{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020253164556962026, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012025316455696202, 'mean_word_length': 5.151750972762646, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Significance of the Eternal in Philosophical Fragments in Terms of the Absolute Paradox

In Philosophical Fragments, Johannes Climacus discusses the absolute paradox in a wide variety of ways. It is said to be the passion of thought (SV1 IV, 204), the moment (SV1 IV, 224, 227), the object of faith (SVI IV, 226), and also that which unites contradictory things (SV1 IV, 227). The ways in which Climacus discusses the absolute paradox have been a topic of much discussion in the philosophical literature on S0ren Kierkegaard's writings. Whereas some commentators think that there are metaphysical issues involved in Climacus' discussion of the absolute paradox, others contest this view. One item that has been somewhat neglected in these discussions is the importance of the conceptual relation between the absolute paradox and the eternal. Although Climacus' discussion of the absolute paradox includes an account of that which he claims is the fundamental difference between the god and human beings namely, the difference of sin he does not go on to discuss the absolute paradox exclusively in terms of this fundamental difference; this omission is especially notable when he proceeds to equate the incarnation with the absolute paradox. Instead of focusing on the difference of sin when discussing the incarnation, he often trades on the seeming paradox of something that is eternal entering into time. In this essay I argue that Climacus' discussion of the absolute paradox at the very least implicitly employs the assumption that there is another fundamental difference