answered in wo ways: one way is 10 Jyetgate all ofthe many specie Insanoes where the text of the tg the tofain and Commer oe mp [Dass eon of the nding Unie Pos) ave ed my ended Fiabe tod Cty ate pce pany fg wl GL Ricker aie postion md fe pesption nt oee ‘four e tought ea inte Cooma. hi aon the ear il eT endef al tena ease of hot be might mast he feat teamen ei doo wake dn wih x epidon of e ‘Sete vlan ialrmaon an totam nection of ‘he Posy ty sd eae m oncaing Ute Poort ‘work has diet or indict contact with one or another specie Item io Hegel atin hie llowers'This way is fellowedin he Com- Imentaty cited in note 4 The second way o deal with thie ques. ‘om et poe ther simple questions for Kerkegar’s work, read the anwers we find in the work, and shen poze the same three _queions fr Hegel and ascertain his answers. The answers conan the determination ofthe bac elation betaeen the tw thinker but since the anewers in ach cae ate given Irom deiite prep. pstions and postions, we must, inorder to understand the ques. tions completely, make thse presvppston clear If there quewions sre caifed fir, then we cap undersand specie pola in the ‘core periestiv. This procedure was flowed inthe Inroducon mentioned in note 4 (Pr). "Enea if thse qoesons have already been pursed in both ways this doesnot mea thatthe nsners we Rind ay all hat canbe sid Jn eipnae nor does hi meas that ths i he only posable way of inverigating the mater "Three questions can be posed in order to clarify the poblem, i in all a problem, of why Kiekeguard i wo totaly hole speculation snd al i deeds and all its odious practices: what ‘hie resupontions do Hegel and Kierkegaard have, respectively? ‘What goals did they at for therselver in ther work at authors? and What procedures did they employ to bain thei goals? Ta the cat of Hegel these quesons have ben snstrered above (Chapter V, seson 36). Kierkegaard postion in the Porteript ‘hal be considered hee ‘Kierkegaard’ main presuppositions canbe dlnented quite bi tcaitinal loge i formal peincpes for Heel eis speculative logiy Kiekepaands concrete principle is Chrsianty undersood tthe abolute communication of exisene; for Hegeh Chris ‘ani ivan imperfect version of the sre euch that receives is pefet formation inthe seca sytem, and mani egarded Sra created but deswoyed synthesis wh, as exiting, doesnot ‘ose the epaity for recreating the sates, ‘Rirkegerd’s aim ia the Posueipt (with which the previous ‘Athrshp fe inladed), ist anewer the question of how erery Single individual can eater int the erect relation to Chris, which i not considered a docine in the pilowphical sense, but tea quite definite Kerygm, «communication of existence, as be filed i "To obtain thi goal, he Sst answers the socalled abjetive probePetaet Just a toon ax they [Martens and his follower], by 2 Ble telegraphic bulletin, explain jas where they have arrived, then my foahdence in them wil be unshakabe™ (SV, V, 65; 5,295). Tht ‘xprenesprecly the atude toward Mareen that Kerkegaard doped several years eater (IA 7, ween in 1837)” With dct sim at Marcas it said in addon that Hegel had "known how to ec he whole of modern plosophy in such away thai ake 23 though he had completed everything, and everthing that went before ended toward him. Another [Martenen] now give simile ‘retention, a presentation tat i ndtingishsble tom Tle fren toaltrs Wendin. ad thea he dex concluding paragragh In which he estes chat e has gone beyond Hegel” (SV, V. 65; 243). This staring information puaaes Nicolaus Notbene’s Iniod Tis nt wid why, noe shuld an answer to this be demande {fone shares Hegel's view that his own philosophy, te allncive Jn which the whole and complete uth i conceived and prsated in the oly complete valid pilopical frm, not at the inter. rmediary, bot the absolute and finally valid condusion and high pont of the unflding, then one simply cannot go beyond Hegel, go frthee” along Hege's pat, for it stops with hit. One can oy, 38 showa inthe form ofthe