What do you think?
Rate this book
The Present Age: On the Death of Rebellion
A part of Harper Perennial’s special “Resistance Library” highlighting classic works that illuminate the “Age of Trump”: Soren Kierkegaard’s stunningly prescient essay on the dangers of mass media—particularly advertising, marketing, and publicity. An essential read as we reckon with, and try to understand, the media forces that have helped create our present political moment.
“The Present Age shows just how original Kierkegaard was. He brilliantly foresaw the dangers of the lack of commitment and responsibility in the Public Sphere. When everything is up for endless detached critical comment as on blogs and cable news, action finally becomes impossible.”— Hubert L. Dreyfus, University of California, Berkeley
“A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. Nothing ever happens but there is immediate publicity everywhere.”— From The Present Age
In The Present Age (1846), Søren Kierkegaard analyzes the philosophical implications of a society dominated by the mass-media. What makes the essay so remarkable is the way it seems to speak directly to our time—i.e. the Information Age—where life is dominated by mere “information” not true “knowledge.” Kierkegaard even goes so far as to say that advertising and publicity almost immediately co-opts and suppresses revolutionary actions/thoughts.
The Present Age is essential reading for anyone who wishes to better understand the modern world.
“The Present Age shows just how original Kierkegaard was. He brilliantly foresaw the dangers of the lack of commitment and responsibility in the Public Sphere. When everything is up for endless detached critical comment as on blogs and cable news, action finally becomes impossible.”— Hubert L. Dreyfus, University of California, Berkeley
“A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. Nothing ever happens but there is immediate publicity everywhere.”— From The Present Age
In The Present Age (1846), Søren Kierkegaard analyzes the philosophical implications of a society dominated by the mass-media. What makes the essay so remarkable is the way it seems to speak directly to our time—i.e. the Information Age—where life is dominated by mere “information” not true “knowledge.” Kierkegaard even goes so far as to say that advertising and publicity almost immediately co-opts and suppresses revolutionary actions/thoughts.
The Present Age is essential reading for anyone who wishes to better understand the modern world.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1846
127 people are currently reading
4598 people want to read
About the author
Søren Kierkegaard
1,125 books6,399 followersSøren Aabye Kierkegaard was a prolific 19th century Danish philosopher and theologian. Kierkegaard strongly criticised both the Hegelianism of his time and what he saw as the empty formalities of the Church of Denmark. Much of his work deals with religious themes such as faith in God, the institution of the Christian Church, Christian ethics and theology, and the emotions and feelings of individuals when faced with life choices. His early work was written under various pseudonyms who present their own distinctive viewpoints in a complex dialogue.
Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted". Scholars have interpreted Kierkegaard variously as an existentialist, neo-orthodoxist, postmodernist, humanist, and individualist.
Crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, he is an influential figure in contemporary thought.
Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted". Scholars have interpreted Kierkegaard variously as an existentialist, neo-orthodoxist, postmodernist, humanist, and individualist.
Crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, he is an influential figure in contemporary thought.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 188 reviews
March 29, 2011
Two essays are collected in this very attractive and slim book, "On the Present Age: On the Death of Rebellion", and "On the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle". The former was written in 1846 and the latter in 1847. The copy on the back-cover of the book and the blurb from a professor at UC Berkeley tell the reader that the first essay is a brilliant forecast into our own time of mass-media saturation. The professor drags 'irresponsible' public commentary from blogs and cable news into the Nostradamus act Kierkegaard pulled in the first essay. I think they are sort of missing the point of the first essay, but I'll come back to that in the second half of this review. Instead I want to start with the second essay and then deal with the first.
The second essay deals with the difference between a genius and an apostle. The basic gist is that the genius is endowed with some kind of inner gift that exists only in-itself without any implicit teleological demands. The apostle rather has nothing special about him or herself but is rather called upon by God to act in order to spread His word. The apostle is required to meet teleological demands, the calling from God only exists as a mission and has no value in-itself. The genius can be seen by his acts and be judged accordingly whereas the apostle has to be accepted solely on the basis of being commanded by God and the acts of the apostle can only be taken as being the word of God manifested through His chosen vessel. The apostle is a concrete manifestation of the paradoxical nature of Christianity to Kierkegaard. According to K. the apostle has to be accepted as being the word of God on faith alone, there is no way that the apostle can prove that mission he or she is on. Further the words of the apostle have to be accepted for their content alone. To K. there is no mystery contained in the words, they are only a disclosure from above.
To K. looking at the gospels in anyway rather than as the literal word of God is blasphemous. Apologists who try to add meaning or who try to point out the stylistic beauty in the Bible are debasing the word of God and weakening religion by moving beyond the paradoxical nature of faith and trying to ground the spirit of religion in something concrete and human. While I don't have the faith or the religion that K. does, I like to think that if I was so inclined to Christianity this is the path I'd take, especially since it's part of what I find so nauseating about contemporary (mainly evangelical) Christians. A quick walk through a Christian section of a bookstore will reveal all kinds of ways that Christian writers and preachers are trying to bend the religion to fit their own agendas and make people feel good about themselves. God tells you to eat the cookie and buy the shoes you like. God is a punk-rocker. Christianity will make you rich. God is a capitalist. Use the bible to lose weight! Why this and that and even that piece of pop-culture over there is letting God's message be spread. Praying for everything you want in life to come to you. Why God loves NASCAR!!
The one thing that I pondered after reading this essay is how someone who is a Christian can tell who is an apostle and who is a mere peddler of snake-oil? Every one of the writers of books above will tell you that they are working on the word of God. That God has commanded them to spread their message. Granted none of them probably saw a burning bush on the road to Damascus and went, 'whoa I'm going to stop being Saul and start being Paul!" but they all probably believe that either the voice in their head, or whatever maybe they saw four blue cars in a row drive by one day and thought that had to be sign, is God commanding them go forth and spread his word. K. leaves no way for the someone to tell the difference, they would all have to be accepted (although since most of them are blasphemous according to K that would make most of them less than Christian in his eyes). Having to figure out the difference between the real modern day apostle and the charlatan must be a Herculean task, it makes me feel relieved that I think the whole thing is nonsense.
An interesting part of the essay was when K railed against preachers and theologists who try to emphasize the aesthetic side of the Bible. K rightly shows that as stylists the writers of the Bible were lacking when compared to 'genius' and that trying to contort and delude oneself that Paul is on the same level of writer as Plato or Shakespeare is just silly talk. Rather the message of Paul has to be taken as a command, the word of God without paying any attention to the craft of writing, so to speak. This explains a lot about why so many Christian writers these days are awful writers. I used to wonder why God wouldn't inspire people to write good books, or make good music instead of inspiring the drivel that is created in His name. I get it now. God isn't much of a stylist, or at least he doesn't choose to have his word spread through people with very much talent or originality in expression. I get it now! Although it makes me wonder how a spiritual being with so little interest in aesthetics or creativity managed to create a world with so much diversity and beauty. I think he must have outsourced this part of his job, probably to science.
To let my squirrel brain go back a paragraph or two and return to a former train of thought, I wonder how K chooses what the commands of God are that should be followed when the Bible can be contradictory on certain (quite a few) points. Maybe he writes about this in another book, but it's something I'm curious how the deals with because I like his view of religion, as I said it's probably similar to what mine would be if I had any bit of faith in me (yes, I know we all have some kind of faith, but I"m not talking about the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow or that gravity will continue to work, those aren't really faith anyway they either just ares that we accept about the world or they are verifiable by science, which I guess is a sort of faith that the world will continue working in the way it does and that magic won't make everything different two seconds from now.... it didn't, I stopped and waited to see if it did). His way of looking at the Bible is the anthesis of the talmudic way that Judaism has treated many of the same texts. As K pretty much explicitly says in one example he gives, there are no mysteries in the gospels. You accept what you say because you have faith. Another way of saying this is that there is no subtlety to the word of God, the text doesn't need to be opened up, hairs don't need to be split, there is no secret behind the text, don't deconstruct it or analyze it, or write endless commentaries (a la the Talmud); I'm extrapolating here but I don't think I'm going to far out on a limb with what K's feelings would be on this. Rather the religiosity of the experience is only through faith, everything else is debasing.
First Essay.
This essay is pretty fascinating and by this time a little bit dated. It's interesting how 'right' K is, but then again philosophers have been writing this kind of thing for centuries; the laxness of the modern age, the way that present social institutions are undermining the former greatness that society was capable of. And moving from K's time to our own this essay is similar to the Frankfurt School critique of society and Debord and Co.'s Situationist spectacle.
K isn't as anti-mass media and Nostradamus like in seeing the rise of the internet as one might think by reading the back cover. His beef is rather with the endless reflection over action of modern society. Everything can be thought through and twisted around and rationalized to be anything anyone wants it to be. Morality can be jerry-rigged to back any heinous idea (some torture is good as opposed to ethically saying torture is wrong, you don't get to say you are being moral if you torture someone) by reflecting and thinking about something long and hard enough (this is a skill learned well as a philosophy student, you soon realize that you can rationalize just about anything). Not necessarily in the same arena, but even action is endlessly put aside for debating and thinking that while good to a point becomes a means in and of itself. In all of this K see's a great leveling taking place and in the scope of the media an entity called the public that everyone is a part of and also not a part of is created through the in K's time newspapers.
