Either/Or

Either/Or
Title page of the original Danish edition from 1843.
Author	Søren Kierkegaard
Original title	Enten-Eller
Country	Denmark
Language	Danish
Series	First authorship (Pseudonymous)
Genre(s)	Philosophy
Publisher	University bookshop Reitzel, Copenhagen
Publication date	February 20, 1843
Published in English	1944 - First Translation
Pages	800+
Followed by	Two Upbuilding Discourses, May 16, 1843

Either/Or

Published in two volumes in 1843, Either/Or (original Danish title: Enten ‒ Eller) is an influential book written by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, exploring the aesthetic, see also aestheticism, and ethical "phases" or "stages" of existence. Victor Eremita, the pseudonymous editor, says he "doubts the philosophical maxim that the external is the internal and the internal the external" and his view of the whole book is that it presents an unending debate between "A" the author of Either and "B" the author of Or. Eremita advises the "fair reader" to follow "B's" advice.^[1] David F. Swenson says, "Each man is "sold" on his own position, and each one is out to "sell" the other-and you!^[2]

Either/Or, February 20, 1843 was offered to the world along with Two Upbuilding Discourses, 1843, May 16, 1843. Everyone loved Either/Or, especially Johannes the Seducer, but no one noticed the Two Upbuilding (Edifying) Discourses, which disappointed Kierkegaard.^[3]

Either/Or portrays two life views, one consciously hedonistic, the other based on ethical duty and responsibility. Each life view is written and represented by a fictional pseudonymous author, the prose of the work depending on the life view being discussed. For example, the aesthetic life view is written in short essay form, with poetic imagery and allusions, discussing aesthetic topics such as music, seduction, drama, and beauty. The ethical life view is written as two long letters, with a more argumentative and restrained prose, discussing moral responsibility, critical reflection, and marriage.^[4] The views of the book are not neatly summarized, but are expressed as lived experiences embodied by the pseudonymous authors. The book's central concern is the primal question asked by Aristotle, "How should we live?"^[5]

Either/Or has to do with "one category", "the significance of choosing" and this choosing always depends on the "will".^[6] The absolute choice requires repentance. Identity is the choice between the finite (changeable) aspects of youth, beauty, power, etc., the historical and philosophical points of view, (reflection), Johannes the Seducer, who typifies Sexual objectification, ^[7] and Manifest Destiny^[8] and the infinite (unchangeable) aspect of freedom. The freedom to choose oneself absolutely, whether in joy or sorrow, hope or memory, fortune or misfortune leads to a higher good. In freedom you are no longer possessed by the world. You discover that the "good things of the world" are unreliable and that there is another good that is "higher" than all these goods; faith. Faith is "original in [us], and every human being has it if he wants to have it-it is precisely the gloriousness of faith that it can be had only on this condition. Therefore, it is the only unfailing good, because it can be had only by constantly being acquired and can be acquired by continually being generated".^[9] Kierkegaard says,in Either/Or "You are trapped and have, so to speak, no time to extricate yourself; I am not trapped in my judgment of either the esthetic or the ethical, for in the ethical I am raised above the moment, I am in freedom, but it is a contradiction for anyone to be able to become trapped by being in freedom."^[10]

Finite goods can be obtained through a gift from one to another but the infinite goods of the spirit are goods that cannot be wished for or received as a gift. Kierkegaard essentially says, in Two Upbuilding Discourses, 1843, and Point of View; If power comes to me because someone gives power to me then I am indebted to that person because that person can take what has been given. The most one person can do for another is to "constrain (compel) him to see the highest good," to take notice.^[11] The single individual can either put his faith and its expectancy in the promises of the world or in God's promises.^[12] Kierkegaard says, "My expectancy was not in the world but in God." His first discourse is based on the following Biblical passages. ^[13]Galatians 3:23-29

The individual who lives in an either-or is never satisfied with what the world has to offer while the individual who lives in faith accepts every worldly gift, whether for good or evil in the eyes of the world, as a good and perfect gift from God. James 1:17-22 He says:

Are, then, the apostolic words that every good and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights a dark and difficult saying? And if you think that you cannot understand it, do you dare to maintain that you have wanted to understand it? When you had doubts about what came from God or about what was a good and perfect gift, did you risk the venture? And when the light sparkle of joy beckoned you, did you thank God for it? And when you were so strong that you felt you needed no help, did you then thank God? And when your allotted portion was little, did you thank God? And when you allotted portion was sufferings, did you thank God? And when your wish was denied, did you thank God? And when you yourself had to deny your wish, did you thank God? And when people wronged you and insulted you, did you thank God? We are not saying that their wrong thereby ceased to be wrong-what would be the use of such pernicious and foolish talk! It is up to you to decide whether it was wrong; but have you taken the wrong and insult to God and by your thanksgiving received it from his hand as a good and perfect gift? Did you do that? Well, then, you have worthily interpreted the apostolic words to the honor of God and to your own salvation. It is beautiful that a person prays, and many a promise is given to the one who prays without ceasing, but it is more blessed always to give thanks. Two Upbuilding Discources: Every Good and Every Perfect Gift is From Above p. 43

Let each one learn what he can; both of us can learn that a person’s unhappiness never lies in his lack of control over external conditions, since this would only make him completely unhappy. Either/Or II p. 188 Hong

Structure

The book is the first of Kierkegaard's works written pseudonymously, a practice he employed during the first half of his career.^[14][15] In this case, four pseudonyms are used:

• "Victor Eremita" - the fictional compiler and editor of the texts, which he claims to have found in an antique escritoire.
• "A" - the moniker given to the fictional author of the first text ("Either") by Victor Eremita, whose real name he claims not to have known.
• "B" - "Judge Vilhelm" - the fictional author of the second text ("Or").
• "Johannes" - the fictional author of a section of 'Either' titled "The Diary of a Seducer".^[4]

The first volume, describes the "aesthetic" phase of existence. It contains a collection of papers, found by 'Victor Eremita' and written by 'A', the "aesthete."^[16][17] His view of life is that the "outer", or experience, is everything. One could call him John Locke.