expeviment in Philoophiea Prag meni advance by going back, ie, by completly abandoning the ‘wey of speculation, which only leads the indvidal essing human za. The highs thing atainable for phlxophy ie act speal five insight ut the Soest wisdom ones own ignorsne. "Nia Noubene, who thor wisber to tke on sperlaive philwopy, i aeoring to whit he says hil posbly v0 opi that pilcrophy wil karly bother about him. The qustion then is what infgence does this possible mpi have, inthe fre place, ‘on his existence as human and, inthe seco plc, om is ration to salvation He comes othe conclusion that porte pilowpher achieves salvation by his philosophy; but this seration i accidental. ‘There mus be something higher than speculative pilsophy, and this someting "is higher by vrwe ofthe fact that it inlades me nd similar poor wretches” IF that ie correct, bow Nicolaus ake Lan one continue to cll phloeophy the abolte? Ii i ot tht, Se mt in any ete ttt of whee totes ‘A second povilty is that Nicolaus Notbene isnot stupid but ® Pee Stubborn, and thus poopy wil have nthing to do with im, i eae sures that pilsophy ponetes the wut the ll debance willbe in vin against the power of the trth, He eexsone frter ‘hour this prsblity and aries atthe same conlaon ath ‘the ponlateof his mopiditys peculatve poopy is perhaps not the highest. inl, he could imagine a thie possily, namely hat bilo phy condescended to speak with him, thi pilowphial ouuider, fly eo ell im that phowphy defor the elite, © whom Nicolas dows no belong. To this Nicolas would reply (SV, Vs 731 5. 5>- S50) thar it would be most debe to obtain a revion of 2 wort adheres theory tht tx necnry for everyman, een the Tow spd or the most ebwinae to undertand phiophy- But if thre tno aed to rasp it then ane ean with peace of ind et the elte grap it while remsining withow oncre'—and wart a plowphial peidial, which cetalaly cannot become ether Speculitive or orthadox, Nicolaus hae cetaialy nt doubied about reythings bot he wl adds hel to thre who ¢ lst claim ‘hat they have done wn, and who preumably on atleast ome points Ihave gone further and son certian, no abou everything, but abou emehing ‘Kierkegard did ot begin sucha peidial and no rch dialogue ‘tween him and che Danish speculive thinkers emerged which could scarcely have Been expesed after mack a "Petae" He spoke in the ea they spoke in the west, and “the mediation” wa and remained an impos. seme eel ied de Sa nL vbich imply docs aac sketch sage slong the way of sponte knoll sch av Hegel peated iin he Phonome- ology ofthe Sprit, Nite thi, Kierkegaard published the Conlud- fing Unccensie Ponce ae the wa in which all he threads of the previous pedonymous Authoraip are guhered together, and In which in constant idee and direct confontation with specu tion in every conceivable version he made his theology and Sothropology sore presi in thee aie incomparlty with Hlge' and his iil ews. ‘This work wht etepnpiel dogo of he ee hie ager i: deer ed mer oe we oy oe an so) Seta lng dies syne ph bexe Pee bene’s “Light Reading for Individual Conditions According to ‘Time and Opportunity", Peluce, which appeared on the sme ay a8 The Concept of Dread (June tp, 18) te more srsightor- ward expecially in is many jibes at Heber ‘Kierkegard employed diferen weapons aginst speculation here than he did in his other weisngs He nether developed his own postive view, a Be did inthe books he publshal under his own ame, nor did he argue prycologaly, philosophical, or then Toglly agnaw Hegel and his cass followers 2 in the peudonymous work: Now he Began (and continued son afer in {he Posteri) co do as Poul Mallee did a the ead he showed the ‘comical aupect of thee energetic system building, but of couse, this was the comical acrdig eo his own concept of the comical, sch athe developed it inthe Pstrpt. "Even i the Birt "Preface ther is am outburst aginst thote who ‘only make promises about che ssem—withoutUviag upto them, fd in the fourth he gives 3 hint of