Are things worse today than in K's time? I have no idea. I'd expect they are about the same. About the whole inaction thing, K missed the boat a little bit on that one since two years after writing the essay all of those revolutions broke out all over Europe and the modern day person can say that in the incessant chatter of blog and tweets no one does anything more than just endlessly reflect and argue but I'm fairly certain that things are still going on, changes are still happening (for better or for worse), maybe it's not a revolutionary age, but there are goods and evils in all times, right?
I was going to write a lot more about this essay but it's kind of boring to point out how right he is, because so much of his critique is obvious these days to us, but at the same time are things that probably should be said. And I was going to appreciate the irony of blabbing on and on about this stuff on a social networking website and adding my own 'uninformed' opinion into the irresponsible public commentary about the word, and then maybe point out that one doesn't need to be a professor to have something worthwhile to say and that a lot of what professional philosophers say these days is little more than careerist verbal masturbation and then maybe I'd go on a little bit of a side rant about the public versus the ivory tower intellectual and say a lot of woe's are us we are all doomed and becoming stupider and stupider, but then I thought I'd just paraphrase what I was going to say in a couple of run on sentences, let you decide if you were missing something good or fortunate to not have to read more of my inane babbling and also let you fill in the gaps about what you think I might have said, if you are the type that would care about this kind of thing. Instead I'm just going to wrap up this long winded review here and go watch a movie or something.
The second essay deals with the difference between a genius and an apostle. The basic gist is that the genius is endowed with some kind of inner gift that exists only in-itself without any implicit teleological demands. The apostle rather has nothing special about him or herself but is rather called upon by God to act in order to spread His word. The apostle is required to meet teleological demands, the calling from God only exists as a mission and has no value in-itself. The genius can be seen by his acts and be judged accordingly whereas the apostle has to be accepted solely on the basis of being commanded by God and the acts of the apostle can only be taken as being the word of God manifested through His chosen vessel. The apostle is a concrete manifestation of the paradoxical nature of Christianity to Kierkegaard. According to K. the apostle has to be accepted as being the word of God on faith alone, there is no way that the apostle can prove that mission he or she is on. Further the words of the apostle have to be accepted for their content alone. To K. there is no mystery contained in the words, they are only a disclosure from above.
To K. looking at the gospels in anyway rather than as the literal word of God is blasphemous. Apologists who try to add meaning or who try to point out the stylistic beauty in the Bible are debasing the word of God and weakening religion by moving beyond the paradoxical nature of faith and trying to ground the spirit of religion in something concrete and human. While I don't have the faith or the religion that K. does, I like to think that if I was so inclined to Christianity this is the path I'd take, especially since it's part of what I find so nauseating about contemporary (mainly evangelical) Christians. A quick walk through a Christian section of a bookstore will reveal all kinds of ways that Christian writers and preachers are trying to bend the religion to fit their own agendas and make people feel good about themselves. God tells you to eat the cookie and buy the shoes you like. God is a punk-rocker. Christianity will make you rich. God is a capitalist. Use the bible to lose weight! Why this and that and even that piece of pop-culture over there is letting God's message be spread. Praying for everything you want in life to come to you. Why God loves NASCAR!!
The one thing that I pondered after reading this essay is how someone who is a Christian can tell who is an apostle and who is a mere peddler of snake-oil? Every one of the writers of books above will tell you that they are working on the word of God. That God has commanded them to spread their message. Granted none of them probably saw a burning bush on the road to Damascus and went, 'whoa I'm going to stop being Saul and start being Paul!" but they all probably believe that either the voice in their head, or whatever maybe they saw four blue cars in a row drive by one day and thought that had to be sign, is God commanding them go forth and spread his word. K. leaves no way for the someone to tell the difference, they would all have to be accepted (although since most of them are blasphemous according to K that would make most of them less than Christian in his eyes). Having to figure out the difference between the real modern day apostle and the charlatan must be a Herculean task, it makes me feel relieved that I think the whole thing is nonsense.
An interesting part of the essay was when K railed against preachers and theologists who try to emphasize the aesthetic side of the Bible. K rightly shows that as stylists the writers of the Bible were lacking when compared to 'genius' and that trying to contort and delude oneself that Paul is on the same level of writer as Plato or Shakespeare is just silly talk. Rather the message of Paul has to be taken as a command, the word of God without paying any attention to the craft of writing, so to speak. This explains a lot about why so many Christian writers these days are awful writers. I used to wonder why God wouldn't inspire people to write good books, or make good music instead of inspiring the drivel that is created in His name. I get it now. God isn't much of a stylist, or at least he doesn't choose to have his word spread through people with very much talent or originality in expression. I get it now! Although it makes me wonder how a spiritual being with so little interest in aesthetics or creativity managed to create a world with so much diversity and beauty. I think he must have outsourced this part of his job, probably to science.
To let my squirrel brain go back a paragraph or two and return to a former train of thought, I wonder how K chooses what the commands of God are that should be followed when the Bible can be contradictory on certain (quite a few) points. Maybe he writes about this in another book, but it's something I'm curious how the deals with because I like his view of religion, as I said it's probably similar to what mine would be if I had any bit of faith in me (yes, I know we all have some kind of faith, but I"m not talking about the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow or that gravity will continue to work, those aren't really faith anyway they either just ares that we accept about the world or they are verifiable by science, which I guess is a sort of faith that the world will continue working in the way it does and that magic won't make everything different two seconds from now.... it didn't, I stopped and waited to see if it did). His way of looking at the Bible is the anthesis of the talmudic way that Judaism has treated many of the same texts. As K pretty much explicitly says in one example he gives, there are no mysteries in the gospels. You accept what you say because you have faith. Another way of saying this is that there is no subtlety to the word of God, the text doesn't need to be opened up, hairs don't need to be split, there is no secret behind the text, don't deconstruct it or analyze it, or write endless commentaries (a la the Talmud); I'm extrapolating here but I don't think I'm going to far out on a limb with what K's feelings would be on this. Rather the religiosity of the experience is only through faith, everything else is debasing.
First Essay.
This essay is pretty fascinating and by this time a little bit dated. It's interesting how 'right' K is, but then again philosophers have been writing this kind of thing for centuries; the laxness of the modern age, the way that present social institutions are undermining the former greatness that society was capable of. And moving from K's time to our own this essay is similar to the Frankfurt School critique of society and Debord and Co.'s Situationist spectacle.
K isn't as anti-mass media and Nostradamus like in seeing the rise of the internet as one might think by reading the back cover. His beef is rather with the endless reflection over action of modern society. Everything can be thought through and twisted around and rationalized to be anything anyone wants it to be. Morality can be jerry-rigged to back any heinous idea (some torture is good as opposed to ethically saying torture is wrong, you don't get to say you are being moral if you torture someone) by reflecting and thinking about something long and hard enough (this is a skill learned well as a philosophy student, you soon realize that you can rationalize just about anything). Not necessarily in the same arena, but even action is endlessly put aside for debating and thinking that while good to a point becomes a means in and of itself. In all of this K see's a great leveling taking place and in the scope of the media an entity called the public that everyone is a part of and also not a part of is created through the in K's time newspapers.
Are things worse today than in K's time? I have no idea. I'd expect they are about the same. About the whole inaction thing, K missed the boat a little bit on that one since two years after writing the essay all of those revolutions broke out all over Europe and the modern day person can say that in the incessant chatter of blog and tweets no one does anything more than just endlessly reflect and argue but I'm fairly certain that things are still going on, changes are still happening (for better or for worse), maybe it's not a revolutionary age, but there are goods and evils in all times, right?
I was going to write a lot more about this essay but it's kind of boring to point out how right he is, because so much of his critique is obvious these days to us, but at the same time are things that probably should be said. And I was going to appreciate the irony of blabbing on and on about this stuff on a social networking website and adding my own 'uninformed' opinion into the irresponsible public commentary about the word, and then maybe point out that one doesn't need to be a professor to have something worthwhile to say and that a lot of what professional philosophers say these days is little more than careerist verbal masturbation and then maybe I'd go on a little bit of a side rant about the public versus the ivory tower intellectual and say a lot of woe's are us we are all doomed and becoming stupider and stupider, but then I thought I'd just paraphrase what I was going to say in a couple of run on sentences, let you decide if you were missing something good or fortunate to not have to read more of my inane babbling and also let you fill in the gaps about what you think I might have said, if you are the type that would care about this kind of thing. Instead I'm just going to wrap up this long winded review here and go watch a movie or something.
August 5, 2020
Another interesting read and I have to commend the bravery of Kierkegaard for intervening in a fight and trying to point out the irony of the situation to one of the attackers involved. Not many people would have done that.
