What should I read to best prepare for Kierkegaard? I have a decent background in philosophy and have read the Bible, but who is he responding to in particular, if anyone?
Also, is there any thinker as sexier than him?
>>9246354
he's pretty entry-leve bro
>>9246360
he is though
>>9246354
In quite a few places he is responding to Hegelian thought. Namely because it was a big and new stream of thought in the intellectual circles of Copenhagen, most prominently the circle around Heiberg, whom Kierkegaard admired in a sense and took inspiration from early on. After Heiberg basically shit all over Kierk in a review of Either/Or, Kierkegaard took up a particular disdain for everything Heibergian and therefore Hegelian.
Plato/Socrates is a common reference point as well, along with Goethe and the Bible.
But it is very possible to read Kierk without much background really
>>9246388
Thanks, that's exactly the kind of answer I needed.
I have read Plato and Aristotle extensively so this shouldn't be a problem. I only read Faust for Goethe but I don't think I need more if it's like Schopenhauer who refences him a lot but you don't actually need to have read him. I'm familiar with hegelian thoughts but I never read him. Guess I'll just jump in
>>9246354
A thorough understanding of Kant and the German idealists after him, particularly Schelling and Hegel.
>>9246359
>>9246360
lel.
Go on and hit me up with your exegesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript famalamadingdongs.
I think Kierkegaard is similar to Plato in that it is easy to have a surface level understanding, but there are depths which take a lot more work.
>>9246418
I'm with you on the depth of Kierkegaard. Him being Christian, his works are similar to the Bible in that way. The words are easy to understand and people can be fooled into thinking they "get" it.
>>9246670
>Kierkegaard
>Christian
Fuck off retard
>>9247280
You sure about that.
>>9246354
You don't need to do any preparation, as he is pretty entry-level.
DESU, I'd wreak his boipucci (no homo).