I heard a nice piece on Kierkegaard on the radio the other day. A very interesting philosopher, one whom which I encountered during my younger days; I have a colleague who is interested in his work; however, as a continental philosopher.
I think some aspects of the man very interesting; one thing, which I must state that I find the most poignant; is his Socratic leanings; particularly expressed through his use of pseudonyms. By a false name, his views are not pinned to him as if he endorses them; but rather, it is a dialectic, or a propadeutic, a meditation by which the reader must embrace, reject, but either way, engage with. Engaging with a thought, not as an ideological standpoint (where people talk about ‘isms’ and being an ‘x-ist’, or ‘x-ian’, but just dealing with the thought tself).
This is a good way of doing philosophy; after all, is it not the engagement of thoughts and ideas? rather than the dominance of a dogmatic ideology. We, at our worst, are those who stand on the pulpit and preach to the masses; and at our best, sit together at the agora and discuss ideas openly and freely.
Oh, another thing I found interesting about Kierkegaard was his Christianity, and moreover, his love for Regina Olsen; melancholy prevented him to pursue the one he loved the most.
Not that I find anything familiar with Kierkegaard in any of those respects…