July 28, 2016
Who knew Søren Kierkegaard was such a comedian? Not me. I mean, yes, I knew he was the “cool” philosopher who managed to reconcile existentialism with mysticism, albeit of the Christian variety, and that he unpacked the biblical story about Abraham ordered to kill his son by God. How cool is that? But funny? He wasn’t so hilarious in his SPIRITUAL WRITINGS, which is the only book of his I had previously read. But in THE PRESENT AGE: ON THE DEATH OF REBELLION, a collection of conjoined essays, he’s a snarky, sarcastic and satirical hoot.
The fun starts with the introduction by Walter Kaufmann, who basically riffs on a long parody of introductions. He’s just the opening act, though, and when Kierkegaard hits the stage the real hysterics begin. I can’t say I understand what it was he’s writing about, but I love reading it. He just kills, and woe to be one of the targets in his sights.
Best I can tell, Kierkegaard, is, like many a comic before him, a bit of a curmudgeon. The first essay can be read as a back-in-the-good-old-days rant. He goes off on the lack of “passion” today, whatever he exactly means by passion, and how knowledge is now untethered to passion which makes rebellion impossible. I think this has something to do with religion and our distance from spirituality. It also reads very much like a contemporary critique of what’s going on in our world today, especially with the current presidential election, even though the piece was written over 150 years ago.
Kierkegaard is a bit of a prophet, which segues nicely into the second essay, “Of the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle.” It’s shorter by half and easier to digest in it’s singular theme of companion-contrast of genius and apostle. Kierkegaard is no egotist. He’s just a genius, which means manmade and in time incorporated into culture writ large. The apostle, however, is touched by the divine, which solely gives them authority — not intelligence or creative gifts. It reminds me of something I’ve been thinking of: how science is often used by proponents and opponents of religion to either uphold or disprove their beliefs, respectively.
But science or rationality or logic is a ruler not made to measure spirit and therefore it’s impossible to compare the two and foolish to try. It’s a matter of faith, not science, which is where Kierkegaard goes off the rails a bit for me. He has made an assumption based on faith that the apostle is driven by divine inspiration and therefore unimpeachable, which may or may not be true, and if it’s not than it opens the door to dangerous indoctrination and exploitation. But maybe I’m just a genius.
The fun starts with the introduction by Walter Kaufmann, who basically riffs on a long parody of introductions. He’s just the opening act, though, and when Kierkegaard hits the stage the real hysterics begin. I can’t say I understand what it was he’s writing about, but I love reading it. He just kills, and woe to be one of the targets in his sights.
Best I can tell, Kierkegaard, is, like many a comic before him, a bit of a curmudgeon. The first essay can be read as a back-in-the-good-old-days rant. He goes off on the lack of “passion” today, whatever he exactly means by passion, and how knowledge is now untethered to passion which makes rebellion impossible. I think this has something to do with religion and our distance from spirituality. It also reads very much like a contemporary critique of what’s going on in our world today, especially with the current presidential election, even though the piece was written over 150 years ago.
Kierkegaard is a bit of a prophet, which segues nicely into the second essay, “Of the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle.” It’s shorter by half and easier to digest in it’s singular theme of companion-contrast of genius and apostle. Kierkegaard is no egotist. He’s just a genius, which means manmade and in time incorporated into culture writ large. The apostle, however, is touched by the divine, which solely gives them authority — not intelligence or creative gifts. It reminds me of something I’ve been thinking of: how science is often used by proponents and opponents of religion to either uphold or disprove their beliefs, respectively.
But science or rationality or logic is a ruler not made to measure spirit and therefore it’s impossible to compare the two and foolish to try. It’s a matter of faith, not science, which is where Kierkegaard goes off the rails a bit for me. He has made an assumption based on faith that the apostle is driven by divine inspiration and therefore unimpeachable, which may or may not be true, and if it’s not than it opens the door to dangerous indoctrination and exploitation. But maybe I’m just a genius.
April 24, 2021
Kierkegaard would probably find it hilarious that in the 21st century the public is still reviewing his review of "The Two Ages," in which he reflects upon the dangers of reflection in the present age. But I hope he would be pleased that the public is reading, because reading and reflecting is the first stage on the way to escaping the pointless reflection he criticizes in this book. This sounds paradoxical, but it's at the heart of Kierkegaard's analysis -- the "levelling" of the individual by the public sets the stage for radical individuality, which is the only kind of existence that Kierkegaard thinks is truly meaningful.
So no, The Present Age is not a conservative call for a return to a classic age, or a call for revolution, and it's not about the death of rebellion (which is itself an abstraction, which is precisely the thing he is concerned about.) The Present Age is a jumping off point. It's sets up the question: how does a person become an individual? How can you be special... just like everyone else? He doesn't answer that here, but he does in his other works.
So no, The Present Age is not a conservative call for a return to a classic age, or a call for revolution, and it's not about the death of rebellion (which is itself an abstraction, which is precisely the thing he is concerned about.) The Present Age is a jumping off point. It's sets up the question: how does a person become an individual? How can you be special... just like everyone else? He doesn't answer that here, but he does in his other works.
August 3, 2018
The 'public' is not real. The 'they' take us away from our true authentic self by confusing our passions with reflection and distracting from our meaning. Our 'being' is the to be and is the real, we all know 'human being' and Kierkegaard wants us to return to learn 'Christian being' while he knows that irony is jealous of earnestness (authenticity).
All of those ideas float around in the titled essay and a summation for what he wants to impart to the reader would be 'stop thinking and follow yourself'. (Nietzsche and Heidegger both greatly overlap with the thought from the first essay either intentionally or not).
A whole lot of Heidegger's 'Being and Time' is within the first essay, and most of the parts of what drives Kierkegaard near mad with angst lie within the two essays. He said in the second essay 'it is modest of the nightingale not to require any one to listen to it; but it is also proud of the nightingale not to care whether anyone listens or not'. He's also speaking of himself and the paradox for which we all find ourselves in regards to the problem of life.
I'll share my paradox. I can't stand Kierkegaard. He can not stand what I hold sacred, humanism and enlightenment values, but I love to read him for reasons that elude me, because he's right on part of the story he tells.
All of those ideas float around in the titled essay and a summation for what he wants to impart to the reader would be 'stop thinking and follow yourself'. (Nietzsche and Heidegger both greatly overlap with the thought from the first essay either intentionally or not).
A whole lot of Heidegger's 'Being and Time' is within the first essay, and most of the parts of what drives Kierkegaard near mad with angst lie within the two essays. He said in the second essay 'it is modest of the nightingale not to require any one to listen to it; but it is also proud of the nightingale not to care whether anyone listens or not'. He's also speaking of himself and the paradox for which we all find ourselves in regards to the problem of life.
I'll share my paradox. I can't stand Kierkegaard. He can not stand what I hold sacred, humanism and enlightenment values, but I love to read him for reasons that elude me, because he's right on part of the story he tells.
February 21, 2014
I loved the first essay, “the present age”
The present age is a rant on the change of times and the ideas in it matter even more today. Kierkegaard here talks about the loss of passion. loss of passion leading to indolence and the lack of action. Loss of individuality and the rise of mob mentality.
It is an age of advertisement, an age of publicity. Nothing happens but there is instant publicity about it.
The second essay, “the difference between a genius and an apostle” deals with the topic of authority.
The genius is what he is by himself and apostle is what he is by divine authority. The genius has immanent teleology and the apostle has absolute teleology.
Authority is a specific quality that enters from somewhere else and qualitatively asserts itself precisely when the content of the statement or the act is made a matter of indifference aesthetically.
The present age is a rant on the change of times and the ideas in it matter even more today. Kierkegaard here talks about the loss of passion. loss of passion leading to indolence and the lack of action. Loss of individuality and the rise of mob mentality.
It is an age of advertisement, an age of publicity. Nothing happens but there is instant publicity about it.
The second essay, “the difference between a genius and an apostle” deals with the topic of authority.
The genius is what he is by himself and apostle is what he is by divine authority. The genius has immanent teleology and the apostle has absolute teleology.
Authority is a specific quality that enters from somewhere else and qualitatively asserts itself precisely when the content of the statement or the act is made a matter of indifference aesthetically.
July 4, 2022
Well, it finally happened. I suppose this isn't actually breaking too much of a precedent since I've read like t w o (2) Kierkegaard books (fake stan much). But based on those 2 reviews the level of unhealthy love and admiration I have for Kierkegaard should be obvious, and I was expecting a lot of 5 star bangers out of this guy so a 3 star here still feels pretty weird. But in fairness, this is probably one of the more conflicted and complex 3 stars I'll ever give so reader be warned - this is gonna be super long winded.