what Heberg-whore dicue Son of Repetion in Urania be had not fogoten—coad expec. Hier’ pilsopicl efforts had come to stands, and now [Nicoaus Noten wil iadly emest to experts the judgment of the vale of Heibers "ater asonomial, astolgia, chiromant, necomantc, boospis, metoxopie, cronalogiel das" (SV, ‘as 7); bu i ot unt the seventh "Preface that Kick gard really gets down to Business, and then ia the lst "Preface the eighth, he deaws up his owa pla fora phlomphieal pedi "The ein in the seventh “Preface” dreted again “mediae tion” aginst the Hegelian imitators, unoriginal minds, who only pur togeter an cleventh book after ten previous anes onthe samme topic or who exnnot ph futher than th wellknown thought “ok the prospect ofthe hope ofthe system (SV, Vs 47 529), Nicolaus [Notsbene cannot himalf push tar enough sa 10 nerd all ‘mankind, but he wil Jat try to andereand himel, He cannot fica sour remark about the since (., speculative philosophy), ‘which a is me has completed evrything, aldhough fas vnfor- tunately forgotten the point ofthe wile thing (SVs V, 55, 339). (n the other hand he is quite sure that "our Systeatiars abd phlowphial opts wil nt ware thee Une om him, who ae nly taken a domestic journey within his own concousaes, abd hus in no way ines” oder apeculatons (SV, V, 5353; 5, Thee 80 Bagh anation of iBook of Kihei so ey of vero pet, Pa Pree 24) His devout request that no one “with the sid of medion” Tring him imo “the Systematic pelle’: box” was noe ently respected. Martens did nt pis up the pporunity for making Condeacending unaympatheticremacks which without mentioning Fim by name, Were lal. direed against Kirkegaed ip the prelace (pi) of his Den Chrincige Dogma (4p) 20d then In Den Chrstige Esk {Chistian Ethics] (5.295) w arange Kierkegaard systematicly [at sete K- par Potagrl). Filly, [Nicolas indiates that he Knows very wel that “the history of ‘modern philowphy begs with Deca, and the pllosophil [Ezy tle of how Being and nothing amalgamated thir def, = ‘hat becoming came out fi (SV V, 535,28) Tn clo arony with De Oneidur Dubitnda Et, the eghth Pretae” says that the diculy wih beginning a philsopicl pe- riod in Denmark (see Chgter VI setion 3 pra oa VA a0. ton) that he, Niclas Noubene (ls Kierkegaard) cant man ge to doube everthing be concentrated onthe more peactable task "to doubt all that dhe phloophizer undertaod, what they fail sod what came to Be ad. This doube i aot overcome in he Suter, urine" (SV, Vs 5755238), Indeed, i els nothing that philosophy conquers all dab if dou remains whether ong realy understand philorphy, and tht doubt cntot be enuely ‘ater ofindierence to people or 10 philosophy. Dire against Marensen (ef. hir leurs 08 dogmatic, dcusel spre Chapter Ison 4) it sad that tha tei wae sazly maitaned that wr noes for a Uneologian © be a pilsoper "in erder to beable town the demande ofthe Sime" (SV V3 5 28)- ‘but Nicol hel doubus wheter the demands ofthe time are lan what the ae require, and iti thie doube of his own that he ddesces eradcatedby begining 4 peadical who viewpoint he thes tobe defested. He feels ha his sie am be flied che legen philosophy that has oursbed for some sine in Des math (SV V, 5! 5 44) and has exlaioed abolcely everything, til go sep forher and explain ial and explain self for him to hate nay understand that which he haa not been able ound Sand wo far. Ifthe pare Hegeans (Helberg!) cannot peform this function, then he icone by the fact "that inthe land of my Wink thee ae a pilormphers who have gone beyond Heys "The Engh tania (of Mareen Goan venice) Chinn Dogma! {utah £7 Cn 16) tw noe mem sv he ror‘The Consett of Dreads Php Fragment ‘occasion i the “Inver” and eewhere to pur the furniture ofthe loi of hsory in he sight ple, Kierkegaard aw isha to sbow in experimental fashion wha pilovphial eases ("The ‘Souetic)atto sy aboot man's (ve every man's) elation to the truth, and what that impli if satin that he eur snot innate in man (ari maintained by