To understand the role that Socrates played in Kierkegaard's thought and the importance of this connection to today's world it is useful to understand the immediate background of Kierkegaard's criticism. Specifically, this essay examines the problem that both the Romantics and Kierkegaard grappled with and the novelty of Kierkegaard's Socratic approach to addressing problems with Romantic analysis. Rousseau is considered a representative of the romantic movement. The central claim of this essay is that modern life leaves the human subject highly exposed and that, as a result, Kierkegaard's application of Socratic irony is even more relevant today than it was in the 19th century, when it was conceived. humanity found itself faced with the raw brutality of nature. A wild animal could tear and devour a hunter while his colleagues watched in despair. A decayed tooth caused a person insurmountable pain and suffering for a very long period, and the idea of ​​a safe home where they could raise a stable family – if such a concept could be sustained amidst all the chaos – was distant - far-fetched dream. As Hobbes put it, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In the face of all this, human dignity collided with an omnipotent nature and human beings had no chance. Starting with the mastery of fire and continuing with modern computers and engines, a glimmer of hope for human dignity has emerged: humanity has made giant strides, through science, technology and government, in controlling aspects of nature that make life uncomfortable or unstable. In this sense, technology was seen as a promise of happiness. For the most part, modern humans can live without ... middle of paper ... subject which, as a place of dignity, provides a strong, if negative, force against the encroachment of modernity. With the ironic attitude the subject refuses to accept uncritically the illusory stability of modernity. When unspeakable things happen, the sting is still met with harshness, but it is not exacerbated by the feeling of betrayal of the false promise of modernity. Whether close to nature or in the midst of civilization, to make sense of inherent chaos one does not resort to a fictitious order and instead engages with things as they are. The topic remains protected even though everything else might fall apart.*1 To be sure, this needs to be stated, since its inception modernity has faced intense criticism from conservative and religious traditions, Rousseau was a of the first leading figures of the Enlightenment to provide a sustained critique of the entire project.