{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024691358024691357, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015712682379349047, 'mean_word_length': 4.610062893081761, '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 Painless Contradiction

One reads in an article from 1990 by Andrew J. Burgess, “Because of the clarity and fullness of its presentation, Postscript’s discussion of the comic has often formed the basis for recent scholarly treatment of the theme.”3 There are two claims in this sentence, both of which appear dubious. First, it is debatable whether the theory of the comic in Postscript is indeed so clear and full as is claimed. If Burgess was comparing the Postscript to other works of Kierkegaard, then he is correct. For even though Kierkegaard has mulled over the nature of the comic since his journal entries from the mid-1830’s and even though the comic plays a significant role in Stages on Life’s Way (1845),4 it cannot be denied that in every way the theory of the comic culminates in the Postscript. On the other hand, if Burgess believes that Postscript’s presentation of the