What do you think?
Rate this book
Socrates Meets
Socrates Meets Kierkegaard: The Father of Philosophy Meets the Father of Christian Existentialism
No philosopher since Augustine had more strings to his bow than Søren Kierkegaard. He wrote from many points of view, in many literary styles, about many topics (not all of them traditional philosophical topics). He should have written novels or plays, for he turned himself into a different character every time he wrote a new book. Is there a philosopher who has ever exceeded the quantity, quality and variety of his output in such a short time?
And out of it all shone forth the three most important qualities we want in any writing, in fact in any human work of art: truth, goodness, and beauty; intelligence, holiness, and charm. Who since Augustine has better combined all three? (C. S. Lewis, perhaps; who else?) And these three are the three greatest things in the world, the only three things that never get boring, and that everyone desires, with the very deepest desires of the heart, in unlimited quantity.
Yet this amazing variety in SK had a tight and total unity. To the despair of his secular admirers, he explicitly identified his vocation as a kind of undercover missionary. He said that the ultimate task of every sentence he ever wrote was the exploration of “what it means to become a Christian.” His many means to this single end were very varied, and constituted a kind of end-run around both deductive and inductive logic into a seductive logic, which he called “indirect communication.” It is the strategy of the novelist or playwright: to show rather than to tell.
And out of it all shone forth the three most important qualities we want in any writing, in fact in any human work of art: truth, goodness, and beauty; intelligence, holiness, and charm. Who since Augustine has better combined all three? (C. S. Lewis, perhaps; who else?) And these three are the three greatest things in the world, the only three things that never get boring, and that everyone desires, with the very deepest desires of the heart, in unlimited quantity.
Yet this amazing variety in SK had a tight and total unity. To the despair of his secular admirers, he explicitly identified his vocation as a kind of undercover missionary. He said that the ultimate task of every sentence he ever wrote was the exploration of “what it means to become a Christian.” His many means to this single end were very varied, and constituted a kind of end-run around both deductive and inductive logic into a seductive logic, which he called “indirect communication.” It is the strategy of the novelist or playwright: to show rather than to tell.
- GenresPhilosophyChristian
160 pages, Paperback
First published April 20, 2013
4 people are currently reading
143 people want to read
About the author
Peter Kreeft
189 books1,095 followersPeter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 25, 2021
At first glance, Kierkegaard the Christian existentialist could hardly be more different to Socrates the Greek rationalist. And yet Kierkegaard claimed that 'The only analogy I have before me is Socrates; my task is a Socratic task.' In the form of a reassuringly Socratic conversation, Kreeft does a superb job in bringing to life these two thinkers, separated by centuries yet with essentially identical vocations, substantially comparable methods, but of course, quite different conclusions about the aims and ends of human life. Kierkegaard aims to be a Socrates not least to Socrates himself, and to bring to light not only the stage on life's way that he believed came after Socratic rationalism, but that the last and greatest thing such rationalism could do would be to realise just such a limitation of itself.
June 5, 2015
The author imagines a conversation between Socrates --- the father of philosophy --- and Mr. Kierkegaard --- a Christian existentialist philosopher.
This book is, as are all the boos by Peter Kreeft, ultimately an apologetic work for Christianity. I found the objections/questions that make it onto this work to have been either too easily dismissed and/or entirely sidestepped. It is almost as if Socrates came up with a philosophical concern only to be readily ignored and instead the author has Mr. Kierkergaard answer an apologetic question about Christianity. I suppose that this should not be too surprising, since according to the author (and he may or may not be right about this) the point of Mr. Kierkergaard's Philosophical Fragments was to dress Chistianity in pholosophy clothes just to show how different the religion was from philosophy by how badly the clothes fit. As for me, I found that the arguments Kierkergaard made (as represeneted by Peter Kreeft in this book) were purely and entirely non-philosophical. But I suppose it is possible that Kierkergaard's philosophy went way over my head.
This book is, as are all the boos by Peter Kreeft, ultimately an apologetic work for Christianity. I found the objections/questions that make it onto this work to have been either too easily dismissed and/or entirely sidestepped. It is almost as if Socrates came up with a philosophical concern only to be readily ignored and instead the author has Mr. Kierkergaard answer an apologetic question about Christianity. I suppose that this should not be too surprising, since according to the author (and he may or may not be right about this) the point of Mr. Kierkergaard's Philosophical Fragments was to dress Chistianity in pholosophy clothes just to show how different the religion was from philosophy by how badly the clothes fit. As for me, I found that the arguments Kierkergaard made (as represeneted by Peter Kreeft in this book) were purely and entirely non-philosophical. But I suppose it is possible that Kierkergaard's philosophy went way over my head.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews