Preface
On October 2, 1855, while on his way home from the bank with the last remaining sum of his inheritance that he had received from his father, Soren Kierkegaard, on account of a childhood injury to his spine caused by falling from a tree, fell unconscious on a Copenhagen street and later died. He was only 42 years of age. During the preceding twelve years or so, from the date of publication of Either/Or, he had used up the fortune he had inherited from his father while writing an extensive body of works describing a vast range of human experience, dialectically dissected into categories and relationships by the reflection of a mind of unquestionable genius, which has become, undoubtedly to Kierkegaard’s chagrin, the foundation of a philosophical school called "Existentialism."
Soren Kierkegaard, who is commonly credited with founding this school of thought, would probably not recognize or accept much of this school of thought as it stands today. Most concepts of Existentialism emphasize angst and alienation. And although angst and alienation are common subjects in Kierkegaard’s works, these concepts are used only for the purpose of diagnosing the human condition and always with a view toward their alleviation, not as inherent in human nature. These concepts, for which unfortunately Kierkegaard has become synonymous, were used by Kierkegaard in the same way that a doctor, for example, must describe a patient’s condition, in all of its morbid detail in order to provide a cure. Titles such as the Sickness Unto Death, the Concept of Dread, and Fear and Trembling, do not seem to presage a cheerful outlook on life, but neither are they meant to, except by way of an Existential Dialectic which must first take into account Sin, on its way to God.
For Soren Kierkegaard, Existentialism meant an Investigation into what it means to be an Existing Individual, especially in relation to God. This Investigation took him, and us, through his pseudonyms, into an analysis of three primary stages of human experience which he described as the Aesthetic, the Ethical and the Religious. It is a rich and Complex journey which leads us step by step through the primary life views which through the "Stages on Life’s Way," make up a Human Life in becoming a Spirit.
Soren Kierkegaard’s Existentialism is not a philosophical system which can be learned by rote, and Kierkegaard never attempted to be a "teacher," in the usual sense in which this word is meant. It is rather a compilation of "bits and pieces of systematic thought." It does not attempt to answer all questions, but it does answer a good many, which is the most that can be hoped for all who do not live in some un-natural realm such as "pure thought," or occupy a Theocentric position, (i.e. from God’s point of view), from which to view Existence as some Finalized System in which all questions can be answered and all contradictions resolved since the end is known from the beginning. For Soren Kierkegaard it was enough to be an Existing Individual.
This book does not attempt in any way to be a substitute for the study of Kierkegaard’s own works, but rather an introduction and a guide to a fuller study of the great Danish Philosopher, and perhaps to set the record straight by describing the foundations of the philosophical school of Existentialism. It is true, however, that not everyone has the time to spend years, or perhaps an entire career in the study of such a monumental thinker as Soren Kierkegaard, and for them, this book might perhaps fill in some of the gaps. Beyond that, it is meant to lead only toward a fuller examination of his works.
Furthermore, I am fully aware of Kierkegaard's concern that some future author might try to simplify his ideas to such an extent that Kierkegaard would become an author having only "paragraph importance" in someone's so-called "system." I am well aware of this danger.
However, on the other hand, I am also mindful that Kierkegaard took such great pains to avoid this, that he adopted a form of "Indirect Communication" in which no one in his generation could understand him, and there is a real danger that future generations may not understand him, unless someone is there to preserve it, in a more or less direct form.

So, this is what I have set out to do:

1. To keep the Legacy of Soren Kierkegaard's thought alive.
2. To give a true understanding of Kierkegaard's Philosophy.
3. To write a book worthy of Soren Kierkegaard.

