If you’d like to study Philosophy and Risk, registrations for the free workshops close on the 7th (https://safetyrisk.net/is-there-a-philosophy-of-risk-and-safety/).
If you would like to learn the basics of philosophy you can register here: admin@spor.com.au. We have 30 registrations across 12 countries, so it will be lots of fun in learning and sharing. We can squeeze in a few more places if you want to join.
In the workshops we will be exploring an introduction to philosophy including some of the foundational philosophers who inform the work of SPoR. However, if you don’t want to think critically, be challenged about beliefs, are easily offended by being confronted or, want to endorse your own worldview, then this is not a workshop for you.
Amongst some of the philosophers we explore will be Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Kierkegaard is described as: ‘a Danish Lutheran theologian, philosopher, poet, social critic, and religious author who is widely considered to be the first existentialist philosopher’ (Wikipedia), but he was so much more than this.
But a warning, if you don’t like a dialectical-polemical style, then don’t read Ellul, Kierkegaard or even St Paul. If you want everything to be ‘nice’, ‘ordered’, ‘certain’, ‘objective’, ‘safe’ and to your liking, don’t read Kierkegaard. Ellul and Kierkegaard (indeed, St Paul) for example: Jacques Ellul, Interpretive Essays (1981)
Of course, we know that Kierkegaard had to write using pseudonyms because his style was so threatening to many.
Like Ellul, Kierkegaard published an extraordinary number of works. I have many favourites of both. From Kierkegaard one of his best is: Concluding Unscientific Postscript To Philosophical Fragments, A Mimical-Pathetical-Dialectical Compilation, An Existential Contribution by Johannes Climacus. You can get a ‘taste’ of Soren’s style here: https://sorenkierkegaard.org/concluding-unscientific-postscript.html. But if you don’t like Soren’s style, you don’t have to read it.
In these writings, Kierkegaard describes his style as A Mimical-Pathetical-Dialectical Compilation and bears a similar style to that of Ellul (eg. Anarchy and Christianity). The same style is shared by Ricoeur (https://literariness.org/2017/04/06/key-theories-of-paul-ricoeur/ ) who is often called ‘tensive’. If you want everything to be ‘nice’, don’t read Ricoeur either.
Kierkegaard refers to his opponents with colourful and provocative language (eg. Unscientific Postscipt) ‘parroters comical thoughlessness’, ‘the rhetorical stupidities of ecclesiastical speakers’ and so on. No wonder he used a range of pseudonyms. So, if you are afraid of being offended, don’t read Kierkegaard either.
Kierkegaard (like Ellul, Ricoeur, Merleau-Ponty and even St Paul) challenge worldviews and in many ways. They deconstruct myths associated with certainty, objectivism, intellectual arrogance and philosophical naivety. But their meaning and purpose is liberating should you desire to engage with them. They are not afraid to confront or offend and this is no accident or mistake, that is their style. Poor old Soren, apparently, he didn’t know what he was doing.
All of these philosophers use anthropomorphic lyrical writing, archetypical generalisations, intentionally provocative dialectics and confrontation, and so ‘stir the pot’. They are also profoundly Christian, but not the kind of Christian recognised by many. There is no populist comfort in what they write. Indeed, many might declare these anti-Christian. How strange, these philosophers who have the ‘wrong theology’ and the ‘wrong style’ who are not viewed this way by those who engage with them.
In SPoR, we find the learning from these philosophers helpful, practical, positive and constructive, if one can discern their value.
If you want to make a start and study Kierkegaard you could start here:
- https://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikelen/Engels/101.%20Fear%20and%20Trembling%20book%20Kierkegaard.pdf
- https://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikelen/Engels/101.%20Fear%20and%20Trembling%20book%20Kierkegaard.pdf
- https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60333
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- What Can Weick Offer Safety - April 12, 2026
- All Injuries are Preventable and Other Silly Safety Sayings - April 10, 2026
- Social Psychology of Risk – Body of Knowledge - April 10, 2026
- Free Workshops June – Weick and HROing - April 10, 2026
- What Are Moral Hazards? - April 8, 2026
Rob Sams says
Thanks for sharing this. As I read, I had a few questions about what is being presented.
I can appreciate the intention to provoke thought, but I’m curious what happens when we imply that only those who can tolerate confrontation or offence are ready for “real” philosophy. Does that open the door to deeper reflection?
Another question I reflected on after reading this piece is: How do we invite people into philosophical reflection in a way that expands the conversation rather than narrowing it?
And related to that: What might become possible if we approached these thinkers not as heroic figures who revel in creating discomfort, but as companions who help us explore our own uncertainties?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
Andy Larsen says
Hi Rob S.
You raise the concern that positioning philosophy as something only for those who can tolerate confrontation or offence may close the door to deeper reflection and conversation.
Perhaps there’s a binary here that doesn’t hold, between inclusion and confrontation?
I’m not sure philosophy has ever been comfortable, let alone welcoming. It confronts the individual with themselves as a condition of engagement.
Kierkegaard suggests that genuine reflection is unsettling. In Fear and Trembling, disruption reveals what we might otherwise avoid.
I like your question about approaching these thinkers as companions. Even as companions, they are never neutral. They don’t walk beside us quietly. They provoke, and at times, offend.
Must this tension between invitation and disruption be resolved, or can the two coexist?
Rob Sams says
Hi Andy,
my thoughts are:
1. I noted that I was curious (rather than concerned) about what happens when we imply that only those who can tolerate confrontation or offence are ready for “real” philosophy. I agree that a binary doesn’t hold.
2. My experience is similar to yours with philosophy, in that it is often uncomfortable and challenging. I think we’re aligned there.
3. I’m not sure whether I’d use the word ‘neutral’ alongside Companions either. I don’t see companions as always “‘nice’, ‘ordered’, ‘certain’, ‘objective’, ‘safe’ and to your liking” (quoting the author of the blog post here).
My wife has been a companion in life for me for many years and she is the one person I’d nominate that easily tells me how it is, or how she see’s it, rather than what I want to hear.
Perhaps we have a different perspective on what a companion is? I do have a view that they may ‘walk beside’ us – metaphorically that is (in fact, if I recall from discussions with the author or the original blog post, one of his mentors Bill Anderson wrote a book titled “Walking Alongside”, and from what I understand this was not a relationship that was all about ‘niceness’, ‘happiness’, or ‘constant-agreement’ – although this would need to be confirmed by the author of the blog).
Finally, in my mind, yes, the tension between invitation and disruption can coexist.
Thanks for your comments and feedback. Nice to see people engaging on this site.
Rob S