>Of all ridiculous things the most ridiculous seems to me, to be busy — to be a man who is brisk about his food and his work. Therefore, whenever I see a fly settling, in the decisive moment, on the nose of a businessman, or if he is spattered with mud from a carriage which drives past him in still greater haste; or the drawbridge opens up before him; or a tile falls down and knocks him dead, I laugh from the bottom of my heart."
My nigga KG's sense of humour is the most underrated aspect of his writings
You gradually start to become Christian.
It's happening to me, it's like he reversed all those boring didactic sermons and flipped on a slight and growing appreciation that is beauty looking back at me now.
Once you see that Kierkegaard's hyper-individualist view of the faith is essentially denial of the articles of the ancient Apostolic Creed: "I believe . . . in the holy catholic church . . . in the communion of saints", you can become a Catholic.
Kierkegaard basically took Luther / Protestantism to its logical conclusion. He is the super-Luther. He takes repugnance of church authority, being scandalised by your fellow Christians, and an individualist-subjectivist spirituality to their logical conclusion.
His formulas, "faith is a task for the individual", and, "truth is subjectivity", go against the entire theology and practice of the Church since the earliest times.
Although he was a genius, had great psychological and literary insight, and wrote many things that are universally valid for all Christians. His tract, "Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing" sounds at times like it was written by one of the Church Fathers.
Also, this part from his Works of Love is one of the most sublime things I've ever read:
Is it an excellence in your love that it can love only the extraordinary, the rare? If it were love’s merit to love the extraordinary, then God would be — if I dare say so — perplexed, for to Him the extraordinary does not exist at all. The merit of being able to love only the extraordinary is therefore more like an accusation, not against the extraordinary nor against love, but against the love which can love only the extraordinary. Perfection in the object is not perfection in the love. Erotic love is determined by the object; friendship is determined by the object; only love of one’s neighbor is determined by love. Therefore genuine love is recognizable by this, that its object is without any of the more definite qualifications of difference, which means that this love is recognizable only by love.
One of the funniest things I've ever read:
(As a suggested solution to economic trouble in Denmark, Kierkegaard suggests borrowing a fuckload of money with the intention glorifying Copenhagen and never paying any back)
>Everything great would pour into Copenhagen, the greatest artists, actors and dancers. Copenhagen would become another Athens. What would be the result? Men of wealth would all settle in this city, among them very likely the Shah of Persia and the King of England. So here is my second idea. We kidnap the Shah. It may be objected that there would then be rebellion in Persia, a new Shah would be placed on the throne - it has happened so often before - and the price for the old Shah would drop. In that case, my idea is we sell him to the Turks; they will know how to convert him into cash.