While The Present Age wields a level of esoteric writing that any reader of Kierkegaard, hardcore or otherwise, would expect from him, it functions inherently differently from a work like Fear and Trembling in that it's a form of societal commentary/critique, and much more grounded because of it. This combination does NOT play to Kierkegaard's benefit. Don't get me wrong - the prose and opinions in the book are exactly the kind of ironic, melodramatic, and unwieldy shit I've come to adore about Kierkegaard. But when it came to actual sociological prescriptions, rather than just ideological or existential ones, he falls a bit flat. Kierkegaard seemed to believe that his age was through with revolution and political action. Two years after he published this in 1848 a wave of revolutions so large swept Europe that the year 1848 is literally remembered explicitly for how revolutionary it was. Not to mention that it was ALSO right around this time that Marx and Engel's would together develop a philosophical system that would go on to literally inspire much of the modern age's political revolutions as well... This is without a doubt, a massive L for Kierkegaard (even after he explicitly states in his conclusion that he could care less whether he ends up being right or not - sorry buddy I love you but even I can't let you be that cheeky).
But herein lies the tension of the book: if it's all so wrong, why it SOUND so damn RELATABLE!?! In it Kierkegaard LAMBASTS people who sit around worrying way too much about silly concepts like "thinking" about stuff and being "rational" about everything, pointing out how this causes both a lack of action that stops anything from actually getting done and a lack of passion that makes people's moral prescriptions, while "technically" true, ultimately shallow and spineless. Additionally, his concept of "the public" is literally just Heidegger's highly important concept of "the they", so much so that I'm wondering where Being and Time's god damn citation was, and this also works into some pretty sharp insights into the influence of the media that seem to have grown just as much in relevance as the media itself has in prominence and influence. I very much like all of this. But given Kierkegaard's sociological ineptitude, is it just a bunch of baloney that I'm reading way to much into? I think that would be going a little too far. What I interpret Kierkegaard as really critiquing is an intellectual trend in his time of post-Enlightenment thinking that would lead to the flourishing of modern sciences, and of course, the domination of Hegel's indeed very reflective dialectical system. And in a vacuum of these ideologies alone, I think his critique has A LOT more bite; it is TRUE that a person overwhelmed by such thinking might develop a lack of initiative and passion, and I think there are some examples of this sort of thing in today's political climate. But where he goes wrong is the classic case of being way too essentialist about the attitudes of an entire generation of people. I appreciate that Kierkegaard is trying to cope with his highly religious and reflective philosophical upbringing, but not EVERYONE is a nerd like you, buddy.
There was also another important aspect of what Kierkegaard talks about here that I think is of particular importance. As stated, Kierkegaard is sorely missing the passion of a good bloody revolution, and really seems to want to watch the world burn like the grumpy emo boy that he is. But he simultaneously comes off as incredibly fond of the authority of the "old order", like that wielded by monarchs. Confusing the matter even MORE, he then goes on to admit at the end that an age of reflection, despite how SHITTY it supposedly is, simultaneously is in fact NEEDED for anyone to achieve the highest form of existence, a religious one, à la the knight of faith from F&T. Classic Kierkegaard. While this is certainly a puzzle that I can add to the MANY other moments that I'll need additional readings to one day decipher, I got an interesting impression when trying to work this out that Kierkegaard seems to define individuality in a very interesting, and I think flawed, manner: individuality through hierarchy. Whether it be the hierarchy of monarchy, or of the revolutionaries under their leader, or the hierarchy of the sole individual under their divine experience of God, the essence of individuality for Kierkegaard seems to nessecarily rely on hierarchical systems that operate to place one in some meaningful order, and thus confer onto them individuality through said meaning. Without SOME hierarchy, some form of authority to command over your life, you're left to be "levelled" into the non existent and meaningless "public". Of course, this sort of attitude is both bad, troubling, and a general detriment to the value of this work both as a piece of philosophy, and even moreso, as a societal critique, which is the explicitly intension of the book. And while I have to reluctantly take stars off for that, it is at the same time such an interesting and illuminating look into Kierkegaard's motivations as a writer, philosopher, and sad twisted grump.
TL;DR - In the latest episode of Jacob reading Kierkegaard, I form a silly little parasocial relationship with my favorite deceased philosopher wherein he teeters on the brink of anti-intellectualism and anti-egalitarianism, aggravating me into verbally accosting him in spite of my love for him, which he secretly intended for me to do all along so that I would satisfy his deep masochistic desires with a passion he had for so long been yearning for.
While The Present Age wields a level of esoteric writing that any reader of Kierkegaard, hardcore or otherwise, would expect from him, it functions inherently differently from a work like Fear and Trembling in that it's a form of societal commentary/critique, and much more grounded because of it. This combination does NOT play to Kierkegaard's benefit. Don't get me wrong - the prose and opinions in the book are exactly the kind of ironic, melodramatic, and unwieldy shit I've come to adore about Kierkegaard. But when it came to actual sociological prescriptions, rather than just ideological or existential ones, he falls a bit flat. Kierkegaard seemed to believe that his age was through with revolution and political action. Two years after he published this in 1848 a wave of revolutions so large swept Europe that the year 1848 is literally remembered explicitly for how revolutionary it was. Not to mention that it was ALSO right around this time that Marx and Engel's would together develop a philosophical system that would go on to literally inspire much of the modern age's political revolutions as well... This is without a doubt, a massive L for Kierkegaard (even after he explicitly states in his conclusion that he could care less whether he ends up being right or not - sorry buddy I love you but even I can't let you be that cheeky).
But herein lies the tension of the book: if it's all so wrong, why it SOUND so damn RELATABLE!?! In it Kierkegaard LAMBASTS people who sit around worrying way too much about silly concepts like "thinking" about stuff and being "rational" about everything, pointing out how this causes both a lack of action that stops anything from actually getting done and a lack of passion that makes people's moral prescriptions, while "technically" true, ultimately shallow and spineless. Additionally, his concept of "the public" is literally just Heidegger's highly important concept of "the they", so much so that I'm wondering where Being and Time's god damn citation was, and this also works into some pretty sharp insights into the influence of the media that seem to have grown just as much in relevance as the media itself has in prominence and influence. I very much like all of this. But given Kierkegaard's sociological ineptitude, is it just a bunch of baloney that I'm reading way to much into? I think that would be going a little too far. What I interpret Kierkegaard as really critiquing is an intellectual trend in his time of post-Enlightenment thinking that would lead to the flourishing of modern sciences, and of course, the domination of Hegel's indeed very reflective dialectical system. And in a vacuum of these ideologies alone, I think his critique has A LOT more bite; it is TRUE that a person overwhelmed by such thinking might develop a lack of initiative and passion, and I think there are some examples of this sort of thing in today's political climate. But where he goes wrong is the classic case of being way too essentialist about the attitudes of an entire generation of people. I appreciate that Kierkegaard is trying to cope with his highly religious and reflective philosophical upbringing, but not EVERYONE is a nerd like you, buddy.
There was also another important aspect of what Kierkegaard talks about here that I think is of particular importance. As stated, Kierkegaard is sorely missing the passion of a good bloody revolution, and really seems to want to watch the world burn like the grumpy emo boy that he is. But he simultaneously comes off as incredibly fond of the authority of the "old order", like that wielded by monarchs. Confusing the matter even MORE, he then goes on to admit at the end that an age of reflection, despite how SHITTY it supposedly is, simultaneously is in fact NEEDED for anyone to achieve the highest form of existence, a religious one, à la the knight of faith from F&T. Classic Kierkegaard. While this is certainly a puzzle that I can add to the MANY other moments that I'll need additional readings to one day decipher, I got an interesting impression when trying to work this out that Kierkegaard seems to define individuality in a very interesting, and I think flawed, manner: individuality through hierarchy. Whether it be the hierarchy of monarchy, or of the revolutionaries under their leader, or the hierarchy of the sole individual under their divine experience of God, the essence of individuality for Kierkegaard seems to nessecarily rely on hierarchical systems that operate to place one in some meaningful order, and thus confer onto them individuality through said meaning. Without SOME hierarchy, some form of authority to command over your life, you're left to be "levelled" into the non existent and meaningless "public". Of course, this sort of attitude is both bad, troubling, and a general detriment to the value of this work both as a piece of philosophy, and even moreso, as a societal critique, which is the explicitly intension of the book. And while I have to reluctantly take stars off for that, it is at the same time such an interesting and illuminating look into Kierkegaard's motivations as a writer, philosopher, and sad twisted grump.
TL;DR - In the latest episode of Jacob reading Kierkegaard, I form a silly little parasocial relationship with my favorite deceased philosopher wherein he teeters on the brink of anti-intellectualism and anti-egalitarianism, aggravating me into verbally accosting him in spite of my love for him, which he secretly intended for me to do all along so that I would satisfy his deep masochistic desires with a passion he had for so long been yearning for.
July 9, 2024
A critique of reflection is probably the last thing one would expect from a philosopher, the vocation which for many is synonymous with the capacity, and could not survive without its nourishing and reproductive insight.
However, for Kierkegaard, the issue is not reflection in and of itself, but the immobilising result of its unmediated, isolated, indiscriminate, utilitarian employment.
It seems to signify an approach to life which cravenly shirks from a hearty enthusiasm and full-blooded passion, capable of moving both individuals and civilisations.
