Kierkegaard’s relation to Hegel is very complicated and my brief treatment here is no doubt incomplete. My particular interest here restricts me to Kierkegaard’s understanding of Hegel and his followers, and then how he counteracts or circumvents what he sees as the weaknesses of Hegel’s approach. I have attempted to refrain from making judgments as to the fairness of Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel (or “Danish Hegelians”), and Hegel’s influence on Kierkegaard (not an exclusively negative one) is worth investigating. However, this is beyond the scope of this work. Those interested should consult the influential book: Stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations; and also the following: Aumann, “Kierkegaard’s Case,” 221–48.
35. By Stanley Hauerwas, David J. Gouwens, and Lee C. Barrett III in Holmer, On Kierkegaard and the Truth, ix–xxii.
36. As Kierkegaard named himself. See Kierkegaard, Point of View, 62.
37. Kierkegaard, Spiritual Writings, 184.
38. See Rae, Kierkegaard and Theology, 3; and Barrett, Kierkegaard, 5.
39. See especially Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations; Creegan, Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard.
40. See also Rae, Kierkegaard and Theology, 3.
41. Holmer, On Kierkegaard and the Truth, 42.
42. See Kierkegaard, Point of View, 29 and its accompanying footnote by Kierkegaard and endnote by the translators.
43. See Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, 199 and its footnote.
44. C. Stephen Evans also shares this difficulty due to the interrelation of many of Kierkegaard’s concepts, though I would not go as far as he does in linking Kierkegaard’s concepts of “indirect communication,” the “spheres of existence,” “subjectivity” and his pseudonymity. I would argue that the “spheres” in particular are not as central in Kierkegaard’s thought, since “subjectivity” in the God-relationship is primary. The “spheres” are helpful in elucidating such subjectivity under God, but are not necessary for “subjectivity” to be used in an effort to understand Kierkegaard’s work. See Evans, Kierkegaard’s Fragments and Postscript, 6.
45. Kierkegaard, “Philosophical Crumbs,” 94 n. 1.
46. See Kierkegaard, Journals and Papers, 3/3684, X3 A 431, n.d., 1850; and Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, 202.
47. Ironically, this is similar to Climacus’ confession as to how he is “reviewing” the other pseudonymous works. See Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, 283.
48. As we will find throughout, though, such a dichotomy between form and content is a false one, and is used here only as a preliminary understanding in order to eventually make clear the error of such an understanding.
49. Such as the pathetic (in the sense of “pathos,” or passion) tone, argumentative structure, etc.
50. This leaves unexplored how exactly this takes place in the more detailed factors regarding literary form. I have unfortunately no space to give enough attention to factors such as the use of genre, argumentative styles, formatting, etc. in this work. I will instead restrict my discussion to Kierkegaard’s use of pseudonyms.
51. In this book, I will use the feminine singular in reference to “the ideal reader.” It is singular in keeping with Kierkegaard’s concept of “the single individual,” and feminine for the sake of the link to Regine Olsen. See Kierkegaard, Journals and Papers, 6/6388, X1 A 266, n.d., 1849. See also section 3.3: “That Single Individual, My Reader” in McDonald, “Kierkegaard, Søren.” It can also be seen to be in keeping with the New Testament use of the feminine in regard to the Christian church (e.g., Eph 5:25).
52. This is made possible through the correlation between the themes in the pseudonymous and veronymous works, including the journals, as is common practice amongst Kierkegaardian scholarship.
53. Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, 626.
54. Ibid.; see also Gouwens, Kierkegaard as Religious Thinker, 1.
55. I will discuss this in my critique of “psychoanalytic interpretations” of Kierkegaard in 3.1 below.
56. Kierkegaard, Point of View, 23.
57. Kierkegaard, Point of View.
58. I am following Joel Rasmussen in his use of “veronymous” in reference to Søren Kierkegaard’s signed works. See Rasmussen, Between Irony and Witness, 9; he states here that he gained the term from Strawser, Both/And.
59. I will address Joakim Garff’s critiques on the historical reliability of this work further below (“The Eyes of Argus,” 75–102).
60. Kierkegaard, Point of View, 29 n.
61. Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling.
62. In the body of the text and in the footnotes I will refer to the better known title “Philosophical Fragments,” and will reference the version translated by M. G. Piety, who chose to translate the title “Philosophical Crumbs.” Kierkegaard, “Philosophical Crumbs.”
63. Kierkegaard, Either/Or.
64. Chapters 1–4 and 11–12 compiled by George Pattison in Spiritual Writings were originally from 1833–34’s Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses. Chapter 10 of this work was originally published as The Lily of the Field and the Bird under Heaven in 1849 to accompany the second edition of Either/Or.
65. Kierkegaard, Concluding
