1 . Copenhagen: Gy l d e n d a l .
2 . I.e., TH U L S T RU P, N. (1980). K i e k e g a a d's Rela ion o He g e l. T ans. S e n g en, G.L.
P ince on: P ince on Un i e si y P ess. Ge man ansla ion: K i e k e g a a ds Ve häl nis zu He g e l
und zum spekula i en Idealismus 1835-1846. S u g a : Ve lag W. Ko l h a m m e , 1972.
3 . TH U L S T RU P, N. (1980). p. 1 2 .
En ahona 29, 1998 1 4 7- 1 5 2
Kie kegaa d as a Hegelian
Jon S ewa
Uni e si y o Copenhaguen
Sø en Kie kegaa d Resea ch Cen e
One o he mos in e es ing o he many aces o Kie k e g a a d is Kie k e g a a d
as Hegelian. The e y no ion migh s ike many people as an ox y m o on. Gi e n
K i e k e g a a d's bi e polemics agains Hegel and Hegelianism, i migh seem
a b s u d o hink ha Kie k e g a a d himsel had a Hegelian side a all. The he-
sis ha Kie k e g a a d has no hing in common wi h Hegel was made amous
by Niels T h u l s up in his in luen ial wo k, K i e k e g a a ds Fo hold il Hegel og
il den spekula i e Idealisme ind il 1846, published in 19671wi h Ge man and
English ansla ions ollowing sho ly he e a e 2.T h u l s up pu s o h his
main hesis hus: «Hegel and Kie k e g a a d ha e in he main no hing in com-
mon as hinke s, nei he as e g a ds objec , pu pose, o me hod, no as e g a d s
wha each conside ed o be indispu able p inciples.»3T h u l s up's claim abou
he adical discon inui y be ween Hegel and Kie k e g a a d has been aken up
unc i ically by a numbe o schola s o nine een h cen u y Eu opean philos-
o p h y. As a esul , many commen a o s see i as a o egone conclusion ha
K i e k e g a a d ejec ed e e y hing ha had e en he sligh es look o He g e l i a n i s m
abou i . T h e e a e, howe e , a numbe o easons o belie e ha T h u l s u p ' s
i ew o he ma e is o e simpli ied. When we examine Kie k e g a a d's wo k s
c a e u l l y, we can see ha his ela ion o Hegel was in ac conside ably mo e
d i e en ia ed han T h u l s up would ha e us belie e .
I .
In The Concep o I o n y, we can disce n a ma ked Hegelian in luence which
K i e k e g a a d himsel acknowledges. In ha wo k, he epea edly p aises He g e l
and his analyses o Soc a es and G eek cul u e. In addi ion o he ac ual con-
en o The Concep o I o n y, he e a e many good easons ex e nal o he ex
1 4 8 En ahona 29, 1998 Jon S ewa
4 . CI p. 234; BI p. 310. (CI = The Concep o I ony; Schelling Lec u e No e s. T ans. Ho n g ,
H . V. and Hong, E.H. P ince on: P ince on Un i e si y P ess, 1989. K WII. BI = Om Be g e b e
I o n i. (S V 1 X I I I )
5 . JP IV, 4281; Pa p. X-3, A477. ( ansla ion sligh ly modi ied.) (JP = S ø en Kie k e g a a d ' s
Jo u nals and Pa p e s. Ed. and ans. Hong, H.V. and Hong, E.H. Blooming on and London:
Indiana Un i e si y P ess, 1975. Ci ed by en y numbe . Pa p. = S ø en Kie k e g a a ds Pa p i e ,
16 olumes. Eds. Heibe g, P.A., Ku h , V. and To s ing, E. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1909-
1948; supplemen ed by T h u l s u p, N. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1968-1978. Ci ed by o-
lume numbe and en y numbe . )
i sel o belie e ha Kie k e g a a d was s ongly unde Hegel's in luence a he
ime o i s composi ion. Ab o e all, his own la e assessmen s o he wo k con-
sis en ly e e o he ac ha i was oo Hegelian. In he Pa p i e om he ye a
1850, almos en yea s a e he disse a ion, he e is a e ealing passage whe e
K i e k e g a a d w i es,
In luenced as I was by Hegel and wha e e was mode n, wi hou he ma u i y
eally o comp ehend g ea ness, I could no esis poin ing ou somew h e e in my
d i s s e a i o n4 ha i was a de ec on he pa o Soc a es o dis e g a d he whole
and only conside indi iduals nume ically. Wha a Hegelian ool I was! I is p e-
cisely his ha powe ully demons a es wha a g ea e hicis Soc a es was5.
