Mr. Fong,

I'm not sure if we have a bona fide dispute between us, but in the time between the disappearance of the last S.K. discussion site and the emergence of this one, something has occurred to me that might be tangentially related to your post. I came to read K. on my own after a conversion to Christianity that followed a ten-year stint as an atheist. It seems to me that if he knew the amount of secular unreason that was being passed off in the name of a branch of philosophy he supposedly founded and pioneered, he would hop out of his grave swinging his cane like a maniac. In my observation K. was not opposed to reason and he didn't--as I have read his views synopsized on occasion--say that the individual's subjective "leap into the absurd" was what would bring him to God. What he meant was that God is--by grace and through faith in His son, Jesus--always there for us. And sometimes, as in Abraham's case, that total leap or "teleological suspension of the ethical" is necessary. K., we must remember, was not a philosopher in the sense that Sartre was, or even in the sense that Aquinas was. He was a Christian trying to plunge the depths surrounding the mystery of Christ crucified. Luther is K.'s partner in crime, not Sartre.