Selected Entries (2) from Kierkegaard’s Journals

John E Bradburn

…..Sinfulness especially among women there are instances of an individual who in anxiety conceives of most trivial bodily functions as sinfulness. A person may smile at this, but no one knows whether the smile will save or destroy, for if a smile contributes not to the opening of the individuality but to the closing of it, such a smile can cause irreparable harm. And if he now is bereft (deprived of somebody or something loved or valued) of everything that can support him in a more common view (as in the Middle Ages). Confusion, [the story is told about you]—if you do likewiseif?—Pap [paraphrase if?] (To restate something using other words, especially in order to make it simpler or shorter.)

…..just as when certain geniuses abrogate (to end an agreement or contract formally and publicly) the whole meaning of mythology in their zeal to bring every myth before their “evil eye,” to make it a capriccioso (in a lively and fanciful manner) for their “mouth organ.” This is the way concepts and myths are frequently prostituted in the world.

…..for they win neither Greek serenity nor the bold confidence of the spirit. The sexual is not sin, when I first posit sin (To put forward for consideration something such as a suggestion, assumption, or fact), I also posit the sexual as sinfulness. It does not follow as a matter of course that I sin by marrying, since on the contrary I strive to eliminate the contradiction. The individual for whose arrival I am responsible does not become sinful through me but becomes that by positing sin himself and then himself positing the sexual as sinfulness.

To transform a [sexual] drive into the moral; for the sexual is the sinful only to the extent that the drive at some moment manifests itself simply as [sexual] drive in all its nakedness, for this can occur only through an arbitrary (based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles) abstraction (a generalized idea or theory developed from concrete examples of events) from spirit


This is the way a philosopher acted with whom I once had the honour of speaking. When I ventured to point out to him one or another minor difficulty which needed consideration before it would be possible to bring off dogmatic speculation, he replied: “You may very well be right, but one should not think about it, because then he will never get around to speculating (form a conjecture on the basis of incomplete facts or information) [Beware of those who speak so; like Kant, or Hegel].

If men had pursued further the ancient idea that man is a synthesis (a new unified whole resulting from the combination of different ideas, influences, or objects) of soul and body, which is constituted by spirit (to be, amount to, or have the status of a particular thing), men would long since have thought more precisely with regard to sin and hereditary sin, its origin, and its consequence. Though it can be said that the spirit takes lodging in a defiled body, and this is the most extreme expression one can employ, yet it does not follow that the spirit itself is defiled, unless this defilement is again a consequence of that relationship. But even here there is the likeness and unlikeness to Adam, together with the more detailed consideration of the possibility of freedom in the individual. Is this not found in Ecclesiastes or in the Psalms.


Ecclesiastes 1—18 (KJV)

01 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

02 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”

03 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

04 “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.”

05 “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”

06 “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.”

07 “All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.”

08 “All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.”

09 “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

10 Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 “There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.”

12I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.”

13 “And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.”

14 “I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.”

15 “That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.”

16 “I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”

17 “And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.”

18 “For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”


Psalm 1--6 (KJV)

1 “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.”

2 “But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in His law doth He meditate day and night.”

3 “And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”

4 “The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.”

5 “Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.”

6 “For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.”


…..for representation (The system by which electors vote for people to represent them as legislators, administrators, or judges, or the group of people so elected) it is indeed something present, and nevertheless is not; something completely present (thoroughly), which nevertheless is not, which at this point could be expressed in this manner: they ruled India for 70.000 years.


…..for the moment is really time’s atom, but not until eternity is posited (to place something firmly in position), and this is why one may properly say that eternity is always in the moment.


…..more philosophically, as among the Greeks, or more historically, as when God was named the Ancient of Days. The eternal is indeed just as much the future. 


Daniel 7:9, 13, 22. (KJV)

09 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire.”

13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him.”

22Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”


The individual is sensuously qualified, and as such he is also qualified by time in time; but he is also spirit, i.e. he is to become spirit, and as such, the eternal. Whenever the eternal touches the temporal (relating to measured time), the future is there, for, as stated, this is the first expression of the eternal. Just as in the preceding spirit –since it was established in the synthesis (the process of combining different ideas, influences, or objects into a new whole), or rather, since it was about to be established—appeared as freedoms possibility, expressed in the individuals anxiety, so the future is now the eternal’s possibility and is expressed in the individuality as anxiety.

Note: When I speak here of the eternal in determinants of time, it is clear that I am correct in a different sense than when logic does so, for the secret of the individual life is that the fluctuation of the movement is a state. 


It may no doubt be possible to demonstrate that a more precise and correct linguistic use; links anxiety with the future. Commonly a person is not very careful in his use of language, especially because speculation has little by little, formed its own language, which is used by no-one but philosophers. But the art is to be able to use the same word everyone else uses. The warrant of a thinker is adequately demonstrated when the word in his mouth expresses a clear thought. Hitherto the word “anxiety” or “angst” in the German vocabulary has been a kind of booty, I will now try to give the word a definite meaning, or more correctly, to affirm the word in its definite meaning. To use a new expression for what has been said, anxiety is really the ambiguity (a situation in which something can be understood in more than one way and it is not clear which meaning is intended) of subjectivity (interpretation based on personal opinions or feelings rather than on external facts or evidence). It is therefore very clear that “future” and “possibility” correspond to this; but if one speaks about being anxious about the past, this seems to invalidate my use of language, for the ambiguity of subjectivity has nothing (or meaning) that is past. If I were now to suggest that subjectivity is not completed all at once, and insofar as one might speak of a reappearance of this ambiguity, then this would not be favourable to my position, assuming that it actually is justifiable to speak of anxiety about the past. But if we ask more particularly in what sense is it to speak of anxiety about the past, everything becomes clear.


What has been developed here could also have been dealt with in Chapter 1, but I have assigned it a place here because time first comes into existence with sin (Human population; beginning with Adam and Eve, they were driven out from paradise over 6000 years ago Genesis 3 (KJV). (Just as, on the other hand, time first becomes full with the Atonement). For innocence does not really exist.


It is easy to show that this is the case in paganism, and that its great sin seems to be that it never arrives at the great break that constitutes sin (to be, amount to, or have the status of a particular thing). But the same can just as  easily be shown within Christianity. To do so, a person does not need to travel to Paris and London, or to any Sodom and Gomorrah, but only to walk along the streets, and he will not have to walk far before he meets enough individuals who fit the description.


I will cite an example and do it in a way that will exhibit its epigrammatical  force (in the style of an epigram; concise, clever, and amusing), for I sincerely admit that it appears to me to be a profound epigram in which are joined two of perhaps the most brilliant minds of all time. The greatest humourist (Hamann) said of the only ironist (Socrates) that Socrates was great in that he distinguished between what he knew and what he did not know.

Socrates himself has said this, and therein lays the irony (humour based on using words to suggest the opposite of their literal meaning). The humour lies in the reproduction as well as in the evaluating solemnity and the apparently fortuitous (accidental or unplanned) character of the remark (Only fools and horses spring to mind). What could prevent a trivial head from repeating the same? For Socrates, this saying was the whole meaning of his life, and I know of no other epitaph more fitting for him than this. There were no doubt many in the world who drained the poison-filled cup of sacrificed their lives in other ways, but there was only one who distinguished between what he understood and what he did not understand. That the best men become victims is already a terrible judgement upon the world, but this epitaph is a judgement far more terrible.


It (spiritlessness) worships sometimes a dance and sometimes a hero. But nothing impresses it more than a charlatan (somebody who falsely claims to have special skill or expertise). However, one fetish is (an object, idea, or activity that somebody is irrationally obsessed with or attached to) is soon replaced by another, and while he is the fetish man he is treated as savages treat their gods.