Al hough i is e iden ha Kie k e g a a d was c i ical o Hegel when w i -
ing his en y in 1850, none heless he says a he clea ly ha a he ime o
his disse a ion he was unde Hegel's sway, indeed, so much so ha he mis-
akenly c i icized Soc a es along Hegelian lines. The sel -c i ical exp e s s i o n
«a Hegelian ool» lea es li le ambigui y in his e g a d .
In a simila passage om 1854, Kie k e g a a d exp esses e g e a ha ing
p omulga ed in his disse a ion an aspec o Hegel's doc ine o he s a e.
He w i es: «Tha he s a e in a Ch is ian sense is supposed o be wha He g e l
augh —namely ha i has mo al signi icance, ha ue i ue can appea
only in he s a e (some hing I also childishly babbled a e him in my dis-
s e a ion), ha he goal o he s a e is o imp o e men— is ob iously non-
sense.» (Pa p . X12 A108, 114/J P, 4238) He e Kie k e g a a d admi s by way o
sel -c i icism o ha ing pa o ed Hegel's claim ha i ue is o be ound in
he s a e. As in he passage abo e, i is clea ha Kie k e g a a d no longe be-
l i e es his o be ue and e g e s ha ing claimed i p e i o u s l y, bu his en y
l e a es no oom o doub ha , a leas acco ding o his own in e p e a i o n
o his in ellec ual de elopmen , he accep ed unc i ically some aspec s o
Hegel's philosophy a he ime o his disse a ion and was no me ely i o n-
ically p e ending o do so.
Fi n a l l y, he e is in he Pa p i e om 1845 a e l e an en y, which was o i-
ginally a pa o a d a o he Concluding Unscien i ic Po s s c i p . T h e e Kie k e-
g a a d unde he pseudonym o Johannes Climacus c i icizes himsel as being
unde he sway o Hegel in The Concep o I o ny:« In his disse a ion, Ma g i s e
K i e k e g a a d was ale enough o disce n he Soc a ic bu is conside ed no o
Kie kegaa d as a Hegelian En ahona 29, 1998 1 4 9
6 . TAY LO R , M.C. (1980) Jo u neys o Sel hood: Hegel and Kie k e g a a d. Be keley: Un i e si y o
Cali o nia P ess, p. 228-262.
h a e unde s ood i , p obably because, wi h he help o Hegelian philosophy,
he has become supe -cle e and objec i e and posi i e, o has no had he
cou age o acknowledge he nega ion.» (Pa p . VIB 34, 24/J P, 5796) By say-
ing ha he used « he help o Hegelian philosophy» and by designa ing him-
sel as «objec i e» and «posi i e», Kie k e g a a d a his la e da e seems once
again o hink ha his in e p e a ion o Soc a es in he disse a ion was oo
Hegelian in cha ac e . He indica es ha his allegiance o Hegel a ha ime
led him o misunde s and impo an aspec s o he igu e o So c a e s .
All o hese passages indica e ha Kie k e g a a d a a la e da e judged him-
sel o ha e been s ongly in luenced by Hegel while he was w i ing T h e
Concep o I o n y and ha he la e epudia ed hese aspec s o He g e l i a n i s m .
They make i clea ha he sees he Hegelian in luence as only a passing phase
which he la e ejec ed. The one o sel -c i icism and e g e p o ides clea
e idence ha Kie k e g a a d was uly in luenced by Hegel and was no me e-
ly p e ending o be a Hegelian. I he had in en ionally wan ed o pa o d y
Hegelian philosophy by playing he ole o a Hegelian, hen he e would be
no need o e g e o sel -c i ique a a la e pe iod.
I I .
Some schola s ha e no ed he simila i ies be ween Ei h e / O and he
Ph e n o m e n o l o gy o Sp i i o some o Hegel's o he wo k s6.In Ei h e / O
K i e k e g a a d makes use o he Hegelian me hodology o opposing con as -
ing concep s and analyzing each o hem o in e nal consis ency. These con-
cep s a e ela ed o one ano he , and indeed one passes in o he o he as soon
as con adic ions a e e ealed. In Ei h e / O K i e k e g a a d jux aposes he con-
cep s o he aes he ic and he e hical. Thus, based on hese simila i ies, one
migh say ha he basic s u c u e o Ei h e / O is in a sense He g e l i a n .
