Let me tell you something.
If Hegel and Kierkegaard were sitting in a bar, Hegel would be talking his philosophical jargon, pushing some glass of brandy in front of him.
But Kierkegaard? He’d be in the corner, just shaking his head.
Kierkegaard looked at Hegel and thought, “What a pompous man.”
Hegel, with all his lofty ideas about absolute knowledge and universal history, had no time for real life.
And Kierkegaard, well, he was all about the real, the personal, and the absurdity of existence.
The guy knew life was messy, and he didn’t want to clean it up with abstract systems. He wanted to dive into the guts of existence.
But, to really understand why Kierkegaard rejected Hegel, we need to unpack seven key points.
Grab your drink, sit back, and let me tell you why this man said “No” to Hegel and his grand systems.
1. Hegel: The System Builder, Kierkegaard: The Existential Rebel
Kierkegaard wasn’t having it.
Hegel, the guy who saw everything as part of an enormous historical system, thought the world was rational and that, in the end, everything would make sense.
But Kierkegaard?
He didn’t buy it. He saw life as chaotic, full of contradictions and paradoxes.
Hegel could preach all day about the grand unfolding of history, but Kierkegaard wasn’t interested in fitting people into neat little boxes.
People don’t work that way. Life doesn’t work that way.
Kierkegaard’s own philosophical approach was more individualistic.
The absurdity of life, the anxiety of existence, was where he focused his energy.
For him, Hegel’s system was a nice idea, but it had nothing to do with the messy truth of being human. Hegel thought history had a purpose.
Kierkegaard thought history was just a bunch of random mess that we tried to make sense of.
2. Hegel Was About the Whole, Kierkegaard Was About the Individual
This is where things really get dicey. Hegel didn’t care about the individual.
For Hegel, history was this great unfolding of reason, and in that grand narrative, individual lives were just little footnotes.
But Kierkegaard? He couldn’t care less about the grand sweep of history.
The individual, their personal relationship to the world, was all that mattered.
His famous idea of the “leap of faith” shows his focus on the individual’s personal experience.
For Kierkegaard, the individual was the center. The despair of being alone, the pain of making choices, the struggle to find meaning—that’s what he cared about.
Hegel had a fancy system to explain everything, but what was it worth if it didn’t deal with the raw experience of a single soul? Not much.
3. Hegel Thought Everything Was Rational, Kierkegaard Saw the Absurdity
Hegel’s philosophy was all about reason. Every event in history, every twist and turn of the world, was leading to something rational.
But Kierkegaard thought that was a load of crap. Life, for him, was absurd. You couldn’t fit it into some neat little system.
People felt anxiety, guilt, dread—all things that couldn’t be explained with some overarching philosophy of history.
Kierkegaard embraced the irrational. In fact, he thought that faith, especially religious faith, was all about embracing the irrational.
4. Hegel Was Optimistic About History, Kierkegaard Was a Pessimist
Where Hegel saw history as the progressive realization of reason and freedom, Kierkegaard saw it as a nightmare. Hegel’s optimism about humanity’s potential didn’t jive with Kierkegaard’s deep pessimism.
For Kierkegaard, history was full of pain, suffering, and conflict.
The individual was doomed to struggle with existential angst, and the idea of historical progress was just another illusion.
Kierkegaard knew history was messy. There was no guarantee things were getting better.
And in fact, for most people, they weren’t.
He wasn’t looking for some ultimate resolution to history’s problems.
Life was a struggle, and that was just the way it was.
5. Hegel Was a Philosopher of System, Kierkegaard Was a Philosopher of Passion
Kierkegaard was all about passion. Not that kind of passion you see on reality TV, but the kind that cuts to the heart of being human.
He was passionate about love, about faith, about the deep, gut-wrenching choices people have to make. His writings ooze emotion and personal engagement.
He didn’t hide behind abstract systems. He put himself in his work, and that made it real.
Hegel, on the other hand, was cold, detached, and focused on creating a systematic view of the world.
For Hegel, philosophy wasn’t about the messy, passionate realities of life—it was about finding a rational explanation for everything.
But Kierkegaard knew the real drama was in the personal, the emotional, the things you couldn’t explain away with systems.
6. Hegel’s God Was All-Encompassing, Kierkegaard’s God Was Personal
Hegel’s God was an abstract force, a kind of universal spirit that moved through history.
Everything, according to Hegel, was the unfolding of this divine spirit.
For Kierkegaard, though, God was personal. God wasn’t some vague concept floating in the ether.
He was a presence in the life of the individual, a presence that demanded a personal response.
Kierkegaard’s Christianity was about a personal relationship with God.
He wasn’t interested in Hegel’s grand, impersonal system of history and spirit.
He wanted something deeper, something more intimate, something that shook the very core of the individual.
7. Hegel Had His Followers, Kierkegaard Had His Rebels
Hegel’s ideas attracted a following, especially in Germany, and they laid the groundwork for many philosophers who came after him.
But Kierkegaard was a loner. He didn’t want followers; he wanted people who could confront the deep contradictions and existential pain of life.
His philosophy wasn’t meant to comfort. It was meant to shake people out of their complacency and make them face the absurdity of existence.
While Hegel’s followers built a system that tried to explain everything, Kierkegaard’s followers were more likely to be the kinds of people who sat around in bars, pondering the meaning of life.
They weren’t interested in fitting in. They were interested in finding truth, no matter how much it hurt.
Summary Table
| Point | Kierkegaard’s View | Hegel’s View |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Individual, personal experience | System, historical progression |
| Philosophy | Existential, absurd, irrational | Rational, systematic, logical |
| View on History | Pessimistic, chaotic | Optimistic, progressive |
| View on God | Personal, intimate relationship | Impersonal, abstract universal force |
| Main Concern | Passion, emotion, faith | Reason, history, system-building |
| Belief in Freedom | Freedom is individual and tragic | Freedom is the unfolding of reason |
| Philosophical Method | Introspection, paradox, and the absurd | Grand, systematic rationality |
Conclusion: So, What’s the Deal?
Kierkegaard didn’t just reject Hegel. He obliterated him.
Hegel’s philosophical system was like a nice, neat box that kept everything in place.
But life’s not like that. Kierkegaard knew that. He wasn’t afraid to stare into the chaos, into the contradictions, and to admit that maybe, just maybe, life doesn’t make sense.
Maybe that’s where the real truth lies—amid the mess.
So, let me ask you something. Are you Hegel, trying to make sense of the world with your fancy system, or are you Kierkegaard, sitting in the corner of the bar, embracing the chaos and letting the absurdity of life speak for itself?
If you think you know the answer, well, maybe you don’t. And maybe that’s the whole point.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.