With paganism, as well as with all spheres of existence that correspond to it within Christianity, it is different. These lie as approximations to the qualitative leap of sin (relating to or based on the quality or character of something, often as opposed to its size or quantity) but do not reach the leap. Nevertheless, they are not innocence. We shall now consider these, and remind the reader that they cannot be dealt with under innocence they are best dealt with here, although the present chapter treats of anxiety as the consequence of sin in the single individual.



 Note. It is quite clear that Spinoza’s substance signifies something else, for his substance is an inner necessity in which the fortuitous (the accidental) always disappears indeed, his substance is only a metaphysical expression for Christian providence, which again corresponds to fate in such a way that it is the unity of necessity and the accidental, sot that for providence the accidental is, and yet in such a way that for providence nothing is accidental.


The law in this story is something that no man can discover, for no one can understand fate but the man himself, and the more remote the outward task is from the religious, the deeper is the deliberation (long careful consideration of something) Medieval artists who painted Venus but apprehended their task religiously. Thus nothing outward is incommensurate (not proportionate to or up to the level of something) with the religious. This was the understanding of the Middle Ages.


In freedom’s possibility, it holds true that the more profoundly this is grasped (showing great perception, understanding, or knowledge), the more profoundly and definitely the possibility of guilt appears within it, just as it holds true of immediate genius that the greater the genius the more profound the relationship to fate.

In freedom’s possibility, freedom collapses. This is, as mentioned, the closest physical approximation to the qualitative leap (relating to or based on the quality or character of something, often as opposed to its size or quantity) which posits sin (to put forward for consideration something such as a suggestion, assumption, or fact). To say that the Church teaches hereditary sin, that the Catholic Church teaches it thus and the Protestant Church thus, to erect a speculative concept which explains hereditary sin and sin at all—this is indeed the of the learned and wise in our time. The more concrete understanding of it in the specific individual, that is to say, the way I have to understand it, is a simpler. Less complicated task, which I have chosen.

What is developed in these two paragraphs had no place in the previous chapter, because the position here described is not a state of innocence and yet does not come after the qualitative leap. 


Liberum arbitrium, which can equally well choose the good or the evil, is basically an abrogation (to end an agreement or contract formally and publicly) of the concept of freedom and despair of any explanation of it. Freedom means to be capable. Good and evil exist nowhere outside of freedom, since this very distinction comes into existence through freedom.


After sin has been posited (to put forward for consideration something such as a suggestion, assumption, or fact), the object of anxiety is sin. The posited sin is a cancelled possibility, but although posited, it is also unwarranted (not justified or deserved). Here the two forms of sin immediately appear. Sin looks back to a time before its actuality (everything that does or could exist or happen in real life), to an imagery possibility, and although it announces itself as posited by the individual, he will not recognise it but instead haunts like a spectre,  fantasy like, in nebulous regions, groping for the possibility of sin; or sin is posited, and the individual allows it to proceed in its own consequences. Both ways are forms of sin, because both exclude repentance….  In the next place, the consequence 0of sin may lead further, and no man has sinned so much that he cannot sink still deeper. This is something that I cannot explain, unless I were to explain it as the philosophers explain the concept of “soul”—an explanation that no one can understand any better than if they said, soul, soul is a2  + 2ab + b2. His teaching must be studied in the light of its purpose and consequent method. Jesus was not a lecturer in a classroom, giving a course on the doctrines of religion. Jesus believed a new day was at hand that a new world was waiting for men, and that men were to live a new life with God and their fellows. It was His task to proclaim this good news and to summon men to prepare for it. His call was, “Repent and believe the good news”.


Soul = 1a2 + 2ab + b2           Working in reverse order from the equation;

b2 = two entities in one body

1a2 flesh body + 2ab soul or spirit.


Genesis 3:11—24 (KJV)

11 And He said, “Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 And the man said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?And the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:”

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.” [Prophecy] Genesis 3:15 (KJV)

16 Unto the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

We can hear the screams of pain from the women giving birth to their siblings.

17 And unto Adam He said, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, ‘Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;’”

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

If there are any farmers or gardeners reading this; then you will understand where this comes from


20 “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”


21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skin[s], and clothed them.”