In he «Insigni ican In oduc ion» o he second chap e o Pa On e ,
«The Immedia e E o ic S ages», he es he e discusses di e en c i e ia o judg-
ing he uly g ea wo k o a .(S V 1I, 31-43/K WIII, 47-59) This discussion
s h ows clea signs o Hegelian in luence. He e he es he e examines in o d e
h ee possible c i e ia o de e mining he g ea wo k o a ; he i s places
he emphasis on he subjec ma e which is conside ed he essen ial elemen .
A he second s age a case is made o he o ma i e ac i i y o he indi id-
ual a is as he essen ial hing. Fi n a l l y, wha Kie k e g a a d calls « he idea» o
he wo k o a is in oduced as he hi d c i e ion. He e he measu ing o d
is he deg ee o abs ac ion o he idea o he wo k o a , wi h e p e s e n a i o n
o he mos abs ac idea being he g ea es wo k. The c i e ia a e examined
and ejec ed as being one-sided un il an adequa e iew is eached, jus as in
he Ph e n o m e n o l o gy indi idual No ions a e examined and ejec ed as pa i a l
o incomple e be o e absolu e knowing is e a c h e d .
1 5 0 En ahona 29, 1998 Jon S ewa
7 . C . HØ F F D I N G, H. (1892). S ø en Kie k e g a a d som Fi l o s o . Copenhagen and K is iania:
Gydendalske Boghandel, p. 92 . See also his «Sø en Kie k e g a a d» in his Danske Fi l o s o e .
(1909). Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, No disk Fo lag, p. 158.
La e on in he same chap e , he es he e aces h ee s ages o wha migh
be called « he dialec ic o desi e.» (S V 1 I, 56-68/KW III, 74-87) The mo e-
men once again clea ly has he o m o Hegel's dialec ic. Unlike he p e i-
ous mo emen , hese s ages a e ac ually b oken down unde indi idual head-
ings and a e e e ed o explici ly as «s ages». Each s age po ays a dis inc
aspec o he concep o desi e, and each is e p esen ed by a di e en li e a y
o d ama ic p e s o n a. The es he e desc ibes he s ages in a ashion simila o
he way in which Hegel desc ibes he s a ions o consciousness in he
Ph e n o m e n o l o gy :
When I use he e m «s age» as I did and con inue o do, i mus no be aken
o mean ha each s age exis s independen ly, he one ou side he o he […] he
speci ic s ages a e mo e a disclosu e o a p edica e in such a way ha all he p e-
dica es plunge down in he ichness o he las s age, since his is he s age p o-
p e . The o he s ages ha e no independen exis ence; by hemsel es hey a e only
o e p esen a ion, and om ha we also see hei o ui ousness in ela ion o
he las s age. (S V 1 I, 74/KW III, 56)
As in Hegel's dialec ic, aspec s o p e ious No ions a e p e s e ed and con-
ained in la e ones, and he inal s age b ings oge he he p e ious s ages
wi hin i sel .
As some commen a o s ha e no ed, Judge Wilhelm seems o employ
Hegelian me hodology in his discussion o lo e and ma iage in he i s chap-
e o Pa Two, «The Es he ic Validi y o Ma iage.» (S V 1 II, 16-30 . /K W I V,
1 7 - 3 2 .) Some see in his sec ion Hegel's doc ine o media ion in Ju d g e
Wilhelm's a gumen ha he immedia e impulse o lo e mus be media ed
and ans o med in o he ins i u ion and e hical union o ma iage7.He e in
his chap e , a h ee-s ep dialec ical mo emen like he ones in Pa One is
disce nible. Judge Wilhelm e e s o his as «lo e's dialec ic.» (S V 1 II, 17/K W
I V, 18). This mo emen illus a es ye ano he we l l - k n own aspec o He g e l ' s
dialec ical me hodology, namely, ha o immediacy and media ion. Jus like
Hegel in he Ph e n o m e n o l o gy, Kie k e g a a d begins wi h immedia e know l e d g e
and p o g esses o mo e sophis ica ed no ions o u h .
I I I .
