This article introduces a rhetorical theory of narrative in reading Kierkegaard, comparing Kierkegaard’s praxis to Phelan’s definition of “somebody telling somebody else that something happened on some occasion and for some purpose(s).” Use of pseudonyms problematizes “the somebody” telling and makes apparent the differing purposes of author and narrator. In the early authorship, the purpose is usually a life-view. The “something happened” may seem irrelevant in Kierkegaard, but it evokes questions of lived experience and life-view. The “occasion” for telling is (...) textually mediated, and thus draws a novel connection to literary history. Finally, I examine Kierkegaard’s real and authorial readers. (shrink)

Perhaps Kierkegaard’s most notorious—though pseudonymous—claim is that truth is subjectivity. This claim is commonly elaborated to mean that faith is a “how” and not a “what” . I show through a discussion of examples taken from throughout Kierkegaard’s writings that Kierkegaard accepts a basic insight of Kant’s philosophy: each experience implicitly includes an underlying unity—the object—that does not itself appear. Both Kant and Kierkegaard emphasize the importance of a “continuity of impressions,” which gives experience its unified structure beyond changing superficial (...) appearances. I show that Kierkegaardian faith requires an object in just this Kantian sense: the object of faith does not directly appear but is implicitly present in all experience. For Kant, this type of object is not “beyond” experience but is posited by reason as the unity of experience as a whole. In this respect at least, Kierkegaard’s account of faith shows similarities not just with Kant’s practical philosophy but with his metaphysics as well. (shrink)

Resumen Entre 1834 y 1835, Kierkegaard, quien todavía era un estudiante de veintiún años en la Universidad de Copenhague, se interesó en la figura mítica y folclórica conocida como el “ladrón maestro”. Decidió entonces trabajar en un drama que girara alrededor de este personaje y su lucha en contra del orden establecido. Con eso en mente, este artículo tiene dos objetivos. El primero consiste en hacer una exposición general del denominado proyecto del ladrón maestro. Las notas de Kierkegaard sobre el (...) ladrón maestro han permanecido en una relativa oscuridad, de manera que este artículo busca presentarle al lector hispanohablante este trabajo poco conocido del pensador danés. El segundo objetivo es analizar la cuestión filosófica planteada en el proyecto del ladrón maestro, es decir, la cuestión sobre la relación del individuo rebelde y marginado con el orden establecido.In the years 1834 and1835, Kierkegaard, still a 21-year-old student at the University of Copenhagen, became interested in the mythical character known as the master-thief. He then decided to work on a drama about this character and his struggle against the established order. With this in mind, the paper has two main objectives. First, to offer a complete account of the so-called master-thief project. Kierkegaard’s notes on the master-thief have remained in a relative obscurity. This paper aims at exposing this little-known work of the Danish thinker to the Spanish-speaking reader. Second, to analyze the philosophical question raised in the master thief project, that is, the issue about the relationship of the rebel and marginalized individual with the established order. (shrink)