My intention in this book is not to write a scholarly analysis of Soren Kierkegaard's thought necessarily, but instead rather, to hopefully provide an insight into Kierkegaard's thought for the average person, such as myself, who is somewhat competent in philosophy and theology.
The main purpose of this book, in fact, is to satisfy myself. I write to satisfy myself and for no other reason. If someone else can receive some benefit, that is all the better. Hopefully, that will be the case. But, in the end I believe in “art for art’s sake,” and "theology for the sake of theology.” This in fact, in my opinion, is the only way to be an author, or in fact an artist, and this was Kierkegaard’s goal: to satisfy himself and by doing this, hopefully to help other people also:

For a 'crowd' is the untruth. In a godly sense it is true, eternally, Christianly, as St. Paul says (1 Cor. 9:24), that only one attains the goal—which is not meant in a comparative sense, for comparison takes others into account. It means that every man can be that one, God helping him therein—but only one attains the goal. And again this means that every man should be chary about having to do with 'the others,' and essentially should talk only with God and with himself —for only one attains the goal.

In the end, this is the only way a person can really serve the Truth. As Polonius said to his son Laertes: “Unto thine own self be true, then it must follow as the night the day, thou can’st not be false to any man.”
Nor can I claim to be a “Kierkegaard Scholar” necessarily, or a Theologian or a Philosopher (Writ Large) with a PhD in Kierkegaard studies or a so-called "Nestor in Kierkegaardian Studies." I am just a simple human being.
Doubtless, some people will find offense at this. This is not my concern, or a worry of mine. I write this book in order to satisfy myself, and in a certain sense, to get Kierkegaard “out of my system." I say this in a very fond and affectionate way to Soren Kierkegaard. As true lovers know, there is a time to separate, lest a constant association leads toward a lassitude in their relationship. But by temporary separation, the relationship grows deeper and stronger.
I am absolutely certain Kierkegaard would approve of all of this, in light of his aversion for both professors and the clergy, which I know, will not sit well with the Establishment of professors and clergy, but that is not my concern. I know such people will likely be offended. However, as Kierkegaard abundantly points out throughout his writings, the Established Order is often, if not always devoid of Fundamental Truth and New Ideas. There is a tendency in the Established Order always to become complacent. This is why, for example bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient in the long run. It is simply because they develop a complacent attitude.

Kierkegaard will always interest and fascinate me and I am sure that every time I go back to one of his books, there are interesting things I will learn. But many times, much like one of Kierkegaard's translators wrote in a letter to Walter Lowrie, I feel this way: "As for Kierkegaard, I am at this moment going through the proofs of our translations. It is not a question whether I dislike you or myself most while reading them, and I usually settle it by answering that more than either I loath Kierkegaard. One of these days I am going to say what I think of his vile, slovenly style, his clumsy, unnecessary terminology.
These are EXTREMELY harsh words, especially the word "vile" which means "morally corrupt or debased" (which of course Kierkegaard's style never was). But, to a certain extent I can understand this blasphemy concerning Kierkegaard's style. Kierkegaard could write so beautifully and so eloquently in books like Stages on Life's Way in the chapter called "The Banquet," for example, a style I might add that can inspire any writer. But then, there were times when he gets bogged down in almost endless complications and dialectics. Here is one of my favorite examples of this from Training in Christianity when Kierkegaard is trying to describe the meaning of a "Sign:"

What is to be understood by a 'sign?' A sign is the negation of immediacy, or a second state of being, differing from the first. It is not thereby affirmed that the sign is not something immediate, but that what it is as a sign is not immediate, in other words, that as a sign it is not the immediate thing it is. A nautical mark is a sign. Immediately it is a post, a light, or some such thing, but a sign it is not immediately, that it is a sign is something different from what it immediately is. This [viz. the failure to observe this distinction] lies at the bottom of all the mystifications by the help of 'signs; for a sign is a sign only of one who knows that it is a sign and in the strictest sense only for one who knows what it signifies; for everyone else the sign is only what it immediately is.—Even in case no one had erected this or that into a sign, and there was no understanding with anybody that it was to be regarded as such, yet when I see something striking and call it a sign it is qualified by reflection. The striking trait is the immediate, but that I regard it as a sign (a reflective act, producing something out of myself expresses my conception that it must signify something, but the fact that it must signify something means that it is something else than that which it immediately is. So I am not denying the immediacy of the thing when I regard it as a sign without knowing definitely that it is a sign or what it should signify.

