>>7271230This. You can certainly read him. You may understand him. You may be lucky enough, that through your understanding of his writings, you can create a hardened point against which to argue. But get something out of it?
You won't get anything out of it. He's The Existentialist, and Christian therefore. Being at once Atheist and in equilibria with SK is impossible. Heidegger tried, and it turned him into a Nazi.
>>7271331I think you mean beautiful beginning. He's done wonders for my conception of being in and through time. You also have no idea what you're talking about. Slightly. Here's why:
Kierkegaard does not mean perfect free human will. He believes human will is subject to that of divine will. Human will appears and may be acted upon as free, in situo. It is however, all under the umbrella of divine will. Any path, branching and finite that human want or will could take, will happen as it will happen. Kierkegaard understood this. He also accepted and allowed for human motivation or decision making at any point in this time branch, as understood as free in that moment. What he
>alsosaw, is that this entire timeline, when viewed from any point outside that time line, such as the perspective of God, with be singular. Crystalline. Clear. There is no deviation from it, and there never was, and there never would be and there never would have been. There only is.
He is not a slave of God's plan (though perhaps he is), merely an agent. An actor on the part of God. A knight of faith, with an ounce of telos, shaping course ahead through and by the will of God. the agent of that line, time.
>No prison. >Only freedom. >Through the service of the LordThe Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid- Psalm 27:1
