The Evolution of Possibility in Kierkegaard's Authorship

There is a confusing equivocality to the concept of possibility In Kierkegaard’s authorship. The meaning of the concept thus appears to change as soon as its perspectival context changes.
In Fear and Trembling, we mainly hear of the »impossibility« of father Abraham to make his faith understandable to the normative standards of ethical life. In Philosophical Crumbs, we learn how the possibility and actuality of human history paradoxically cannot be accommodated by any system of (logical) thought. In The Concept of Anxiety, the phenomenon of anxiety is presented as »freedom’s actuality as the possibility of possibility«, the experience of which is allegedly educating. In the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, we suddenly learn that passionate and inward actuality is »higher than« the existentially disinterested possibilities of aesthetics and metaphysics, only to have God himself qualified as the possibility of all things in The Sickness unto Death.
In this paper, I wish to argue that every one of these pseudonymous approaches elucidates an important aspect of how possibility, according to Kierkegaard, should be understood. They still, however, do not capture the full scope of the concept of possibility which – for its part – is instead essentially expressed in the idea of (Christian) love and hope as relating »oneself expectantly to the possibility of the good« for oneself as well as »for others«. Only through this explicitly religious re-qualification of possibility as the possibility of the good in the Works of Love, thus, does Kierkegaard reveal and unfold what is positively implied in an ethics of faith, hope and love. He does so by offering a perspective internal to the loving agent which completes the Kierkegaardian picture of possibility that – from the external perspectives of the pseudonyms – can complementarily and preliminarily be described as ethical impossibility, logical paradoxicality, existential passion and ontological hyper-possibility.