Now, if anyone can unravel this passage and in simple terms tell me what it means, I would appreciate it.
In Kierkegaard's defense I think it should be pointed out that in his philosophical works, he was trying to communicate to those who were familiar with the philosophical terminology of the time in the 19th Century that was especially derived from Hegel. This terminology can be traced back to Aristotle. Kierkegaard includes philosophical terms such as: "immediacy, possibility, necessity, the concrete, actuality, reality, existence, objectivity, subjectivity, finitude, infinitude, the universal, the particular, immanence, transcendence etc." And also concepts of Kierkegaard's own description, such as "The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical."
These concepts are philosophical and a little intimidating for the average reader. However, these terms always refer to basic Truths. In the end, this is one of the beautiful things about Kierkegaard's thought: His ideas refer ultimately to Simple Truths. He often said, and took great delight in the idea, that the only difference between the educated wise man and the simple wise man was that the educated wise man, through all of his reflection and study comes to know the Truths that the simple wise man knows without further study. God, in His wisdom, preserves the uneducated simple wise man in Truth and does not give him a need to seek a deeper understanding.
This does not denigrate in any respect, the need that the educated wise man feels for a deeper study and understanding. This deeper study and understanding Kierkegaard always rejoiced in, without in any way feeling in the least superior to the uneducated wise man. This was also one of the Secrets behind the Wisdom of Socrates and in large part was the Inspiration for his Irony and gave Socrates great Joy and Fun, in his conversations with the Sophists for example, who thought that in their wisdom they were wiser than the average man.
In other words, both the educated wise man and the simple wise man come ultimately to the same Truths. The educated wise man takes a long detour through thought, ideas and reflection. The simple man knows the same Truths, but does not feel the same impulse for a deeper understanding, but is content with what he already knows.

In many respects, this book has turned out to be a Commentary on Soren Kierkegaard’s thought, because I felt the need to try to explain Kierkegaard's ideas in more Christian terms, since usually Kierkegaard wished to avoid them for the sake of “Indirect Communication.”
This book was originally published on the Internet at www.holy wordof god.org. The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it is almost infinitely malleable and truly the greatest publishing tool since the Gutenberg press. In this forum, the “writing hand does not move on...” but can be edited over and over again. Since Truth is not a “Result,” but a “Way,” it is the perfect tool for publishing the Truth on the “Stages on Life’s Way.”
As with all truly great philosophers, Kierkegaard shows the fallacy of philosophy as a means to understanding Life’s Ultimate Questions. With the proliferation of knowledge in the empirical sciences, philosophy, since Kierkegaard, has been left with an uncertain role, perhaps in part accounting for one of the most common concepts associated with Existentialism: the perception of the world as "absurd." With wit and brilliance Kierkegaard destroys the presumptions of the philosophical system of Hegel, (and also of every other existential philosophical system). To whatever extent you can say Kierkegaard wrote a “philosophical system," it was only meant to be “Scraps,” or “Fragments” of philosophical thought in order to “quicken one’s mind with respect to the Devine.” Thus came about, for example the title for the book, The Fragments.
As far as Epistemology is concerned, Kierkegaard can be summarized in this way: As opposed to the Descartes' formula: "I think therefore, I am," Kierkegaard would say: "I am, therefore I am," because in the Descartes' formula, the premise presupposes the conclusion. To wit: If, I am thinking, why wonder that I am? For Kierkegaard, Existence is higher than thought. A good summary of how Kierkegaard always placed Existence to be higher than thought can be found in the Fragments. “Thus I always reason from existence, not toward existence, whether I move in the sphere of palpable sensible fact or in the realm of thought.”
For Kierkegaard, Existence itself is always assumed beforehand; it is never “Proven.” With respect to God's Existence (in the sense of being or non-being) for example, Existence itself can help to “clarify the concept,” but does not prove that God Exists. The Existence of God for the individual comes only via the “Leap of Faith,” in the believer, not by means of Reason. Reason always comes to a dead end, and must give up at some point.
Thought can only abstract from Existence, in concepts of time and space, and therefore is much more limited than many philosophers and scientists realize. Also, Kierkegaard emphatically pointed out in opposition to Hegel and Marx that an Existential logical system is impossible, since “Existence is in process of becoming,” and therefore, lacks the finality which a logical system absolutely requires.
Hegel's misunderstanding of this led him to an interpretation of Truth as "world history as the Spirit in the agency of the State moving through history” and gave a justification to the Statists to deify the State. (Which later Marx, used to full advantage to justify the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”) It is also why, later on, Bertrand Russell classified Communism as a “religion.”
For Kierkegaard, each Individual is potentially worth more than all of Mankind. For Hegel, the importance of the individual could only be found in relation to the State. Throughout Kierkegaard's writings is a spine chilling, prophetic insight, into the primary depravity of the 20th Century: A philosophical and intellectual contempt for the Common Man.
For example, in the Concluding Un-Scientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments:

