For "the crowd" is untruth. Eternally, godly, christianly what Paul says is valid: "only one receives the prize," [I Cor. 9:24] not by way of comparison, for in the comparison "the others" are still present. That is to say, everyone can be that one, with God's help - but only one receives the prize; again, that is to say, everyone should cautiously have dealings with "the others," and essentially only talk with God and with himself - for only one receives the prize; again, that is to say, the human being is in kinship with, or to be a human is to be in kinship with the divinity. The worldly, temporal, busy, socially-friendly person says this: "How unreasonable, that only one should receive the prize, it is far more probable that several combined receive the prize; and if we become many, then it becomes more certain and also easier for each individually." Certainly, it is far more probable; and it is also true in relation to all earthly and sensuous prizes; and it becomes the only truth, if it is allowed to rule, for this point of view abolishes both God and the eternal and "the human being's" kinship with the divinity; it abolishes it or changes it into a fable, and sets the modern (as a matter of fact, the old heathen) in its place, so that to be a human being is like being a specimen which belongs to a race gifted with reason, so that the race, the species, is higher than the individual, or so that there are only specimens, not individuals. But the eternal, which vaults high over the temporal, quiet as the night sky, and God in heaven, who from this exalted state of bliss, without becoming the least bit dizzy, looks out over these innumerable millions and knows each single individual; he, the great examiner, he says: only one receives the prize; that is to say, everyone can receive it, and everyone ought to become this by oneself, but only one receives the prize. Where the crowd is, therefore, or where a decisive importance is attached to the fact that there is a crowd, there no one is working, living, and striving for the highest end, but only for this or that earthly end; since the eternal, the decisive, can only be worked for where there is one; and to become this by oneself, which all can do, is to will to allow God to help you - "the crowd" is untruth.
But he who acknowledges this view, which is seldom presented (for it often happens, that a man believes that the crowd is in untruth, but when it, the crowd, merely accepts his opinion en masse, then everything is all right), he admits to himself that he is the weak and powerless one; how would a single individual be able to stand against the many, who have the power! And he could not then want to get the crowd on his side to carry through the view that the crowd, ethico-religiously, as the court of last resort, is untruth; that would be to mock himself. But although this view was from the first an admission of weakness and powerlessness, and since it seems therefore so uninviting, and is therefore heard so seldom: yet it has the good feature, that it is fair, that it offends no one, not a single one, that it does not distinguish between persons, not a single one. A crowd is indeed made up of single individuals; it must therefore be in everyone's power to become what he is, a single individual; no one is prevented from being a single individual, no one, unless he prevents himself by becoming many. To become a crowd, to gather a crowd around oneself, is on the contrary to distinguish life from life; even the most well-meaning one who talks about that, can easily offend a single individual. But it is the crowd which has power, influence, reputation, and domination - this is the distinction of life from life, which tyrannically overlooks the single individual as the weak and powerless one, in a temporal-worldly way overlooks the eternal truth: the single individual.
Buenas, considerando a observação do Mario Yoshinaga nos comentários, em vez de traduzir o texto acima, de Soren Kierkegaard (ver o original na fonte), acho melhor só fazer um comentário sobre o meu entendimento (que afinal é o único que me interessa).
É um "aproveitamento" "questionativo" do texto de São Paulo aos Coríntios, dizendo que a multidão (qualquer grupo) só tem como representar inverdades, já que apenas o indivíduo pode aproveitar qualquer vantagem obtida (prêmio de Deus). É algo como o Nelson Rodrigues dizer que toda unanimidade é burra. Toda unanimidade é mentirosa, porque não há unanimidades. Apesar do homem se agrupar para progredir etc, qualquer vantagem é sempre de proveito individual (os indivíduos é que formam os grupos). Toda reflexão grupal é, no fundo, no fundo, inverídica. A única associação realmente confiável para o indivíduo, não é com outros indivíduos (a multidão), mas só com as suas crenças individuais (seu Deus). É razoável que seja mais fácil obter vantagens em grupo (em vez de individualmente). Pode não parecer razoável que cada um esteja sempre querendo levar vantagens particulares. Mas não é possível levar vantagens equalizadas em grupo, porque o usufruto das vantagens é sempre relativo a cada indivíduo (cada um aproveita o que quiser de cada vantagem). Não há resposta certa para questionamentos em grupo, se todas as respostas só têm validades de aproveitamentos individuais. Embora o grupo detenha o poder, cabe ao indivíduo re-questionar (sozinho) as conclusões em grupo, não se deixando nunca levar inteiramente pelos estatutos grupais, já que apenas o indivíduo pode usufruir vantagens segundo seus próprios juízos. Embora os grupos, detendo um poder maior, façam parecer eventualmente que os indivíduos são fracos e sem poder, é o contrário que sempre é verdade. O indivíduo que abre mão de seus questionamentos pessoais, acreditando e obedecendo cegamente aos estatutos do grupo, perde a possibilidade de usufruir quaisquer vantagens, deixando as suas vantagens para os outros indivíduos. Algo assim... Entendeu? Problema seu...