Lovers and Thinkers
Kirkegaard engages simile when he writes “the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling; a paltry mediocrity.” The imagery is based on the guiding premise in the author’s assertion that seeking paradoxes is the passion of the rationalist. The comparison suggests that a person devoted to rational logic is motivated by a passionate impulse to seek out information that questions his logical assumptions. Lacking this impulse is equitable to a person who says they are a lover but fail to exhibit the emotions associated with actually being a lover.
Knowing God
Kierkegaard uses metaphorical imagery to draw a comparison to the concept of coming to know God. He notes that “When the seed of the oak is planted in earthen vessels, they break asunder; when new wine is poured in old leather bottles, they burst.” These metaphors exemplify the consequences of introducing something grand into an ill-prepared container. These examples are setting the metaphor of introducing the mind of God into the limited capacity of the human mind ignorant of the existence of God. Since such a mind is not up to the task at hand, it follows that the very act of introducing the existence of God into an ignorant mind increases the capacity and capability of that mind to contain the addition.
Philosophical Ownership
Kierkegaard is fond of the rhetorical device of directly addressing the reader with a proposition or question and then responding to it. He utilizes a series of similes using this rhetorical approach to pre-empt criticism that his theories are not original, writing of himself “you are like the man who collected a fee for exhibiting a ram in the afternoon, which in the forenoon could be seen gratis, grazing in the open field.” This simile is paired with a similar example to illustrate his understanding of the critique that philosophical theories often float freely in the discourse without attribution to a single author. In other words, the concepts he is proposing in this text are comparable to claiming credit for ideas that have long been in circulation. Having recognized the potential for this criticism, he then goes on to explain that is impossible to steal or demand undue recognition for proposing an idea when the identity of the inventor of that idea is not and cannot be ascertained.