There is surely a difference between a generation of human beings and a shoal of fish, although it has now become so fashionable to seek entertainment in the shifting play of colors presented by the human shoal, and to speak with contempt of individuals who are worth no more than herring. Science and world-history may perhaps be indifferent to such an objection, but Ethics ought surely to have a voice in every view of life. But Ethics has been crowded out of the System (Hegel’s Philosophy):

And then, also this passage:

Each age has its own characteristic depravity. Ours is perhaps not pleasure or indulgence or sensuality, but rather a dissolute pantheistic contempt for the individual man. In the midst of all our exultation over the achievements of the age and the nineteenth century, there sounds a note of poorly conceived contempt for the individual man; in the midst of the self-importance of the contemporary generation there is revealed a sense of despair over being human. Everything must attach itself so as to be a part of some movement; men are determined to lose themselves in the totality of things, in world-history, fascinated and deceived by the magic witchery; no one wants to be an individual human being.

When the State becomes the Ultimate Truth, it is easy to murder 6 million Jews in Germany. It is also VERY EASY to starve and murder about 20 million people in the Soviet Union in the 20th Century. Why not? The State is everything in their thinking (what Kierkegaard later in Training in Christianity, called the "Established Order" and Individuals do not amount to anything but a “school of herring” in Kierkegaard's words.

Much of the Flurry and Consternation in Western Philosophical thought has to do with the dual nature of Empiricism between Thought and Reality, in both Greek Skepticism, and Modern Idealistic Skepticism. To a large extent, Kierkegaard answers many of these questions in the Postscript.
In Greek skepticism, the validity of a valid empirical thought was not questioned, but accepted as a "possibility." However, since empirical reality is always in process of "becoming," the thought could only have validity momentarily and therefore would always remain hypothetical.
In Modern Idealistic skepticism, starting with Kant, the emphasis is placed on the observation that thought does not contain empirical reality, and therefore is questionable.
Kierkegaard's skepticism was much more Greek in nature. Kierkegaard broke away from Kant's skepticism, by observing that it is correct, but it is irrelevant to Empirical thought, because it is not within the province of Empirical thought to contain Reality, except as a "possibility." Kierkegaard would therefore be perfectly at home with "Pragmatism," as long as it did not attempt to answer "metaphysical," issues, that is Ultimate questions. For Kierkegaard, the ONLY Reality for which there is an identity of thought and being is one's own SUBJECTIVE reality. To all other realities, the individual relates as a "possibility."
But in all of this, I am getting way ahead of myself. We will deal in more depth concerning these issues when we investigate Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript.

Should the conclusions which Kierkegaard draws then drive the philosopher to Despair? Perhaps, and perhaps not. It can be an advantage either way. As we shall see, Despair has a peculiar dialectic of its own. In either case, the answer ends up to lie in Religion, and in Christianity specifically. The speculation of Philosophy is left behind and the "Repetition” of Faith is found to be the ultimate answer and the ultimate Truth.
Soren Kierkegaard was one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived and the greatest of all Christian philosophers in my opinion. This judgment, however, as we shall see, is largely a subjective one, since as Kierkegaard would point out, "Truth is, [for the individual], Subjectivity." With respect to Christianity Kierkegaard holds a somewhat negative relationship, showing the way away from the aesthetic and philosophical to the religious and specifically Christian. In doing so, he accomplished two major objectives:
He provided a dialectical understanding of Christian Faith from a philosophical point of view and he provided a dialectical understanding of Faith from a psychological point of view. Both are monumental achievements.

