jā, Kirkegors aizrāda, ka sevis pārliecināšana caur citu pārliecināšanu par savu pārliecību ir kaitīga, tas tikai liecina, ka pats neesi pietiekami pārliecināts. bet 'informēt' - kāpēc ne. viņam ir tas t.s. 'netiešās komunikācijas princips', kuru viņš daļēji paņēmis no Sokrata un Jēzus, proti, runājot ar citiem par savu pārliecību vai ko, nekad neteikt tieši, bet kaut kā viltīgi, jo sakot tieši, visticamāk, tas cilvēku sākumā tikai atgrūdīs vai iedzīs nesapratnē, un viņš nemaz negribēs klausīties. tāpēc, kā kaut kur Rubenis rakstīja, vislabākais teologs ir tas, kas savā runā nemaz nepiemin Dievu.


"Kierkegaard's “method of indirect communication” was designed to sever the reliance of the reader on the authority of the author and on the received wisdom of the community. The reader was to be forced to take individual responsibility for knowing who s/he is and for knowing where s/he stands on the existential, ethical and religious issues raised in the texts."

"The point of indirect communication is to position the reader to relate to the truth with appropriate passion, rather than to communicate the truth as such."

šeit īsi, kodolīgi un izsmeļoši - http://members.pioneer.net/~tkerns/religsite/dqsite/dq-indirectcommSK.html

'One can deceive a person for the truth's sake, and (to recall old Socrates) one can deceive a person into the truth. Indeed it is only by this means, i.e., by deceiving him, that it is possible to bring into the truth one who is in an illusion.'