Soren Kierkegaard

generally believe that the tendency of a person’s thoughts is determined by
external circumstances... .But this is not so .That which determines the
tendency of a person’s thoughts is essentially to be found within the person’s
own self .For example, unhappiness is always the most likely state for the
person who has a tendency toward melancholia .Why? Because melancholia
lies within him .In this hypothetical case there is an equal or perhaps greater
possibility of the opposite state, but the person breaks off arbitrarily, already
having sufficient evidence to conclude that something unhappy will happen
to him.But what does it mean to ‘have faith,’ then? To have faith is always to
expect the joyous, the happy, the good .But isn’t this an extraordinary and
blessed diversion! Oh, what more does a person need, then?... What is
required is the resilience, every time things go wrong, immediately to begin
over again with a tranquil spirit, saying: Yes, yes, it will surely work out
the next time.”
Similar letters were also sent to his cousin, Hans Peter, who was com-
pletely crippled but intellectually intact .Hans Peter read his increasingly
famous cousin’s writings with particular enthusiasm, and he was greatly
moved by the confessional discourse inEdifying Discourses in Various Spirits
that speaks of a person whose physical weakness has prevented him from
being active in the external world, but who was nonetheless still bound by
the duties and obligations that apply to everyone .Kierkegaard, who of
course was otherwise well-known for keeping visitors “a flight of stairs
away,” had given Hans Peter special permission to visit him at a particular
hour of the day .Henriette Lund once asked Hans Peter what it was they
really conversed about .“Mostly about things pertaining to the Kingdom of
God,” replied Hans Peter, who paused briefly, then continued, “He is so
unspeakably loving and understands me so well, but I am really afraid to
make use of his arm when he offers it to me to help me into my carriage.”
They made a somewhat sorry pair, these two Kierkegaard cousins, with all
their lopsided frailty, when they attempted to force their bodies to do what
they really couldn’t do.
On the occasions when Hans Peter called on Kierkegaard in vain, he
could be certain that before long Kierkegaard’s servant Anders would show
up with a written apology from “His Philosophical Majesty,” as Hans Peter
called him .He usually saved these little notes, one of which provides an
entirely dialectical but nonetheless quite unambiguous commentary onRepe-
tition: “I’m sorry that your visit yesterday was in vain... .But don’t give up
on me because of it... .Believe in repetition—but no, for I have of course
proven that there is no repetition .But then entertain a doubt about repeti-
tion and come back again, for of course in this case repetition would mean