It is surprising to me, how many modern concepts are derived either directly, or indirectly from Kierkegaard's thought. For example:
The "Leap of Faith." This is a very common expression today. We always hear it. But here is the real essence of what it means: This term actually comes from the German philosopher Lessing. What the "Leap of Faith" means is a transformation in the Individual through Despair, and not via a Logical Analysis of Reason. Truth you see, really is a matter of passion and Inwardness which all people potentially possess in an equal amount and is not distributed according to intelligence.
"Finding Yourself." This is also a concept that comes to our Time from Kierkegaard, although it is as old as Socrates who proposed the same thing: "Know Thyself." What does this really mean? In Essence, it means Finding your Relationship to God. Only by then do you "Know Yourself," or find Yourself. Kierkegaard has a long analysis of this in his psychological works, The Concept of Dread and Sickness Unto Death.
"Angst." This is a word that also comes down to us from Soren Kierkegaard and means: "Anxious Fear or Dread." We have all experienced this: And this is what it means: "A fear or apprehension in the soul and spirit concerning the possibility of Freedom or Possibility." It has many variations and complex forms in the human psyche, which hopefully, we can investigate. It has all sorts of ramifications. For example, Dread can result in anything from various complusions and obsessions to Truly Demonic Possessions.
The idea of having a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ. This is a theme that runs throughout Kierkegaard's writings and today we often hear it repeated in all Evangelical Churches. For Kierkegaard, there is no such thing as an "objective," or "scientific" relationship to Truth, or Jesus Christ, only a Subjective relationship through the Spirit.
This leads us to another Truth of Soren Kierkegaard's philosophy: "Truth is Inwardness," for the Individual. It is also what Christ proclaimed when He said: "The Kingdom of Heaven lies within."
"Know-Thyself." As everyone knows this was the motto of Socrates, the philosopher who had more influence on Kierkegaard than any other philosopher. Kierkegaard resurrected this thought in the midst of the hyper-speculative 19th Century Philosophy. Know-Thyself, as we shall see, is really to Know God. This is what it meant for both Socrates and Kierkegaard.
"The sub-conscious mind." Kierkegaard was one of the first psychologists to recognize the existence of the "sub-conscious mind." Kierkegaard, however, described this as the "Secret Consciousness."
Even such modern day concepts as 'introversion and extro-version can be traced to Kierkegaard, especially in his psychological works.
It can even be argued that Kierkegaard antticipated the Idea in Modern Psychology that is now termed: "Projection." This is found in Either/Or Volume One, in his Chapter called: "Shadowgraphs."
The "Time-Space Continuum." One of the most interesting aspects to Kierkegaard's thought is his observations of what he called the "Instant." We will have a large section on this concept a little later in this book. But one of the most interesting aspects of this concept is that Kierkegaard anticipated Einstein's Theory of Relativity by 61 years.

For all of Kierkegaard's contributions to modern thought, his philosophical works do not satisfy the hunger of the Spirit and Soul for Edification so much as he satisfies the Curiosity of the mind for Understanding. Furthermore, he cannot be placed in the same category as Luther, for example, as a theologian in my opinion. Whether he fully understood the importance of the means of grace and the nature of human will, is certainly open to debate and has left some theologians wondering whether he really were a Christian at all, especially in light of his Attack Upon Christendom.
Whether he was a Christian or not, of this I personally have little doubt. He was, however, a Christian with a philosophical predisposition and an intensely dialectical and reflective frame of mind. Like Erasmus before him, this was to some extent a stumbling block and led him into some errors in his interpretation of Scripture and into a semi-Pelagian view as far as human will is concerned. In addition, his philosophical frame of mind prevented him from understanding the nature and the importance of infant baptism, for example.