One o he bes -known pa s o The Sickness un o De a his Kie k e g a a d's analy-
sis o he di e en s ages o despai in he subsec ion B, «Despai as De i n e d
by Consciousness». This discussion has pa icula a ini ies wi h he He g e l i a n
dialec ic. I is he e ha we ind a genuine phenomenological analysis along
Hegelian lines. He e he dialec ic is de e mined by he deg ee o conscious-
Kie kegaa d as a Hegelian En ahona 29, 1998 1 5 1
ness. The di e en s ages e p esen inc easingly highe le els o conscious-
ness o despai . Gi en ha consciousness is he key, his analysis can be seen
as Kie k e g a a d's phenomenology. Like Hegel's dialec ic, his analysis also
m o es by i ue o opposi e e ms: i s being igno an o being despai and
hen being conscious o being despai , hen in despai i s no o will o be
onesel and hen o will o be onesel , and inally i s despai o e he ea h-
ly and hen despai o he e e nal. He e he e seems o be a de e mina e lin-
ea p o g ession, and he o de o he s ages canno be changed o e ised wi h-
ou ha ming he de elopmen al mo emen o hough . This dialec ical
m o emen has se e al simila i ies wi h he dialec ic o he Ph e n o m e n o l o gy o
Sp i i .
In his explana ion o wha i means o exis be o e God, Kie k e g a a d im-
plici ly d aws on Hegel's no ion o ecogni ion ha plays he key ole in
he amous dialec ic o he lo d and he bondsman in he Ph e n o m e n o l o gy
o Sp i i . As is well known, Hegel a emp s o demons a e ha in o de o
be a human subjec , in e subjec i e ecogni ion om an equal is e q u i e d .
The i ony o he posi ion o he mas e is ha he canno achie e he s a us
o pe sonhood since he ecogni ion o a sla e is no alid. Kie k e g a a d e e s
o his no ion o ecogni ion when he discusses wha i means o exis be-
o e Go d :
A ca leman who (i his we e possible) is a sel di ec ly be o e his ca le is a e y
l ow sel , and, simila ly, a mas e who is a sel di ec ly be o e his sla es is ac ually
no sel — o in bo h cases a c i e ion is lacking. The child who p e iously has had
only his pa en s as a c i e ion becomes a sel as an adul by ge ing he s a e as a
c i e ion, bu wha an in ini e accen alls on he sel by ha ing God as he c i-
e ion! (S V 1 XI, 191/K W XIX, 79)
The allusion o he mas e and his sla es seems in his con ex o be a
clea e e ence o Hegel's accoun o lo dship and bondage. The no ion o
ecogni ion is he key o in e p e ing wha Kie k e g a a d means by he le -
els o consciousness be o e God. Gi en ha one's own consciousness is de-
e mined by he in e subjec i e ecogni ion o he o he , i ollows ha he
s a us o he o he is he de e mining ac o in one's own le el o con-
sciousness. I he o he is a sla e o a cow as in Kie k e g a a d's example, hen
h e e is a low le el o consciousness. I he o he is God, hen one's con-
sciousness is acco dingly high; mo e o e , he e will be a ia ions o his
heigh ened consciousness in acco dance wi h one's concep ion o Go d .
K i e k e g a a d w i es, «Despai is in ensi ied in ela ion o he consciousness
o he sel , bu he sel is in ensi ied in ela ion o he c i e ion o he sel ,
in ini ely when God is he c i e ion. In ac , he g ea e he concep ion o
God, he mo e sel he e is; he mo e sel , he g ea e he concep ion o Go d . »
(S V 1 XI, 192/KW XIX, 80)
This las pe iod o Kie k e g a a d's au ho ship is p o o c a i e since, al hough
he pu s aside he di ec polemics agains Hegel and Hegelianism ha he had
1 5 2 En ahona 29, 1998 Jon S ewa
so long engaged in, he in his own analysis none heless makes use o some as-
pec s o Hegel's hough mo e o e ly han e e . T h oughou his ca e e
K i e k e g a a d a ails himsel o a dialec ical me hodology akin o Hegel's and
e en p ides himsel on being a dialec ician. Thus, a e e y s age o Kie k e-
g a a d's li e a y ca e e , he e we e poin s o o e lap be ween his hough and
ha o Hegel. All o his gi es e idence o a complica ed and di e e n i a e d
ela ion o Hegel o which T h u l s up's analysis can ha dly do jus ice.
