Overview
The prompt is as follows:
1. How Does Kierkegaard Answer the Question about How to Live?What is the traditional understanding of truth seen from the objective point of view (from Concluding Unscientific Postscript)? What are Kierkegaard’s grounds for criticizing it? What kind of question cannot be adequately answered by the objective point of view? What is subjective truth for Kierkegaard? What is the “paradox” of Christianity, and why is it the ideal that can give our lives the greatest meaning?
Explain the difference between the person who lives in “infinite resignation” and the “knight of faith.” How does Kierkegaard apply this distinction to the case of Abraham? Why does he consider Abraham to be the exemplar of true faith and not simply a base murderer?
I have addressed all of the prompts. The only one that I did not answer is "What is the “paradox” of Christianity, and why is it the ideal that can give our lives the greatest meaning?" I am pretty sure that the answer pertain to Kierkegaard's work Concluding Unscientific Postscript which I have provided for you. So I just need someone to add to what I already have written and answer this prompt.
The next thing is that as for the following part of the instructions needs to be added to my answer.
The other page or two of the paper should be devoted to your own critical assessments of the arguments presented and a defense of your own position on one of the philosophical issues. If you disagree with the author, offer objections and explain why you think their argument is unsatisfactory, and then defend your own position on the issue. You may find yourself agreeing with the author’s conclusion; be sure to give good reasons for why you do. Either way, it is always a good idea to entertain possible objections to your own conclusions, followed by reasons for thinking that the objections do not hold up. This will make your own conclusion much stronger.