22 And the Lord God said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

This is why we are here on this fallen earth.


23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.


1 Corinthians 15:51 (KJV) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep [Die], but we shall all be changed,”

 Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV)Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

Genesis 2:7 (KJV) “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”      


24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” (Precession!)


The two forms of sin mentioned—wanting to carry the actuality of sin (something that is real, as opposed to what is expected, intended, or feared) back to an illusory possibility (consisting of an illusion) or permitting sin to pursue its course and obtain what Paul [Romans 6:20 KJV) speaks of as freedom from righteousness—constitute the basis of all sin. But sin is not a state.  


Romans 6:20 (KJV) “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.”


… average number, so that for every generation there are so and so many measures of the demonic, and if our time has an average number, then everything is explained. Therefore it becomes difficult so difficult to understand Christianity, for it happened only once and for all time that a human being was God. On the other hand, if an estimate can be formed of how many portions of Divine gilding are assigned to each nation, perhaps [through the bank], then everything would be explained. The medical-therapeutic view regards the phenomenon as purely physical and somatic (relating to or affecting the body, especially the body as considered to be separate from the mind). Some people are as well informed about the concept of irony as the noble youth who, when asked in a test for a grocer’s licence where raisins come from, answered, “We get ours from the professor on Cross Street.”—thus they get the concept from or another professor on Cross Street (and not from grapes).  


Now I return to the definition, anxiety about the good. The loss of freedom may, however, be only a state from which the new sin breaks forth quantitatively (relating to, concerning, or based on the amount or number of something), for only the good can be a unity of state and movement.                                                        

When I also use here the concept of good and evil, then these may be regarded quite abstractly (not relating to concrete objects but expressing something that can only be appreciated intellectually). When the demonic is anxiety about evil [the editors of the Papirer suggest that this should read “anxiety about the good”], we have the annulled freedom that is anxious about becoming freedom.

Perhaps this may seem strange talk to some people, for who does not want to be free? However, the way in which a person speaks about such things indicates that he has no conception of the crisis when freedom is to be brought into un-freedom. Wishing to be free is an easy matter, because wishing is the most paltry and unfree of all performances. Meanwhile, freedom may be lost in various ways, all in relation to the parts of the synthesis. It may be lost bestially (lacking human feelings of pity or remorse), intellectually (relating to or involving the mental processes of abstract thinking and reasoning rather than the emotions), and religiously (in a way that relates to religion or to a particular religion); but no matter the way in which it is lost or being lost, it is always lost ethically or being lost ethically.

To use a simplified expression for this form of the demonic, it can be said that it is either superstition or unbelief, for in either case the individual is in untruth [un-freedom], and therefore in an unfree relation to the truth, Superstition always has the truth outside itself, and therefore it does not dare to think it. Otherwise superstition is by nature entirely indifferent. While one person believes he will be saved by eating carrots, another by genuflecting (to bend the right knee to the floor and rise again as a gesture of religious respect, especially in a Roman Catholic or Anglican church) before the Holy, and by another the ability to rep[eat the categories—all of these forms are unfree, and in relation to freedom they dare not think the truth in which they would rest. The highest  form of unbelief is mockery, and here the New testament Formulae, (“What have I to do with you,”) cannot be applied often enough.

Mark 1:24 (KJV)

"Let me alone!" he cried. "What have I to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy me? I know who you are. You are the Holy One of God!" Jesus stood his ground, and spoke to the evil thing in the man.


1Timothy 4:1-5 (KJV)

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;”

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:”

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”


Therefore anxiety resounds in the mockery of unbelief, the more anxious it is, the more it mocks. To the extent that mockery brings into consciousness its relation to the truth, it is ideally to be preserved to superstition.

Yet superstition and unbelief are such common terms; besides, our age is so sagacious (having or based on a profound knowledge and understanding of the world combined with intelligence and good judgment)  that it will be neither one nor the other, but this by no means exempts it from the demonic.