In short, the problem for Kierkegaard is that the immanent, dialectical relationships which structure the human experience and society at large are diluted by a cowering over-reliance on a calculating capacity for reflection. This leads to an unproductive and “exhausted tension”, a stable bond between subjects which silences the possibility of transformative antimony in exchange for a dispassionate ambiguity.
One especially remarkable aspect of this text which will surely stupify you as it did me is its incredibly modern diagnoses of social ills. At risk of falling headfirst into the mystic, it at times feels almost oracular.
The most obvious parallel most will notice is just how much he presages Nietzsche in some almost uncanny ways (necessarily accompanied with prose which would not be out of place in Adorno’s Minima Moralia).
Of course, Kierkegaard has not the tools nor desire to locate the disease in industrial capitalism persay, but many of his more outright political insights read almost like the modern left’s laments of a paralysed present and lost future.
To be sure, Kierkegaard’s protest here is less with the lack of meaningful change and more with the lack of ANY change whatsoever.
In light of his comments, today’s “cutting” critiques of “postmodern”, nihilistic irony and apathy seem almost tired and antiquated. Already in the first half of the 19th century, Kierkegaard observes how “everything is made into a joke”, that the comic increasingly appears more as a symptom of decline than genuine satire.
Lacking the historically materialist dimension of analysis, Kierkegaard is perhaps victim to mistaking the cause for the effect. Could reflection’s tendency to generate hollow abstractions be the effect of ideological reproduction as a function of the structure, rather than the cause? Is not the dreaded “levelling process” a result of capital’s drive for totalising homogenisation, using reflection and abstraction as just another tool for this end?
This levelling, which Kierkegaard diagnoses as that process which is precipitated by untrammelled reflection, seems to condemn supposed economic levelling in the name of equality as much as it does the levelling of the individual, producing relentless abstractions.
One such abstraction is the “public”, a rather empty signifier arising out of the erosion of real association. The ambiguity of reflection begets a fragmentation and atomisation which appears to embolden the individual but actually disenfranchises it by subsuming it into an illusory whole (again, we somehow stray into territory of far more modern theorists). In some ways a product of the press (can mass culture even be said to exist yet?), the public menace rids itself of accountability, endlessly deferring responsibility.
If reflection leads to levelling, and levelling leads to desolate abstractions, then what might the solution be, my dear Kierkegaard? If you know absolutely nothing about the man, the answer still won’t surprise you: God. Of course it’s God.
If you will recall the argument of Fear and Trembling, surrounding the “leap of faith” beyond the strictures of reason (as utilised in reflection), the shock value subsides even further.
Religion may well be a solution to the levelling of individuality, but is it really the only one? I have hope that real community can still prosper, if not today then tomorrow, that instead of subsuming the individual for the sake of the fatigued and fractured totality, we can facilitate its flowering by sincerely establishing the conditions for its development and distinction.
———————————————————————————
The text closes with “Of the difference between a Genius and an Apostle”, which might seem a strange topic to pair with a social polemic. However, it gradually begins to reflect many of the themes of The Present Age, hooking directly back into the critique of abstraction at the very end.
For Kierkegaard, faith and authority are inextricably bound together. When the word of God flows from the Apostle’s mouth, it is divine authority which lends it great importance, not its form. When the divine is reduced to the aesthetic, the worldly, the immanent, when it is decoupled from authority, faith is no longer demanded and religion is jeopardised.
Authority, whether immanent or transcendent, is the supreme quality of its possessor - all other qualities are incidental in its shadow. If one appealed to the aesthetic or philosophical qualities of divine revelation as evidence for its significance, or even demanded its empirical proof, then this would at best insult divine authority and at worst preclude the need for faith so integral to the “paradox-religion”.
I suspect that this paradox approaches the heart of Kierkegaard’s thought, as I am coming to understand it.
However, for Kierkegaard, the issue is not reflection in and of itself, but the immobilising result of its unmediated, isolated, indiscriminate, utilitarian employment.
“Reflection is not the evil; but a reflective condition and the deadlock which it involves, by transforming the capacity for action into a means of escape from action, is both corrupt and dangerous, and leads in the end to a retrograde movement.”
It seems to signify an approach to life which cravenly shirks from a hearty enthusiasm and full-blooded passion, capable of moving both individuals and civilisations.
”Every one knows a great deal, we all know which way we ought to go and all the different ways we can go, but nobody is willing to move.”
In short, the problem for Kierkegaard is that the immanent, dialectical relationships which structure the human experience and society at large are diluted by a cowering over-reliance on a calculating capacity for reflection. This leads to an unproductive and “exhausted tension”, a stable bond between subjects which silences the possibility of transformative antimony in exchange for a dispassionate ambiguity.
One especially remarkable aspect of this text which will surely stupify you as it did me is its incredibly modern diagnoses of social ills. At risk of falling headfirst into the mystic, it at times feels almost oracular.
The most obvious parallel most will notice is just how much he presages Nietzsche in some almost uncanny ways (necessarily accompanied with prose which would not be out of place in Adorno’s Minima Moralia).
Of course, Kierkegaard has not the tools nor desire to locate the disease in industrial capitalism persay, but many of his more outright political insights read almost like the modern left’s laments of a paralysed present and lost future.
To be sure, Kierkegaard’s protest here is less with the lack of meaningful change and more with the lack of ANY change whatsoever.
In light of his comments, today’s “cutting” critiques of “postmodern”, nihilistic irony and apathy seem almost tired and antiquated. Already in the first half of the 19th century, Kierkegaard observes how “everything is made into a joke”, that the comic increasingly appears more as a symptom of decline than genuine satire.
Lacking the historically materialist dimension of analysis, Kierkegaard is perhaps victim to mistaking the cause for the effect. Could reflection’s tendency to generate hollow abstractions be the effect of ideological reproduction as a function of the structure, rather than the cause? Is not the dreaded “levelling process” a result of capital’s drive for totalising homogenisation, using reflection and abstraction as just another tool for this end?
This levelling, which Kierkegaard diagnoses as that process which is precipitated by untrammelled reflection, seems to condemn supposed economic levelling in the name of equality as much as it does the levelling of the individual, producing relentless abstractions.
One such abstraction is the “public”, a rather empty signifier arising out of the erosion of real association. The ambiguity of reflection begets a fragmentation and atomisation which appears to embolden the individual but actually disenfranchises it by subsuming it into an illusory whole (again, we somehow stray into territory of far more modern theorists). In some ways a product of the press (can mass culture even be said to exist yet?), the public menace rids itself of accountability, endlessly deferring responsibility.
If reflection leads to levelling, and levelling leads to desolate abstractions, then what might the solution be, my dear Kierkegaard? If you know absolutely nothing about the man, the answer still won’t surprise you: God. Of course it’s God.
“the individual… is either lost in the dizziness of unending abstraction or saved for ever in the reality of religion”
If you will recall the argument of Fear and Trembling, surrounding the “leap of faith” beyond the strictures of reason (as utilised in reflection), the shock value subsides even further.
“the sharp scythe of the leveller makes it possible for every one individually to leap over the blade - and behold, it is God who waits. Leap, then, into the arms of God”
Religion may well be a solution to the levelling of individuality, but is it really the only one? I have hope that real community can still prosper, if not today then tomorrow, that instead of subsuming the individual for the sake of the fatigued and fractured totality, we can facilitate its flowering by sincerely establishing the conditions for its development and distinction.
———————————————————————————
The text closes with “Of the difference between a Genius and an Apostle”, which might seem a strange topic to pair with a social polemic. However, it gradually begins to reflect many of the themes of The Present Age, hooking directly back into the critique of abstraction at the very end.
For Kierkegaard, faith and authority are inextricably bound together. When the word of God flows from the Apostle’s mouth, it is divine authority which lends it great importance, not its form. When the divine is reduced to the aesthetic, the worldly, the immanent, when it is decoupled from authority, faith is no longer demanded and religion is jeopardised.
Authority, whether immanent or transcendent, is the supreme quality of its possessor - all other qualities are incidental in its shadow. If one appealed to the aesthetic or philosophical qualities of divine revelation as evidence for its significance, or even demanded its empirical proof, then this would at best insult divine authority and at worst preclude the need for faith so integral to the “paradox-religion”.
I suspect that this paradox approaches the heart of Kierkegaard’s thought, as I am coming to understand it.
February 13, 2021
It is a short pamphlet written in 1946. Though many revolutions would go around in the following years, the pamphlet reflects on categories to analyze (even) the present moment. In that sense, it could be used to analyze any context in many other places.
The present age is of understanding and reflection, without passion. Enthusiasm going quickly into repose. It is the age of anticipation. “There is no more action or decision in our day than there is a perilous delight in swimming in shallow waters.”7 Sudden enthusiasm followed by apathy and indolence is very near the comic.
We are concerned here with the “how” of the age, struggling with the difficulties of “becoming”. “The established order of things continues to exist, but is its ambiguity which satisfies our reflective and passionless age”. 18 Being reflective is a key feature.
