ABSTRACT
We have seen that Kierkegaard claims that all ethical and ethico-religious communication can only be indirect. It would be convenient for me to say that I have not been concerned with speaking from within the existential dialectic but only about it, in marking the difference between the way philosophy, on the one hand, and Kierkegaard, on the other, treat the issue of the significance of human life. But this would, I think, be seen by Kierkegaard as an evasion. The pseudonym Johannes Climacus not only points to the ‘contradiction’ involved in directly asserting that the ‘Truth is inwardness’ and so forth, which said by an individual who at least recognizes the religious would contradict his lack of authority, but also that ‘It would again be a contradiction to assert’ that ‘it is a fraud which brings him into contradiction with his entire thought…because in spite of the double reflection in the content the form would be direct’.2