In order to present the most common forms of the intellectual demonic of our age, I shall approach the subject somewhat differently. Like freedom, truth is the Eternal. If the eternal is not, there is neither truth nor freedom. The demonic can easily be recognised by an examination of the various ways in which our age deals with the eternal. Every consciousness that does not possess within itself the consciousness of the Eternal is eo ipso demonic; it has an anxiety about the Eternal, i.e. about the good. But eternity is a very radical thought. Whenever it is posited (To put forward for consideration something such as a suggestion, assumption, or fact), the present becomes something entirely different from what it was apart from it. This is something that men fear.

Often enough, talk is heard about particular governments in Europe that are in fear of restless elements. I prefer to say that the entire present generation is a tyrant who lives in fear of one restless element the thought of eternity. This thought is always suppressed; nevertheless, it is still impossible not to be in contact with it: a person will think it, and he does not dare to think it.

It is here the mockers meet who believe they can scare away. (Inwardness is eternity. Therefore all things can be referred to it.) the thought of eternity. They proclaim the moment but are in a frightful hurry. Why? Because they are in fear of something, and that something is eternity. Here we find the most fantasy-like conceptions. Eternity is bent into temporality, or it is left to fantasy, and now the thought of eternity becomes a fantasy-like occupation.


(Bettina’s letters).

Some teach that eternity is comic, or more correctly, that in eternity a person will preserve a comic consciousness (capable of inducing amusement, smiles or laughter) about the temporal (relating to measured time). This wisdom we owe especially to the last three or four paragraphs of Hegel’s Esthetics. Here in (Denmark) it has been presented in one of the newspapers by Professor Martenson. Although the Professor, after his return (from Germany), and since his first appearance in Monthly Journal for Literature, has inwardly assured us that he has gone beyond Hegel, he certainly did not go further in this case. After all Martensen differs from the Philosophers of promise only in that he reassures. The comic is a category that belongs significantly to the temporal. The comic always lies in the contradiction. But in eternity all contradictions are cancelled, and the comic is consequently excluded. Eternity is indeed the true repetition in which history comes to an end and all things are explained.

(c) Freedom lost religiously. An active form (masculine)

e.g. hypocrisy = pride. A passive form (feminine) e.g. offense—He who remains in offense is just as demonic as the other. Cowardice.


Vertically in margin: that art is an anticipation of eternal life. The apocalyptic, in which, not as in Dante, judgement ethically  conceived is suspended. In every case merely a fantasy view.

In margin Eternity is permitted to peep into the moment, like the glimpse of the moon in an illuminated forest or hall.

In margin Perhaps no one knows better what the times want than I do.

In margin Whenever I am not free in the religious there is something demonic in it. 1844


The more concrete the religious (consequently, the good} is, the greater is the range of nuances (a very slight difference in meaning, feeling, or tone),


There are examples of persons in anxiety about going to Communion; this, however, is not demonic but spiritual trial.


Relationship to the Historical.

Something demonic in wanting to attack the historical in the Old and New Testament, as if these were the main thing.—Yet no one has freely and openly posed the problem of doubt in relationship to Christianity—Lessing might be the only one. (But Bishop E W Bullinger, and his Companion Bible (KJV), with side margins, Appendixes, and Knowledge, spring to mind on sale at amazon ).


Inwardness is earnestness.—the remarkable words of Macbeth. When inwardness is missing, the spirit is finitizisedinwardness is the Eternal.


Therefore nothing can be said about earnestness in general. It is not pure objectivity or any similar stupidity. Earnestness is present only in the very finest concretions (the process in which separate parts or particles come together into a solid mass) [the Empirical self-] (based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory] and as a qualification of freedom (a skill, quality, or attribute that makes somebody suitable for a job, activity, or task).  To speak of freedom in any other sense is a misunderstanding. There is no measuring rod more accurate for the determination of the essential worth of an individuality than that of learning what in a pregnant sense made him earnest in life, for with a certain kind of earnestness one can deal with various things, except that from which an individual dates his life. Earnestness about the national debt, about one’s own debt, or about astronomy, etc. A healthy spirit manifests itself precisely in being able to deal with everything else just as sentimentally as jocularly, and just as well. But in relation to earnestness, it tolerates no sentimentality and no joking. If it does that, it will happen to such a person as with Albertus Magnus, who boasted of his speculation and suddenly became stupid.  


