Kierkegaard felt that subjective reflection was more crucial to the individual life than objective reflection, because subjective reflection focuses on passion and human existence rather than logic and impersonal truth. The objective world is the world of facts and truth, independent of the perceptions of humans. Objective reflection focuses on what actually is, in the real world. Objective reflection centers on the things and ideas in the world that give meaning to life. The subjective world is the world of human thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. It focuses on the relationship between people and their thoughts, feelings and perceptions, in respect to their lives. It centers on how meaning in life is viewed subjectively, or how humans find meaning in their lives. To Kierkegaard, subjective reflection is the relationship to what a person values in life. One major difference I noticed in the reading, between the objective and subjective realms, is in regards to 'being' versus 'becoming'. Kierkegaard stated, “the objective world is as it is: being”. The subjective world is always 'becoming' something else through internal conflicts and struggle. However, the latter difference then creates a chain, as another difference arises between the two realms. The objective world is based in reason, while the subjective world is based in passion. Kierkegaard believed that subjective reflection is the key understanding meaning in life. In a sense, he complains about the objective reflection, stating that “it is impersonal and an indifferent relation to existence”. As a matter of fact, this terminology, as I shall call it, defines just what the objective world and objective reflection is: being independent of any human subjectivity. Subjective reflection naturally focuses on human existence in a personal and inward way, without 'detachment' as Kierkegaard refers to it. Kierkegaard goes on to use the knowledge of God as an example to show why subjective reflection is more important. He believes that there is the objective reflection that states that this is the true God, but subjectively, the relation to God that the person has, is a God-relation. He makes sure to point out that there really is no truth in the situation, without the relation to God, because the relation to God is more important than the objective proof of God's existence. So with that in mind, to treat God objectively is to treat Him as an object. However, God is a subject and therefore can only be related to subjectively in inwardness. So it is the HOW which is important to Kierkegaard, not the WHAT. The strongest example of his reasons for this is displayed in his idea of the leap of faith when faced with the 'absurd'. I say absurd partially, because Kierkegaard is an existentialist, yet different from those of modern present time. The absurd, with consideration to Christianity, is the idea that the eternal God could never actually exist in human form, as Christ did. It is a paradox, it just cannot happen. There can be no objective justification for such a paradox at all. Kierkegaard does not see this as being too important, because the relationship one has to God is truly what is important. This is where the leap of faith comes into place. One is faced with complete absurdity and paradox, and one then abandons reason for completely blind faith. There is no rational justification for it, only inward justification for the existing individual. To Kierkegaard, there really was no point in finding objective truths, he only truly valued subjective truth. This meant that the truth was in respect to a person's relations to other things in the world or to God. Because of this, subjective reflection is crucial and more important for human existence, because subjective reflection embraced passion and faith in existing individuals. This idea is demonstrated in the leap of faith, that one has, in relation to God. To Kierkegaard, this was the highest way of life for the existing individual. The life of faith is the highest form of human existence.