{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017921146953405017, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.728915662650603, '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}}
Kierkegaard’s Understanding of Revelation and its Influence

Kierkegaard was a maverick voice in the nineteenth century’s heated debate about the nature of revelation. He diverged both from those who identified revelation with the dictates of reason and conscience, and those who appealed to the transparency of a supernatural communication. Kierkegaard rejected the focus on dispassionately intelligible truths that was common to both factions. Instead, he insisted that a revelation could only be grasped if the appropriate passions, dispositions, and concerns shaped the individual’s subjectivity. In this sense, subjectivity was a necessary condition for understanding the content of a revelation. However, the meaning of a revelation could not be reduced to a purely inner phenomenon; Christian revelation requires something authoritative external to the individual. The objectivity of Christian concepts then makes possible a new type of pathos. In the twentieth century Kierkegaard’s appropriators over-emphasized either the subjective or objective poles of revelation which Kierkegaard had kept interrelated.