I have argued that Kierkegaard’s discourses are not to be read as if they were an exercise in dialectics or phenomenology and, consequently, not as contributing to the development of a fundamental ontology, religious or otherwise. The difficulty of using them in such ways further underlined the implications of examining the discourses as testimony to some sort of religious experience. Insofar as it is at all possible to read them this way, the experience concerned proved to be of such a cognitively indeterminate kind that it could not provide the basis for any significant ontological claims. But if we are, nevertheless, aiming at reading them as philosophically interesting texts, over and above whatever religious or psychological materials they may make available to us, how should we be reading them? And how should we be making sense of such phrases as ‘becoming as nothing’ or ‘becoming transparent to God’?