丹麥倫理學家祁克果（Søren Kierkegaard）之於存在哲學上的重要地位是無庸置疑的。法國文學評論家暨小說家布朗肖（Maurice Blanchot）以美學思維作為祁克果倫理學的基礎，重新思考祁克果書寫的意義，即書寫與創造作品的藝術表達相關而非僅止於闡述智性的工具。這使得理解祁克果的思想出現矛盾的兩難：究竟作品與其思想同步或為催生思想而作？前者將書寫視為省思的集大成，既闡明教義也建構哲學體系，後者將書寫視為觸發思考運動的媒介，既不定義普世價值也不規範普同律則。感性與理性的立場相左可能導致祁克果倫理學的危機。倫理學作為從理論層面建構一種指導行為的法則體系暨批判，不能是模稜兩可的，否則將使人無所適從，進而導致論述失效；然而祁克果以文學藝術申論哲學意旨，其書寫陷入感性詮釋或理性思維的雙重曖昧，根本性地相悖於倫理學上所要求的嚴謹。本文擬從布朗肖所引發的祁克果危機作為論述的起點，探討祁克果書寫的實質內蘊和其思考建構間的可能關係，俾提供一可參酌暨批判的空間。

In 1943, Maurice Blanchot published an article “Kierkegaard and the aesthetic”. This article indeed changed Søren Kierkegaard’s ethnical status in the philosophy. In this article, Blanchot pointed out a paradox between an aesthetician and ethicist. One has to break rules for the creation, which means it can lie and create the fiction in his work. One the other hand, another one obliges to be honest and follow the ethical rules to discuss the reality questions. Kierkegaard, an author who discusses the ethical problem through his literary writing (aka his novels) cannot perform both roles. Nevertheless, when he chose to speak ethnical within a literary tone (means one used an indirect expression or applied a lot of literary rhetoric to address his/her work), he cannot be an ethicist because an ethicist requires loyal and responsible to the truth. However, a novel writer can be a mystery to holds the attraction for the audience. But if Kierkegaard is an aesthetician rather than an ethicist, how can he convince his reader to believe in god without the dialectical ethics? This article is suggesting through Kierkegaard’s literary expression, one will find that he might actually reconstructed a possible passage between the aesthetic and belief in God (theology).