If we as Christians, are to become like little children, certainly someone so predisposed toward philosophy and dialectics might find the transition more difficult in many ways in the same way that it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, (nevertheless, for God all things are possible). Since Christians are to deal circumspectly with Philosophy, it is understandable that some have questioned Kierkegaard’s Christianity and rejected certain aspects of his theological teachings.
The Fundamental Protestant theologian, for example, will be quite shocked when Kierkegaard asserts that with regard to the doctrine of Original Sin, the Bible has had a "harmful effect."
In addition, Kierkegaard’s insistence in calling his strictly Christian writings “Discourses” rather than Sermons, since he did not have Devine Authority to Teach, seems to me to be unnecessarily fastidious. Although there is nothing wrong with calling them “Discourses,” he did not need to be so scrupulous with regard to divine authority in teaching, since all Christians are given the Gift to interpret Scripture, although it is certainly true that not every Christian should become a minister or priest, but only those who are Called. Nevertheless, given the appropriate time and place, all Christians can give "Sermons" and some of the greatest Sermons in the Bible were delivered by lay people.
These observations, aside, Kierkegaard’s contribution to Christian doctrine and teaching, especially in an age when Christianity has seemed to triumph throughout the Western world, has great importance.
The situation in the Western world is not unlike that of the Jewish nation at the time of the coming of Christ. Most Jews pretty much felt that they were saved because they were the Chosen People who had descended from Abraham. Jewish people used this fact, along with infant circumcision to provide a false sense of security in their relationship to God. Today, in the Western world we too seem to be beset by a false assurance based on infant baptism and the universal teaching and practice of Christian beliefs. Kierkegaard took great pains to deal with these misconceptions about the Christian Faith, especially in his Attack Upon Christendom. For Kierkegaard, there could be no greater misconception about the Christian faith than to assume Christianity based upon the fact that one was born in a Christian land or baptized as an infant. And although this view led him erroneously to qualify infant baptism, his observations about Christendom are extremely important for modern day Christianity.
For all of this, the Contribution Kierkegaard made both to Philosophy and to Theology cannot in my opinion be underestimated, and it is a tragedy for the modern world that Karl Marx did not study Kierkegaard whose Main Category was the Individual rather than Hegel whose Main Category was the State.
While Soren Kierkegaard viewed each individual as potentially worth more than the entire human race, Hegel saw the importance of the individual only in relation to the State.

For the Christian who wishes a deeper understanding of the Relationship between Reason and Faith and for the philosopher who wishes sound Epistemological instruction, Soren Kierkegaard is well worth the effort. The Christian, however will not want to get bogged down in the seemingly endless dialectics that Kierkegaard sometimes engaged in, but will want to go on to the more specifically Edifying works of Christianity, such as the Works of Martin Luther. The philosopher will hopefully come to realize the Limits of Reason.
Kierkegaard’s style and wit are tremendously refreshing, when so much that is written in philosophy tends to be so tedious. And with his frequent allusions to Greek philosophy, Kierkegaard pokes a great deal of fun at the “Systematic” and Theocentric pretensions of philosophy in the 19th century:
To get a good sense of this for example, read the Preface of the Fragments:

The offering is a piece and such it will remain, even if like Holberg’s magister I were volente Deo to write a sequel in seventeen pieces, just as half-hour literature is half-hour literature even in folio quantities. Such as it is, however, the offering is commensurate with my talents, since I cannot excuse my failure to serve the System after the manner of the noble Roman merito magis quam ignavia; I am an idler from love of ease, ex animi sententia, and for good and sufficient reasons.”

Then comes the wonderful story about Diogenes:

When Philip threatened to lay siege to the city of Corinth, and all its inhabitants hastily bestirred themselves in defense, some polishing weapons, some gathering stones, some repairing the walls, Diogenes seeing all this hurriedly folded his mantle about him and began to roll his tub zealously back and forth through the streets. When he was asked why he did this he replied that he wished to be busy like all the rest, and rolled his tub lest he should be the only idler among so many industrious citizens.

Kierkegaard intersperses all of his writings with such witty and humorous anecdotes.

Let us then begin upon an Investigation of this Brilliant Dialectician! However, before we do so, I wish to first relate a story to the reader, a story which I believe to have some importance insofar as this book is concerned. and which on the whole I believe to be true, but whose details I cannot in all respects confirm, since they were related to me by a third party. That is, by a "young man."