exhaustively embodied in human achievement or institutions. To stand before God one must stand as an individual, in ‘fear and trembling,’ conscious that this may require a break with the given social order.
Kierkegaard is often characterized as the father of existentialism. There are reasons for this; he does indeed philosophize existentially, and he undoubtedly exercised a deep influence on many twentieth-century existentialists such as Sartre and Camus. But the characterization is anachronistic, since existentialism as a movement is a twentieth-century phenomenon, and the differences between Kierkegaard and those existentialists are also profound. If existentialism is defined as the denial that there is such a thing as a human essence or nature, it is unlikely that Kierkegaard is an existentialist. More recently, the Dane has also been seen as a precursor of postmodernism. His rejection of classical foundationalist epistemologies and employment of elusive literary techniques such as his pseudonyms again make such associations somewhat plausible. However, despite his rejection of the system and criticism of human claims to finality and certitude, Kierkegaard does not appear to espouse any form of relativism or have much sympathy for ‘anti-realism.’ He has the kind of passion for clarity and delight in making sharp distinctions that are usually associated with contemporary ‘analytic’ philosophy. In the end he must be seen as his own person, a unique Christian presence with sensibilities that are in many ways Greek and premodern rather than postmodern. He has been joyfully embraced and fervently criticized by thinkers of all stripes. He remains ‘the individual’ he wrote about, and to whom he dedicated many of his works. See also CAMUS, EXISTENTIALISM , HEGEL, POSTMODERN , SARTR. C.S.E.