K. is using the word (moral, culpable), ressentiment, which seems important to know better. Read Aristophanes. “The ressentiment which is establishing itself is the process of leveling: hinders and stifle all action; it levels”. 23 “The leveling process is not the action of an individual but the work of reflection in the hands of an abstract power”. 26 The principle of individuality and the role played by a representative becomes important within the reflection process. The process of leveling can happen because of castes, too.
“The public is, in fact, the Levelling-Master rather than the actual leveler. The public is a monstrous nothing.”.33 The public: important to see it in its detail because though it is non-existent, it’s widely used. Another similar category is The Press.
“Talkativeness is the result of doing away with the vital distinction between talking and keeping silent”.43
“If the man who is moved to write by suffering is really initiated into the realm of ideals, he will reproduce the happiness as well as the suffering of his experience with the same affection”. 44 (Holy of Holies is at its entrance, qualitative opposites in an ideal equilibrium).
Formlessness is the result of doing away with the vital distinction between form and content. 47 It is strongly expressed in a passionless and reflective age. “On principle” a man could do anything, take part in anything and himself remain inhuman and indeterminate. 49 Superficiality is the result of doing away with the vital distinction between concealment and manifestation. Reasoning is doing away the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. One can reason about anything. “It is quite impossible for the community or the idea of association to save our age.” 54 *Because of the leveling process( the leader has become unrecognizable.
Reflections are not necessarily something harmful. We need to work through it in order that one's actions should be more intensive.
The present age is of understanding and reflection, without passion. Enthusiasm going quickly into repose. It is the age of anticipation. “There is no more action or decision in our day than there is a perilous delight in swimming in shallow waters.”7 Sudden enthusiasm followed by apathy and indolence is very near the comic.
We are concerned here with the “how” of the age, struggling with the difficulties of “becoming”. “The established order of things continues to exist, but is its ambiguity which satisfies our reflective and passionless age”. 18 Being reflective is a key feature.
K. is using the word (moral, culpable), ressentiment, which seems important to know better. Read Aristophanes. “The ressentiment which is establishing itself is the process of leveling: hinders and stifle all action; it levels”. 23 “The leveling process is not the action of an individual but the work of reflection in the hands of an abstract power”. 26 The principle of individuality and the role played by a representative becomes important within the reflection process. The process of leveling can happen because of castes, too.
“The public is, in fact, the Levelling-Master rather than the actual leveler. The public is a monstrous nothing.”.33 The public: important to see it in its detail because though it is non-existent, it’s widely used. Another similar category is The Press.
“Talkativeness is the result of doing away with the vital distinction between talking and keeping silent”.43
“If the man who is moved to write by suffering is really initiated into the realm of ideals, he will reproduce the happiness as well as the suffering of his experience with the same affection”. 44 (Holy of Holies is at its entrance, qualitative opposites in an ideal equilibrium).
Formlessness is the result of doing away with the vital distinction between form and content. 47 It is strongly expressed in a passionless and reflective age. “On principle” a man could do anything, take part in anything and himself remain inhuman and indeterminate. 49 Superficiality is the result of doing away with the vital distinction between concealment and manifestation. Reasoning is doing away the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. One can reason about anything. “It is quite impossible for the community or the idea of association to save our age.” 54 *Because of the leveling process( the leader has become unrecognizable.
Reflections are not necessarily something harmful. We need to work through it in order that one's actions should be more intensive.
February 15, 2015
There's a discomforting irony in my writing about this book -- in this performance of a reflection (or interpretation) of a reflection of a reflection of reflections ... as a result of media ... for GoodReads ... the ambiguous "public" among which you exist.
In reality, however, it's not reflection itself he condemns, as it may seem at a glance, but the condition which is used as an escape from responsibility of decisions and actions. Of course, who says the latter is not true still in the case of writing this review ... unless, again, writing a review is considered a creative "act" of stringing words to inspire you to pick up this book? ;)
His voice here is so reminiscent of Emerson, I wonder if there was any influence, although doubtful. This book was written in1846, and Emerson's Self-Reliance (and Other Essays), in 1841, the year SK began to write prolifically (and pseudonymously).
SK speaks of an age that has lost its passion and enthusiasm due to an overwhelming desire to be "cool" and to "fit in" where its virtuosity and good sense lies in, like Roman emperors, being a perpetual critic of others' lives and creations (media, books, art, &c.) that have become objects of amusement as a result of boredom -- not in taking action or exercising creative powers himself. Sounds familiar, no?
He touches on phenomena such as envy as a result of such passivity, gossip/chattiness vs. quiet, superficial knowledge vs. inwardness, reflection vs. passion, preference for second-hand knowledge (as onlookers) vs. first-hand experience, abundance of how-to books (e.g., how to write a love letter, how to pray, how to be a good so-and-so, &c.) and what's implied, and his more famous "leveling," the role of mass media in the process, the cowardice concealed by being in "the majority," "the public," and "superficiality."
I believe SK was one of those inspired geniuses who wrote because of the sheer drive that he "must," as his raison d'être -- not to entertain, publish, add to our stash of knowledge some cleaver morsels to be dishes out at a cocktail party ... but to change us. His timeless writings stand true irrespective of our self-defensive criticisms.
And so this book (and others by him) I will recommend "to that solitary individual" (as he dedicates each book) who, like SK, shuns the company of an innocuous and genteel apostle of comfortable reassurance but will dare to look at his own sovereign responsibility as an individual (and what it signifies) mercilessly staring back at him from the pages without allowing room for disguises ... that he might be spurred to action.
In reality, however, it's not reflection itself he condemns, as it may seem at a glance, but the condition which is used as an escape from responsibility of decisions and actions. Of course, who says the latter is not true still in the case of writing this review ... unless, again, writing a review is considered a creative "act" of stringing words to inspire you to pick up this book? ;)
His voice here is so reminiscent of Emerson, I wonder if there was any influence, although doubtful. This book was written in1846, and Emerson's Self-Reliance (and Other Essays), in 1841, the year SK began to write prolifically (and pseudonymously).
SK speaks of an age that has lost its passion and enthusiasm due to an overwhelming desire to be "cool" and to "fit in" where its virtuosity and good sense lies in, like Roman emperors, being a perpetual critic of others' lives and creations (media, books, art, &c.) that have become objects of amusement as a result of boredom -- not in taking action or exercising creative powers himself. Sounds familiar, no?
He touches on phenomena such as envy as a result of such passivity, gossip/chattiness vs. quiet, superficial knowledge vs. inwardness, reflection vs. passion, preference for second-hand knowledge (as onlookers) vs. first-hand experience, abundance of how-to books (e.g., how to write a love letter, how to pray, how to be a good so-and-so, &c.) and what's implied, and his more famous "leveling," the role of mass media in the process, the cowardice concealed by being in "the majority," "the public," and "superficiality."
I believe SK was one of those inspired geniuses who wrote because of the sheer drive that he "must," as his raison d'être -- not to entertain, publish, add to our stash of knowledge some cleaver morsels to be dishes out at a cocktail party ... but to change us. His timeless writings stand true irrespective of our self-defensive criticisms.
And so this book (and others by him) I will recommend "to that solitary individual" (as he dedicates each book) who, like SK, shuns the company of an innocuous and genteel apostle of comfortable reassurance but will dare to look at his own sovereign responsibility as an individual (and what it signifies) mercilessly staring back at him from the pages without allowing room for disguises ... that he might be spurred to action.
Want to read
October 21, 2025"modern people will crave constant self-expression but without any depth. they will turn confession into performance and performance into identity." rip kierkagaard you would hate performative men
April 19, 2022
“Life's existential tasks have lost the interest of reality; illusion cannot build a sanctuary for the divine growth of inwardness which ripens to decisions.”
Kierkegaard with his vibrant thoughts in this short essay was so so ahead of time that even now we can't touch the extremity of his genius. Even now,we are still in Kierkegaard's words living in an age of reflection and knowledge, but alas without any step towards the pureness of human passion. And it could be felt while reading this book that Kierkegaard was definitely worried about us,he really really cared for us! The kind of laughing stock we have become in this modern age is quite ironic and serious at the same time. This baffling contradiction not even being realised in a dialectical mode is again a matter of irony and seriousness. Whereas in this age of Social media we are being kept in shadow by the infinite abstraction—which is everything and nothing at the same time—our individuality, even the tiniest form of awareness of our individuality might be missing in us. Where are we actually in this fast paced, ambiguous social media age? What is the role an individual human being?or are there any clear notion of individuality? Or rather we are individual just in numerical sense? These are the types of profound realisation that Kierkegaard wants us to realise. Though it was written almost two hundred years ago,still it is relevant in our era of public and social life. While questioning the very foundation of public life,Kierkegaard shone brightly when he indicated the ideal task of individual. Though the task might differ,the passion never will differ. Because only in passion we can find ourselves confronting the biggest question regarding ourselves. If we can push aside this generation of idle talkativeness, and find within ourselves the tremendous source of silence,then it might get easier for us to talk what should really be talked about. Regarding this Kierkegaard writes beautifully:
“Silence is the essence of inwardness, of the inner life. Mere gossip anticipates real talk, and to express what is still in thought weakens action by forestalling it. But some one who can really talk, because he knows how to remain silent, will not talk about a variety of things but about one thing only, and he will know when to talk and when to remain silent.But talkativeness is afraid of the silence which reveals its emptiness.”