a)      Outline

b)     What is inwardness

1.      Earnestness

2.      The Eternal

--the various conceptions of the eternal in our age.

a)      Avoidance of the eternal

b)     Conceived imaginatively

c)      Conceived comically, metaphysically


(c) The more concrete the religious is (consequentially the good), the greater the range of nuances (subtle difference) Positive religion: The historical.


(d) It is treated as an appendix to the system. Therefore, Poul Møllor was right, that immortality must be present throughout and not brought in as an appendix to the system—to drink of Lethe is true to a certain degree.


 Earnestness is acquired originality. Different from habit—it is the disappearance of self-consciousness. Therefore repetition is really—earnestness.


As far as I am concerned, I am safeguarded in this respect by my own experience in another direction, for although I have never been accustomed to making little summaries in order to carry out my scholarly learning in my head, although I always read widely and then turn this over to my memory, although I can be totally engrossed in my own production, and although together with all this I am doing seventeen other things and talk everyday with about fifty people of all ages, I swear, nevertheless, that I am able to relate what each person with whom I have spoken said the last time, next-to-the-last-time, not to mention someone who is the object of particular attention—his remarks, his emotions are immediately vivid to me as soon as I see him, even though it is a long time since I saw him.


In the sixth letter of The Centaur not Fabulous, Young says a few words about Ecclesiastes, a work he ascribes to Solomon. Because I do not understand English, and also because there are more who understand German than English, I quote from a German translation

I believe that a wise and experienced prince, whose wisdom and experience was designed to spare future ages their own fatal experience in folly, and, closing with his last sentiment, the sum of his divine philosophy, I affirm that many a philosopher may justly be reputed a fool, that as there is but one God, one trial, one great tribunal, one salvation, so there is but one wisdom; that all which, devoid that all which, devoid of that assumes the name, is but fully of different colours and degrees—gay, grey, wealthy, lettered, domestic, political, civil, military, recluse, ostentatious (rich and showy) humble, or triumphant, and is so called in the language of angels, in the sole authentic and unalterable style of eternity.” [Edward Young, The Complete Works, Poetry and Prose (writing or speech in its normal continuous form, without the rhythmic or visual line structure of poetry)                          

Note. The author [Young] refers to the closing words of;


Ecclesiastes 11:13—14 (KJV)

13 “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”

14 “For God will bring in every deed into judgement, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”


Note: This is a rather lengthy quotation; but if I have the patience to copy it the reader will no doubt also have the patience to read it.


The preponderant (larger in number) and prevailing interest in explication of and occupation with concepts in our age is something that indicates that our age is demoralised or demonised.


…..and also saves the writer from the temptations of becoming important in his own eyes by writing about philosophical subjects in the same way as one would publish a book that was not intended for school children, saying that the main forms of the conjugation (grammar: the different patterns of inflection of a given verb) of amo (I love) are Amari, amatum, amare, (To love, like Main forms: Amo, Amare, Amavi, Amatus).


What a shame that Professor Heiberg has the obsession that he is the man to correct things. How fortunate that the Professor now has taken up astronomy; now anyone writing about religious issues may hope to be spared his corrections. This is the happiest thought that his gilded new Year gift has brought to me, who am neither theoretical (theorem) nor practical, nor an also astronomer. Bettina’s letters may be cited as an example of this.


The whole wisdom of the superiority of the comic we owe to the three or four last paragraphs in Hegel’s Aesthetics, although it has been presented with bravura (great skill that is shown when something artistic is done in an exciting or innovative way) by one who long since has gone beyond Hegel: and while he astonished women and children with his discourse, he would not as much as intimate that it was Hegel’s.


This is the end of the book by Kierkegaard, and by purchasing a copy from Amazon one can make up their own mind.