> (which I think does not necessarily have to be taken literally if someone prefers a secular interpretation This would land you on one of the earlier stages o

> (which I think does not necessarily have to be taken literally if someone prefers a secular interpretation This would land you on one of the earlier stages on Kierkegaards path to “enlightenment”. It’s extremely hard to follow kierkegaard down the path you want without including faith. It’s important to note that kierkegaard saw the Christian Church of Denmark as the biggest opponent of Christianity, however, and as such it’s entirely possible to take the lessons and direct your faith wherever you may want. Religion to kierkegaard was two things. It was organised religion and following rituals without ever questioning it. And it was self enlightenment in coming to realise that there is more to the world than you will ever understand and that God is real. Then again, Kierkegaard also favoured monarchy above democracy, and you can certainly pick and chose, but I really don’t see how you can interpret Kierkegaards stages of life without faith considering the final answer is solely about faith. > The suggestion of the top comment to 'accept it' Kierkegaard argues is no solution, it is regression into the finite, vanishing into the crowd. That’s not exactly right is it? Kierkegaard very specifically commented on regret as useless and one of the most famous quotes of his is “hang yourself and you will regret it, don’t hang yourself and you’ll regret that as well. Hang or don’t hang yourself, you will regret your decision either way.” You’re right as far as not letting regret limit you, but if not shooting for the stars is where your meaning is, then Kierkegaard is not against that as is shown in two other famous quotes. On on the fruitlessness of being busy achieving things that have no deeper meaning to you, and one on the virtue of being idle and unproductive to society but engaged within your own mind.