ABSTRACT
Now it is time to return to the initial, underlying question that has been pursued throughout this whole investigation. This reflects the aim to achieve a full understanding of Kierkegaard’s conception of psychology: what is Kierkegaard’s psychology actually about, and does the term have any relevance to the psychology we describe today in the early years of the twenty-first century? There is no doubt that Kierkegaard’s psychology is very different from how we understand psychology as a science today, the most important difference being how a science is understood. Yet a more intriguing question is what is and what is not science. On the one hand, contemporary science emphasizes general validity, purity, and objectivity. This contradicts at least what Kierkegaard regards as being psychology, and he admits that psychology has big problems with being accepted as a science. Certainly, to be a science, psychology has to deal with general statements in one form or the other.
