Such a preface hardly has anything to do with what follows. It is more an introduction to himself to how reader, and, of course, this is a pseudonym. He did this a lot, and Vigilius Hofniensus is just one of many. Keep in mind his Socratic Irony: I am no one, I don't know anything; let's proceed.anonymous66
He says that before one writes about a topic- one ought to read what others have written on the subject. If he does find someone who has written "exhaustively and satisfactorily" on the subject, then he ought to rejoice (perhaps alluding to the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25- a parable about the importance of being prepared). K suggests that he did a lot of preparation- and wrote in joyful solitude and quietness- and he hopes others will also derive joy by reading it. He suggests that he published the book in a carefree & humble spirit- as if he had written the book in a way that would allow all future generations to be blessed by his book (perhaps alluding to Genesis 12:3-
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.” )
He notes that "each generation has its own task and need not trouble itself unduly by being everything to previous and succeeding generations. Each day's trouble is enough for that day (alluding to Matthew 6:34)- and each individual ought to concentrate on taking care of himself- he need not worry about the whole contemporary age, like a worrying father- he need not assume or worry that his book will be start of a new era. Not everyone who attempts an endeavor is up to the task- not everyone who shouts "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). Because K realizes this, as an author he approaches his work with "fear and trembling" (I Corinthians 2:3)- like Paul did when he visited the Corinthian church, K approaches us as an author with no claims.
I don't get why he says he will gladly assume the name "Christen Madsen". And I don't quite get what K means when he says "nothing could please me more than to be regarded as a layman who indeed speculates but is still far removed from speculation" or "I am a fetish worshipper and will worship anyone with equal piety..." That second to last paragraph is puzzling. The gist of it seems to be that K is downplaying his own authority. Is it just the case that K is saying "this is the way things look to me- but these are, after all is said and done, merely my own observations?"
Yes, no claims. I assume Christen Madsen was a common name in Denmark back then. A layman, not a scholar or an aristocrat, both baggaged with presuppositions, assumptions. A truly novel approach has to be free of these. A speculating layman is a common thing, but K is not going to merely speculate, is he? He is going to put his reader through a body of thoughts that rivals Hegel, at times. He simply wants to have his cake and eat it too: both the pedestrian, outside dogmatic authority, yet speaking in earnest about matters of depth.
Right, he downplays his authority, for who is authoritative when dogma and orthodoxy are abandoned: The individual. This is the Socratic irony celebrated in his Concept of Irony in which irony is seen as a challenge, opposition, dialectic, a feature built into knowledge claims. Best I can do. There is a lot written as to why K wrote under pseudonyms, much available online.
As you can see, K has a lot of personality and he's not afraid to use it. Good luck with the introduction. If it's any consolation, in these upcoming pages there are the seeds from which grow Sartre's Being and Nothingness, Heidegger's Being and Time, and others (less clearly so), and to read these ideas at their inception is fascinating.
But he does get thick, quick. Good to keep in mind: He doesn't have very positive things to say about science and reason, not that he doesn't believe in these, but because of the presumption that reason can speak the truth about actuality in the world. One really must drop altogether in this phenomenology all science has to say as to what foundational truths might be. For K, the only foundation is the self, which is ground zero for any philosophical thinking about existence, value, truth, meaning, and so on. Also know that Adam and his "sin" is used mostly as illustrative of OUR sin, and our sin is not the Lutherian kind of unimaginably horrendous transgression against god (he alludes to this latter on), but is found in the analysis of the self and its alienation, another abiding theme in existentialism later on.
