And, now, the moment. A moment such as this is unique. To be sure, it is short and temporal, as the moment is; it is passing , as the moment is, past, as the moment is in the next moment, and yet it is decisive, and yet it is filled with the eternal. A moment such as this must have a special name. Let us call it: the fullness of time.
What does Kierkegaard mean when the moment is equivalent to the fullness of time? Does this speak for the moment's depth and significance, or is he interested in the paradox of the terms by definition?
0 comments:
Post a Comment