So as of now,we should rethink the way of our life,and our individual meaning in this vast abstract social machine of talkativeness.
Kierkegaard with his vibrant thoughts in this short essay was so so ahead of time that even now we can't touch the extremity of his genius. Even now,we are still in Kierkegaard's words living in an age of reflection and knowledge, but alas without any step towards the pureness of human passion. And it could be felt while reading this book that Kierkegaard was definitely worried about us,he really really cared for us! The kind of laughing stock we have become in this modern age is quite ironic and serious at the same time. This baffling contradiction not even being realised in a dialectical mode is again a matter of irony and seriousness. Whereas in this age of Social media we are being kept in shadow by the infinite abstraction—which is everything and nothing at the same time—our individuality, even the tiniest form of awareness of our individuality might be missing in us. Where are we actually in this fast paced, ambiguous social media age? What is the role an individual human being?or are there any clear notion of individuality? Or rather we are individual just in numerical sense? These are the types of profound realisation that Kierkegaard wants us to realise. Though it was written almost two hundred years ago,still it is relevant in our era of public and social life. While questioning the very foundation of public life,Kierkegaard shone brightly when he indicated the ideal task of individual. Though the task might differ,the passion never will differ. Because only in passion we can find ourselves confronting the biggest question regarding ourselves. If we can push aside this generation of idle talkativeness, and find within ourselves the tremendous source of silence,then it might get easier for us to talk what should really be talked about. Regarding this Kierkegaard writes beautifully:
“Silence is the essence of inwardness, of the inner life. Mere gossip anticipates real talk, and to express what is still in thought weakens action by forestalling it. But some one who can really talk, because he knows how to remain silent, will not talk about a variety of things but about one thing only, and he will know when to talk and when to remain silent.But talkativeness is afraid of the silence which reveals its emptiness.”
So as of now,we should rethink the way of our life,and our individual meaning in this vast abstract social machine of talkativeness.
February 26, 2015
Have to say I was pretty disappointed in Kierkegaard here. The piece is well written and if you accept his underlying principles then his reasoning is sound. However, I can't accept his underlying principles and, in fact, believe they are horrible principles for anyone to try and live by. His basic point is that merely to question those things that most Christians take on faith is blasphemy. He states repeatedly that one must consider God and Christ absolute authorities and that their statements are not be approached philosophically but simply taken on authority. Although I can see a Christian accepting this concerning God and Christ, the problem is that Kierkegaard also extends this to the apostles, as if there is no chance that they could have been mistaken in their revelations. He appears to be arguing that Apostle Paul's words, for example, must be completely accepted as having arisen from the authority of Christ, or they must be wholly rejected. No analysis of Paul's words need be done. To me, there is a long way between the divinity of Christ and the revelation of Paul. Paul was not divine and therefore not infallible. His words "must" be analyzed and considered before they can be accepted. At least that's my feeling on the matter.
February 21, 2021
Whoa I didn't know about this part of Kierkegaard at all: Sharp, witty and brilliantly critical of herd mentality!! Definitely a forefather of existentialism, now I see a there's a lot Kierkegaard in Nietzsche.
January 24, 2022
Alright grandpa let’s get you to bed
August 9, 2025
Just wow!!! Hard to believe he wrote this in 1846, it feels decades ahead of its time.
July 9, 2024
Este breve ensayo de Kierkegaard, de 1846, me ha sorprendido por su vigencia. El mismo pretende problematizar el espíritu de su época, a través del análisis crítico de una novela. En este sentido, el escritor danes elabora dos concepciones de época: la presente y la antigua; describiendo a la primera como reflexiva, niveladora y carente de acción e identidad; mientras que a la segunda la considera más revolucionaria, orientada a la individualización y a la excelencia... Ahora bien, el ensayo en sí se centra en la opinión pública, la cual no es del todo real, sino más bien una abstracción; para éste, la opinión pública en la modernidad lo es todo, pero a la vez no es nada, carece de fondo y sus apreciaciones son siempre maleables a través del tiempo, lo cual pudiera ser un problema generacional y existencial para la humanidad.
En lo personal, y como ya mencioné, encuentro en las ideas de Kierkegaard un eco que es posible yuxtaponer a nuestro mundo contemporáneo, en dónde la ambigüedad y falta de dirección para la humanidad se hace cada día más patente. Para el filósofo danes, esto es característico de periodos de transición, en dónde todavía la humanidad no ha alcanzado o cristalizado una concepción "religiosa" más allá de cierta cohesión artificial basada en la idea de comunidad o asociación; aquí, nos recuerda constantemente la relevancia del individuo sobre la estructura, al tiempo que se vuelve, en mi opinión, la lectura más densa y oscura. Esto último, al igual que ciertos pasajes orientados a la novela, que dicho sea de paso jamás llegamos a conocer (en términos de historia o argumento), es lo que me ha generado un poco de zozobra, ya que las ideas de Kierkegaard están orientadas y focalizadas a la susodicha novela y a sus personajes... por otra parte, aunque hay unos pasajes muy hermosos sobre el silencio y la construcción poética en literatura, los encontré algo enigmáticos o, basados en concepciones oscuras como lo divino, pero sin conceptualizarlo.
En fin, una lectura interesante, con alguna resonancia actual. Lo recomiendo sin más.
En lo personal, y como ya mencioné, encuentro en las ideas de Kierkegaard un eco que es posible yuxtaponer a nuestro mundo contemporáneo, en dónde la ambigüedad y falta de dirección para la humanidad se hace cada día más patente. Para el filósofo danes, esto es característico de periodos de transición, en dónde todavía la humanidad no ha alcanzado o cristalizado una concepción "religiosa" más allá de cierta cohesión artificial basada en la idea de comunidad o asociación; aquí, nos recuerda constantemente la relevancia del individuo sobre la estructura, al tiempo que se vuelve, en mi opinión, la lectura más densa y oscura. Esto último, al igual que ciertos pasajes orientados a la novela, que dicho sea de paso jamás llegamos a conocer (en términos de historia o argumento), es lo que me ha generado un poco de zozobra, ya que las ideas de Kierkegaard están orientadas y focalizadas a la susodicha novela y a sus personajes... por otra parte, aunque hay unos pasajes muy hermosos sobre el silencio y la construcción poética en literatura, los encontré algo enigmáticos o, basados en concepciones oscuras como lo divino, pero sin conceptualizarlo.
En fin, una lectura interesante, con alguna resonancia actual. Lo recomiendo sin más.
October 4, 2022
Whiny at times but otherwise an interesting read. My main take away is don’t be a printer, capable of producing so much but ignorant of your own potential.
February 6, 2023
this guy rocks
July 10, 2024
A brilliant and piercing analysis of the cultural moment, especially in light of recent events. Though published over 100 years ago, Kierkegaard finds himself living in a culture not unlike our own, concerned with the opinions of others, careful before acting, and above all safe. Here is the central characteristic of our age:
However well-meaning and strong the individual man may be (if he could only use his strength), he still has not the passion to be able to tear himself from the coils and seductive uncertainty of reflection. Nor do his surroundings supply the events of produce the general enthusiasm necessary in order to free him. Instead of coming to his help, his milieu forms around him a negative intellectual opposition, which juggles for a moment with a deceptive prospect, only to deceive him in the end by pointing to a brilliant way out of the difficulty--by showing him that the shrewdest thing of all is to do nothing. (p. 34)
In typical Kierkegaard fashion, he tells a story to illustrate this:
If the jewel which every one desired to possess lay far out on a frozen lake where the ice was very thin, watched over by the danger of death, while, closer in, the ice was perfectly safe, then in a passionate age the crowds would applaud the courage of the man who ventured out, they would tremble for him and with him in the danger of his decisive action, they would grieve over him if he were drowned, they would make a god of him if he secured the prize. But in an age without passion, in a reflective age, it would be otherwise. People would think each other clever in agreeing that is was unreasonable and not even worth while to venture so far out. And in this way they would transform daring and enthusiasm into a feat of skill, so as to do something, for after all 'something must be done.' The crowds would go out to watch from a safe place, and with the eyes of connoisseurs appraise the accomplished skater who could skate almost to the very edge (i.e. as far as the ice was still safe and the danger had not yet begun) and then turn back. The most accomplished skater would go out to the furthermost point and then perform a still more dangerous-looking run, so as to make the spectators hold their breath...Briefly, instead of being strengthened in their discernment and encouraged to do good, the [spectators] would more probably go home with an even stronger predisposition to the most dangerous, if also the most respectable, of all diseases: to admire in public what is considered unimportant in private, since everything is made into a joke. (37-38).
The second essay in this volume, "Of the difference between a Genius and an Apostle," is an examination of the question of Authority. Paul is authoritative because he is an Apostle, receiving a direct revelation from God. He is no genius and therefore cannot be judged in as such. Saying Paul's arguments are "brilliant" or "poorly proven" is a categorical mistake. They are either true or false.