Chrisianty, which, howeve, inthe Fragment is presented ae aa experiment which on eter im shoul be diferentand which appear to be quit diferent), Speculative Idea, in the version of Heel and the righewing leelaa, cus appeared to Kicskegaard tp be an wnenabe and ericoos commingling of two incompable dimensions [Sis for). Concerning Kieskegaar's procedural approach o demonstrat this the conceptual analy ia Phiovophicl Prgment te a ‘en to mention tit tent identical nor compat with Hegel's ‘altel meted, since the lope Kierkegaard wes is po the pec lave loge and she only zal eterion be recognizes forthe unde standing of Christianity, and therewith of man and mas relation tothe tah othe New Testament, For hin the indipptable point of departure was Chisiaity aa given dimension (Rota dacine in the philoophicl seme, bt an extent eommurizaion, ashe pit later in the Povterp, expecially in his fotote om 339) tnd the individual human as gives dimension. The a, then, ‘rat to show how there two givens can come ato dhe coreect mutual Felition and what consequences this produces, ot for Chriianty ich the specultve thinkers and thee ik wanted only to im prove and thereby solsh—but for man “According to Kierkegaard, the correct mutsl elation berween these two givens is cbained in only oe way, in the swtion of ‘ontemporanely, in which Ged Himself gives man the necessary Condition that man himelfacither har nor cam proce teagan, ante lat of the three point in Phiovophicl Frag. ‘ments where the base ratjon between Kierkegaard and Hegel ‘Hould be characterize, i appear that thir positions ae nt aly Siferent but incompable. "There ir o theory of contemporancy (in Kietegoard’s nse) in Hegel, Apert from what Kierkegaard otherwise thiaks of co temporancity a5 che requirement, man himelf doesnot have not ‘an he bring it about that he ener into the right relation with the ©, Lasig’ tsk (181) with thi le (Sutiiedens Sits) sp te Retin ih o> % Peter ncroate Trth.Tnamuch a this sa indispensable condition fs man's genuine undersanding of himself, then—smply from a Bhlbophic pciestive lone—the theory preserves (onthe level ‘€enstence ot jut on che level of theoreti kaowledge) a di fineon between subject and objet as iti ald in teditonal terminology. We do nt find aor ought we fo srk he idensy of subject and objet, sine that would entail fatal mivanception of the station of tan and his confinement in tempor exitencs, Ia Hegel on the other hand, precily the Wenty of subject and bjs i the speculative concept is maintained" which indicates thatthe theory ofeontemporancty in Kieseguard and the speclae tie cencee sided bythe dnlectcal method mutual eeude each neal the diferences re suse ia this way onthe thee pints en tioned sof no importance that both Kierkegaard tad Hegs, lithoogh in difereat ways and. with diferent base principle, tophasize the significance of the Tncaroatin, for thee is aathing in that which i précusry Hegelian or pardelaly Kierkegatd- ian. Nor does i entail anything of signifeance chat we can find in the writings of bth men other tradonsl dogmatic concept (i. ierkepars sequence la, salvation, redemption, jdgment, the fulness of time, reir, ete), sace both thee contet and their funtion ae diferent: fm Kieskepead they ar allimporant for Hlgel they are sally unimporant since the same rent ean be flsied for man in another way, namely with the help of the ‘lnlecical method and the ye, 6 Preface ‘As a role Kiekepuad didnot identify hit pesative targets by ‘re in his pewdonyrnous weiings, bue onl apoke ofthe tpi, tot it epeseattives, corresponding to the peeudonyaty he pe- {erved for hime until he exe out i the pen wih is “rst and Tin declaration” atthe end of the Posteri, Yet Nicola Nota “accom te ated in ping hat Hiege hry ofthe sy of sujet Gin Bag ad Time Ht od an) ad et Pilea fing en funded in ec ih Hep pep, ie ober ant hs oly eed sed peed neon eh ses tus ‘obi in Kererude dope Seine (38), se, at nen th tas ene tetmen to eo the rae of en td