The Anarchē of Spirit^271NB15-NB20, ed. and trans. Bruce Kirmmse et al (Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2014), Journal NB19: 28 1850,
p. 356.
- The canonical text in the field of Kierkegaardian hermeneutics
remains Roger Poole, Kierkegaard: The Indirect Communication
(Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1993). It is
notable that Proudhon’s own dramatic style rendered him vulnerable
to readings which go against the subtleties of his own intention. His
frustrations concerning this abound in his response to the misunder-
standings which arise from his scandalous proclamations that “proper-
ty is theft”, and “God is evil”, which George Woodcock calls “a phrase
to startle and provoke the world.” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 99. - See ‘Chapter XIV: What Shall We Do With S.K.?’, Kierkegaard
and Radical Discipleship: A New Perspective. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1968. - See Vernard Eller, Kierkegaard and Radical Discipleship: a New
Perspective (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968) and
Vernard Eller, Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy Over the Powers
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1987). See also Richard A. Davis’s more recent insightful reading
which “suggests one way in which the Danish philosopher theolo-
gian Søren Kierkegaard can be understood as an anarchist. It suggests
that Kierkegaard advocates neither love nor hatred of the state, but
indifference, the fruit of a truly Christian life. The argument begins
by explaining how anarchism can be understood as indifference.”
‘Love, Hate, and Kierkegaard’s Christian Politics of Indifference’, in
Alexandre J. M. E. Christoyannopoulos (ed.), Religious Anarchism:
New Perspectives (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2009), pp. 82–105, at p. 82. - For example, JP 3:2932, 3:2942, 3:2946, 3:2951.
- Robert L. Perkins, ‘Kierkegaard’s critique of the bourgeois state’,
Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, (1984) 27:1–4,
p. 212–13. And yet, though offering individualistic responses to cer-
tain problems, Kierkegaard is neither unequivocally anti-social nor
anti-community. Kierkegaard juxtaposes “the individual” to “the
crowd” and even to the State, but not necessarily to the community
(particularly the community of believers). The individual who may