However well-meaning and strong the individual man may be (if he could only use his strength), he still has not the passion to be able to tear himself from the coils and seductive uncertainty of reflection. Nor do his surroundings supply the events of produce the general enthusiasm necessary in order to free him. Instead of coming to his help, his milieu forms around him a negative intellectual opposition, which juggles for a moment with a deceptive prospect, only to deceive him in the end by pointing to a brilliant way out of the difficulty--by showing him that the shrewdest thing of all is to do nothing. (p. 34)
In typical Kierkegaard fashion, he tells a story to illustrate this:
If the jewel which every one desired to possess lay far out on a frozen lake where the ice was very thin, watched over by the danger of death, while, closer in, the ice was perfectly safe, then in a passionate age the crowds would applaud the courage of the man who ventured out, they would tremble for him and with him in the danger of his decisive action, they would grieve over him if he were drowned, they would make a god of him if he secured the prize. But in an age without passion, in a reflective age, it would be otherwise. People would think each other clever in agreeing that is was unreasonable and not even worth while to venture so far out. And in this way they would transform daring and enthusiasm into a feat of skill, so as to do something, for after all 'something must be done.' The crowds would go out to watch from a safe place, and with the eyes of connoisseurs appraise the accomplished skater who could skate almost to the very edge (i.e. as far as the ice was still safe and the danger had not yet begun) and then turn back. The most accomplished skater would go out to the furthermost point and then perform a still more dangerous-looking run, so as to make the spectators hold their breath...Briefly, instead of being strengthened in their discernment and encouraged to do good, the [spectators] would more probably go home with an even stronger predisposition to the most dangerous, if also the most respectable, of all diseases: to admire in public what is considered unimportant in private, since everything is made into a joke. (37-38).
The second essay in this volume, "Of the difference between a Genius and an Apostle," is an examination of the question of Authority. Paul is authoritative because he is an Apostle, receiving a direct revelation from God. He is no genius and therefore cannot be judged in as such. Saying Paul's arguments are "brilliant" or "poorly proven" is a categorical mistake. They are either true or false.
August 9, 2020
Kierkegaard yaşadığı çağı sorunlu olarak görüyor ve bunları gözlemleyerek bizlere sunuyor. Yaşadığı çağın daha da kötü olacağını, daha da geriye gideceğini düşünüyor. Kendisi doğruları söyleyerek, görerek gerçekçi bir yaklaşımla çağını ele alıyor. Kierkegaard kitabında sürekli bireyin önemini ve bireyin kendisinden bahsediyor. Kitap çoğunlukla Kierkegaard'ın yaşadığı tarihi, dönemi bize sunuyor ve biz de gözlemliyoruz.
Zaman zaman sıkıldığım oldu ama kitap direk beni uzaklaştırmadı kendinden çünkü bana bir şeyler katıyordu. Yeni düşünceler görüyordum ve hoşuma gidiyordu. Felsefe sevenler için güzel bir kitap olabilir diyebilirim.
Zaman zaman sıkıldığım oldu ama kitap direk beni uzaklaştırmadı kendinden çünkü bana bir şeyler katıyordu. Yeni düşünceler görüyordum ve hoşuma gidiyordu. Felsefe sevenler için güzel bir kitap olabilir diyebilirim.
September 21, 2025
Kierkegaard basically said “it’s that damn phone” 179 years ago, that’s crazyyy 🫨
August 23, 2025
Great message — still too stupid for philosophy
Read
July 24, 2020no one:
SK: you pansy. you coward. I bet you won't even go out ice skating on the thinnest ice you can. because you're afraid of judgement, that's why. the judgement of your peers. you know whose judgement you should be worried about? the judgement of God.
no one:
SK: God is the only person who can see you as an individual and not just a crab in a bucket pulling every crab down
no one:
SK: also the media sucks, just like in general.
no one:
SK: this has nothing to do with the mean caricatures of me they publish. the media sucks on its own merits. I mean they suck because they publish mean cartoons of me but they also suck because they're an abstraction that keeps people from realizing their true ethical potential before God
no one:
SK: okay they kinda hurt my feelings ngl
no one:
SK: also that guy's book was really good. this essay was a commissioned book review remember. I did review the book. I even read it in fact. and all this is in the book for certain. I'm not like reading things into the book. I'm def not using the book review as an excuse to talk about mass media and living authentically. I read the book like ten times
no one:
SK:
no one:
SK: convert to Christianity
SK: you pansy. you coward. I bet you won't even go out ice skating on the thinnest ice you can. because you're afraid of judgement, that's why. the judgement of your peers. you know whose judgement you should be worried about? the judgement of God.
no one:
SK: God is the only person who can see you as an individual and not just a crab in a bucket pulling every crab down
no one:
SK: also the media sucks, just like in general.
no one:
SK: this has nothing to do with the mean caricatures of me they publish. the media sucks on its own merits. I mean they suck because they publish mean cartoons of me but they also suck because they're an abstraction that keeps people from realizing their true ethical potential before God
no one:
SK: okay they kinda hurt my feelings ngl
no one:
SK: also that guy's book was really good. this essay was a commissioned book review remember. I did review the book. I even read it in fact. and all this is in the book for certain. I'm not like reading things into the book. I'm def not using the book review as an excuse to talk about mass media and living authentically. I read the book like ten times
no one:
SK:
no one:
SK: convert to Christianity
November 16, 2020
Video review here
A book that successfully predicted more about contemporary society than perhaps any other book I've ever read. This is the best place for new readers of Kierkegaard, and it reads very much like an earlier version of Nietzsche. After three years of reflection, I personally think reading Kierkegaard was better for me than reading Nietzsche in the long run. It's very much an argument in favor of absurdism over nihilism in a defense against human decency in troubled times. At the very least, Kierkegaard offers a funnier and more balanced view for living in a society that has problems. As far as I can see, Kierkegaard provides the most intellectually appealing form of Christianity that might appeal, at least as a counterpoint, for modern day atheists. So I'd highly recommend it to culture vultures, polemicists, anarchists and free-thinkers.
A book that successfully predicted more about contemporary society than perhaps any other book I've ever read. This is the best place for new readers of Kierkegaard, and it reads very much like an earlier version of Nietzsche. After three years of reflection, I personally think reading Kierkegaard was better for me than reading Nietzsche in the long run. It's very much an argument in favor of absurdism over nihilism in a defense against human decency in troubled times. At the very least, Kierkegaard offers a funnier and more balanced view for living in a society that has problems. As far as I can see, Kierkegaard provides the most intellectually appealing form of Christianity that might appeal, at least as a counterpoint, for modern day atheists. So I'd highly recommend it to culture vultures, polemicists, anarchists and free-thinkers.
June 4, 2023
' The public is a host , more numerous than all the peoples together, but it is a body which can never be reviewed, it cannot be represented, because it is an abstraction' (34)
'a public is a kind of gigantic something, an abstract and deserted void which is everything and nothing' (36)
Substitute public with Internet and you've got yourself an enlightening take on the modern world.
In both essays, Kierkegaard applies humour and logic to questions that remain pertinent even in 2023.
Passion vs logic, and the problems of group think. Authority Vs. intelligence and its influence in the hands of an apostle vs. a layman.
Interesting. Thought provoking. More quotes to follow when time permits.
'a public is a kind of gigantic something, an abstract and deserted void which is everything and nothing' (36)
Substitute public with Internet and you've got yourself an enlightening take on the modern world.
In both essays, Kierkegaard applies humour and logic to questions that remain pertinent even in 2023.
Passion vs logic, and the problems of group think. Authority Vs. intelligence and its influence in the hands of an apostle vs. a layman.
Interesting. Thought provoking. More quotes to follow when time permits.
February 3, 2015
This book is probably the best place to begin a study of Kierkegaard. The reason that I say this is that his reasoning is easier to follow here as opposed to his other books which are far more dense. I recorded a lecture on this book on Youtube where I make more comments as well as take the reader through the subject matter. It is located at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fMrY...
I hope this will help a new student of Kierkegaard get started on his great philosophical contributions.
I hope this will help a new student of Kierkegaard get started on his great philosophical contributions.
Read
November 10, 2022I'll need to consider this one a lot more to figure out what I actually think of it, but I will say that it is a lot of fun to discuss in a group. Kierkegaard is delightful and difficult and disturbing all at once and I look forward to reading more of him.
(Read in conjunction with the essay "Does a Human Being Have the Right to Let Himself Be Put to Death for the Truth?".)
(Read in conjunction with the essay "Does a Human Being Have the Right to Let Himself Be Put to Death for the Truth?".)
June 3, 2020
I cannot believe this was written in 1846. This man forsaw the rise of 24/7 news and social media. He unsettlingly prophesized the philosophical, political and cultural complications of endless inconsequential and endless commentary and debate. An essential read and my introduction to Kierkegaard.
December 16, 2019
I thought I would like this more. Overwrought and whiny.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 188 reviews