fiver in Heat ploephy of vloe sad in Ripa.20 ‘The Concept of Dred sd Pope Frage ase any qulave diference ween the divine and human Datu hace th cojunctin i not deed rss ie, ‘Stn, acadiog to Hepes inerpeation, he Tnaronon tock plce nary. Thee to point te sue demote aot nly dhe diflencsbecween Kierkpurd’ and Hegel views but the icompatsity. Io addition, wheres for Keeps sin he importants deen n Heges development of hough lye no sent fle at an obstacle for the peaatie conceal zation of {hat which for Kierkegaard is eyond conespizton. Fer Hegel, Sins the nega the anthesis whic 4 aecesary el pes ‘he pealve ulin of the concept a rfc cava. Hepelpilowply of tory can be read at kind of philompi cal "alviton bisory,” which 1 ondestod by hi istoy of poe phy Inhofe Riera wks (hey ay be led re faethe ake of convenine,thogh we have them only a pos Imeoiypebled leas) we ge he tne exlnaon the purely syematc Enylpeds tad the Phenomenology of the Spin whey was ane ever (Chapter Vio 3), canbe rend with ju ae gre jutietion so jot pet prot 3B teal and waste endear: the dil sd the wrt Nici! dendopmeny, the microm nd he croc a hey can be cle proceed with metaphysical neorbe ney through the sme development fom the immediate, though he teected the eclaive cndianvich fa stand Te we were a Hegel wheter, scoring toh inerpreaton hs “Mlged lec unflng determined by ntre (xsl de: termined); o determined by human fangs wil aa ele ot ‘ermine bys divine dees, i anos would be hate hee ‘ecrining factor re only dre ways (he objet, the sbi theyand thease) of expen he ae hing te de ieskepards philosophy of Kory i ally diferent “The Into in Phloophie Prpment shows ths wi dese lsty, Whereas Hagel anevere the erin “Ts the pat more nesery thas he fue?” (hapa! Fragment 9) Thi hr rn wh ea dl of iyi Sen Hs Sc Ried Hair (ks Panty a Bs) Go) ioe pent tet Sena & Sen Hy peso Rte et ion el Ss) tie ly eye inh iow Popes Cod esp) Rae Rape So oh Depa (oy Rg Bk (end eto (oi grea ri Ree CENA Solo ia teme be eran Soa 18 The Concept of Dans Php Furnes rosntinng tat both are equilynezenaey, Kirkegaard answert that neither part bas happeaed or wl happen with neesiy. Kite legvard tes his response on is theory of becoming [Tilden], in which the transition fom possbilky to acteaity “takes place with fedom” (. 93), where something” (whowe sence is uae ‘hanged alters it form of Being [Vrenrform). Nesey na cae sory of cect, which, seording to Kirkegaard theory, Hegel Tat legtinately wited to trans from the here of eit to the phere of time (hry) Cansequeny, Kerkepnard comes to lundersand the hori ar well atthe iterpretaton oft ina way that ie que incmptble with lege’ pinoy of sory, which he thar avo compleely ejects. Again fi evident that che incom pablity between Kirkegaard and Hegel mane tellin eres of dso om ndividsl points and area, fe wish to underand ‘his series of purtcular discord, however, we must see ita the ansequence oftheir quite diferent notions ofthe pint of depar- ture the task, andthe made of procedure of though om i Kirke. {audi terms ofthe exiting thinks). As fat atthe philosophy of History i conerne, fo a speculative nker wach ap Hegel ic Was an indipuable given [Udgengspunk] thatthe divine idea's un folding in time had taken place, and it was for him an obvious responubility to dei how this cctrred jst a his procedore inthe deseiption was the utilization ofthe dileseal method, afer hich he came to the cncsion eicized by Kiedegnard that ‘ese is the wy of pony and acanny (Hegel Science of piel, 18). On the other hand nether in Philrophical rag- iments ot ember inthe Autoriip wae Kiekegads tak t latorate a pilrophy of hoy, bu ater wo fein a conceptual Clana in place ofthe petitive conceptual conerion and un justified commingling of pilwphicl and Christians anderstand Ing In che cure of tht work of arestion there then arse the srt got eo ane bee tebe what Kip west by "eta ar ey ec On ee coe my be ret Sten Hales bk Cape) se wall woe ‘Soom paugr af Si Die dntaplce Riker Ce) Th ‘Sin tee rts oa eden Kenopurd ence Sg the ‘ne way holy set temontoton ee, here ce hoe icseguc elon Hep on de nS can 6 al Inereeadoe of Kisheaed cpr sty hse on Hot, {grea tod Kod Rasen te RKieegurteiage” (The ne ‘etoan of Kites Rikegars 935 BtThe Cost of Dist and Php! Fropmente the corm of hiner development where Hegel Ril fund ioe) td for Hee mt nt unde any cumstances "ap the ion years” owshegned sida the cntary acon Hegel the hore development shoal be grupd in it nesesity 2 te folding othe spi In ime The sation was stent Sites with the opy of ory. On this Hegel ar ge {atc only postumouly” published) work, Kiekegad aly ‘ef pages Tris ot or tak o anlar Richens theory of prado in deci at ti developed in Philnophi Progen ll ha sh ty ttn on th a in EGR REMC ipl fr" Tides cco rc Coa pn te Seer tn Rell Gp oH al tn epy ot Sinai ends ti kas oan ae tig he he i ty ee CRS Dy pe EE Ae Rit a os “etn har Tie a ef Conta ee ae SES cmt ts sidey eS att, eal ct te fl Reta te Fok “iw ier Kapa op) Ee et ole re ok san) mae Cassar ag a ie Aha ean Ree pe Hea Ines al rn be op, sts ap mae Wick ont a Saba ora ‘a Se ‘hey he ke See Hap So Te Sac eat HAC Cua we oko Prange Gi ign Thoma Dae oan te Le Teh tg a eee abe Se Siege cetera BP Bie ie cs oe BELT tls no Aiba i we Sa tele sa es en Res inn kare aa aod eS SEecaTheca (mp lean) hn a a STi Oak ce al ceed SE buy a rb en et ut ea Sed Any Sse hn we eh ll ak le et Tai nine el Ses, eich SEG. tech (al “ache Pca he ree Previn tier cnet Pees ATi hp pan we Se te SSetiad dey dite mae See pant ate ier iad Cae TTS a paRT Tah lly vi rnc bl ee sat The Conant of Dred a Phioopiod Fragments is ncesary inthe pretent content isto give ite content and to: igther with that, to describe what faneon this tory has i the Sooke indirect poem experiment "The able paradox in Philaropicl Fragments spc primaily agony of Sah bt lool ion oie ‘oa, Jens Chet, who as God ie abuoluely dierent from man, ‘oho as Man i diferent from every other man ia that Hl wat Sines Sin is the diference (p. 58), and man himself is guilty of this crucial dileenc nthe acl stanton If ins of wx sigaf ance and not jus defect n'a particule resp then tight kit Hpac ot only om man's eh eflot and ity bu al on tras capacity with regard to knowledge. ‘That which human Knowledge cnnot grap and which thus indicates the limit of Knowledge cn hen be defined phloopbiclly athe paradox, "These imperict and provisional defintions ofthe paradox under. seed asthe Incarnation can now be compared with a dente though proces in Hegel's Philoaphy of Region (I, 76) "Hegel says there: "In the Church Chvist has been cil the GotlMan=it is hit rordinary combination thet ely cones: tics the Understanding” We may observe that Hegel exphetly faye that he statement coafies with the Understanding aot the Reason (spective reson, for which there are no contador) He coninos immediately aftr this saying that the unity of the divine spd human natures has thereby been ‘rough into human conciousness has become 2cestainty for 1 a thatthe otherneny a8 es also expressed, the fit, the wetes, the frailty of human nate ix not icompatle ‘wih tht unity, jst stn che eternal dea otherness ino way ‘erat rom the unity which God i This isthe extraordinary “Combination the aeceity of which we have seen. Tes theeeby ‘Sublshed tha the divine and human nares are not aherenly en i) ferent “Two things should be noted hee The fst is that Hegel doesnot ‘oog pcens te ihe lia ch a ial and, er Hinges) eppoatn e obrmed ihe het ithe Able Spe Te nempatty of Kea theory of pede i per ive elm, apc the vena of Hage by of eure, empaied by oe ve ae Regard a fo ae lapse Minh ae the mew cing in wing ie oi of he por in Kerker wel Of Uoughe3 The Coseptof Drs Pho! Fragments rele fret to Unter and then n 2 note wo Baader, emphasizing that ‘rena ppchologal explanation of the Fall ean only bean expl fuion “toward the explanation” Le, one that pint eo etic that plane by prespposing it though dogmatic, which does ot ‘plain, bur authoruatvely declares how innocence war—and is a This example fe sucient to show both Kiekepatr's own thought process and hs dzet and indies dasosation fom Hef His anthropology (Man i asthe” ep. 39) could alo be ‘oven av an example; bu that has een shoroughly analyzed by ‘thers alo with reference to its relation to lege so that it wil te sucient simply to reer to them here. Similarly bis teary 08 the inant [or moment—Djeikket)~devloped in expic oppo. ston to Hefel (pp 738)—cold be taken as am example; but ii tbo tre hat it problematic race ha been claied in the m08 ‘eee scolaiip that ii not neeary tad anything here. “The drat for The Concept of Dread (Paper, VB 437% 33)" contain reltivel ile of importance here, Js sin the dats for the other paeudanymous works especialy forthe Poterpt, Kiet Ikegaatd identifies it Danish opponents by name. Inthe printed rok the nares epeilly Heiberg and Martens, at let out "Thus the note in the Tntedueion w The Concept of Dread (p12) was originally considerably longer (Papier, V B45 5) 20d it contine a sharp ein of Heiberg "Det lngske Ses” (a Perens 2 Hele): In our litle Dentath 00 one has come the ald of logical movement. In his "Logieal Syste” which inspite of every thing docs not etend further than fay». Profs Helberg has fot everything to go—enorpt the Sytem, which walled at $23, {apie ofthe fc that we ate supposed wo bebeve that by an fmmanent movement i most go by ile. (A lite further on he mentions Mager A. P. Adie’ Pope *Baeslly Vale Lines i Sadr eo (9) 4427: bY sok vinyl bok; by Ald Crees Iie we ‘Sel at wala in "net Riker (i Sypanon Kieke ids spa aca his Rakes Wy any tt ntl) oe ew Be od a veto oa of Hangs ered pers Te nerd re ld eon he "Cl thm Ena” th snd oe vlan or pri ho 3 The Cott of Dents Php Frasmete Foredeap over Hegel objective Logit [Popular Letues on Hegel ‘Objective Logic} (8), and~ah a counepan, ‘Trendelenburgs Die logsche Frage in Hepes Sytem (s8q) with its econ of ‘he illest we of he negative in loi. Im his connestion xa be remarked that although Kierkegaard acquired worke of other German cis of Hegel, ch at F-A. Stacenmie' lage Date lung nad Krk des Hegeihen Sytem [Expostion and Cicism ‘ofthe Hegelian Sytem) (844), shey sem not to have payed any particular cle for him, probaly because he did at chink e needed ‘por for his erica of Hegel, apart from Trendelenburgt teeameat of Hegelian loge. ewe go from The Concept of Dead to Piloophical Fragment, 4s far asthe elation © Hegel is concerned, the mater has been, if porable, more simply clarsed™ Js at in The Concept of Dread, Klerkegar’s clash with Hegel and his adherens isnot a cade ional (orf you wil iil) zluaion of Hegel's view pint by Point akbough sme det crcl expresions are there. In the fai ie ian indiec clas, which by is experimenting presentation Simply will show that Hege’s alleged reoneliation of Chistian faith and secutive koowledge is imgouile,« econeliton ‘which in iy Hegelian version can be corey uaderood ony in the light of Hegel principles, gol, ad method as they have been ‘ebenatcaly presented in the loegsing. ‘We can sect only thre items in Philcophica Fragments theory of prado, hs theory of contemporaniy, and his phir phy of hitoryaod simpy by caring vome ofthe coment of these theories we can diern not only the diferece from Hegel ‘Phish but the wil inompasilty with i Isis aot powble at once to compare immediatly here Kirke nar’ theories withthe corresponding ones in Hegel, because for lett woof them there simply ao counterpar in Hegel: he say nothing about paradox or of the theory of contemporaney. If we ‘rant tind something comesponding to the Iter, then i isthe Speculative concep; but that in-according o Hegel’ pilxophy of istry-preiely Bounded by dhe conterporary (i hat pot in 1 hve weed the ier he Ino ad tbe Cmmeny fot nye ofthe work (99) [eto Engh by Howard V- Hong io Phisepical Fragmenn aed ok (Pinson Pricron Unie Pre, Se ee et re wt he Sista ade hve Sek det ihn met sean pr