The aesthete, according to Kierkegaard's model, will eventually find himself in "despair", a psychological state (explored further in Kierkegaard's The Concept of Anxiety and The Sickness Unto Death) that results from a recognition of the limits of the aesthetic approach to life. Kierkegaard's "despair" is a somewhat analogous precursor of existential angst.

The second volume, describes Judge Vilhelm's argument with the aesthete. The esthete has already spoken and now the ethicist presents his side. Kierkegaard wrote volume II before volume I.^[18]

Diapsalmata

The first section of Either is a collection of many tangential aphorisms, epigrams, anecdotes and musings on the aesthetic mode of life. The word 'diapsalmata' is related to 'psalms', and means "refrains". It contains some of Kierkegaard's most famous and poetic lines, such as "What is a poet?" "What am I good for?" "the Lord only knows what he meant by me." "Most men pursue pleasure pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it." "Nature still recognizes the dignity of humanity..."... what is the significance of life? "What is the power that binds me?" "Strangely enough, it is always the same thing which at every age engages our attention, and we go only so far, or rather, we go backward. ... Knowldge of the truth I may perhaps have attained to; happiness, certainly not. What shall I do?" "...my soul's poisonous doubt is all consuming. My soul is like the Dead Sea..."^[19] "Freedom of Speech" vs. "Freedom of Thought", the "Unmovable chess piece", the tragic clown, and the laughter of the gods.^[20]

This section has to do with the question, "What shall I do?" He says, "Accomplish something in the world, men tell me. Shall I then publish my grief to the world, contribute one more proof for the wretchedness and misery of existence, perhaps discover a new flaw in human life, hitherto unnoticed? I might then reap the rare reward of becoming famous, like the man who discovered the spots on Jupiter. I prefer, however, to keep silent."^[21] He tries his hand at the philosophy of "regret” but is never able to move forward because "philosophy remains within itself, and admits of no higher philosophy." "^[22]

I have only one principle ... It is necessary to distinguish between the successive dialectic in either/or, and the eternal dialectic here set forth. ... I don't proceed from my principle; for if I did, I would regret it, and if I did not, I would also regret that. Either/Or Vol I p. 38 Swenson

The Immediate Stages of the Erotic, or Musical Erotic

An essay discussing the idea that music expresses the spirit of sensuality. 'A' evaluates Mozart's Cherubino, Papageno and Don Giovanni and Goethe's Faust.

Essays read before the Symparanekromenoi

The next three sections are essay lectures from 'A' to the 'Symparanekromenoi', a club or fellowship of the dead. The first essay, which discusses ancient and modern tragedy, is called the "Ancient Tragical Motif as Reflected in the Modern".

The second essay, called "Shadowgraphs: A Psychological Pastime", discusses modern heroines, including Mozart's Elvira and Goethe's Gretchen.

The third essay, called "The Unhappiest One", discusses the hypothetical question: "who deserves the distinction of being unhappier than everyone else?" Kierkegaard answers, "The unhappy person is one who has his ideal, the content of his life, the fullness of his consciousness, the essence of his being, in some manner outside of himself. He is always absent, never present to himself."^[23]

The First Love

In this volume Kierkegaard examines the concept of 'First Love' as a pinnacle for the aestheticist, using his idiosyncratic concepts of 'closedness' (indesluttethed in Danish) and the 'demonic' (demoniske) with reference to Eugène Scribe.

Crop Rotation: An Attempt at a Theory of Social Prudence

In agriculture, one rotates the crop to keep the soil fertile and full of nutrients. Crop Rotation in Either/Or refers to the aesthete's need to keep life "interesting", to avoid both boredom and the need to face the responsibilities of an ethical life.

Diary of a Seducer

Written by 'Johannes the Seducer', this volume illustrates how the aesthete holds the "interesting" as his highest value and how, to satisfy his voyeuristic reflections, he manipulates his situation from the boring to the interesting. He will use irony, artifice, caprice, imagination and arbitrariness to engineer poetically satisfying possibilities; he is not so much interested in the act of seduction as in willfully creating its interesting possibility.

The Aesthetic Validity of Marriage

The first letter is about the aesthetic value of marriage and defends marriage as a way of life.

Equilibrium between the Aesthetic and the Ethical in the Development of Personality

Victor Eremita found a group of letters from a retired Judge Vilhelm or William, another pseudonymous author, to 'A', trying to convince 'A' of the value of the ethical stage of life by arguing that the aesthete has never known himself. The aesthete can courageously doubt everything and fight everything, but he doesn't know anything. He says, anecdotally, "What portends? What will the future bring? I do not know, I have no presentiment. When a spider hurls itself down from some fixed point, consistently with its nature, it always sees before it only an empty space wherein it can find no foothold however much it sprawls. And so it is with me: always before me an empty space; what drives me forward is a consistency which lies behind me. This life is topsy-turvy and terrible, not to be endured."^[24] And Johannes the Seducer has the same problem; he says, "Accursed Chance! Never have I cursed you because you have appeared; I curse you because you do not appear at all. Or is this perhaps a new invention of yours, unfathomable being, barren mother of all, sole remnant of the past, when necessity gave birth to freedom, when freedom was again lured back into its mother’s womb? Accursed Chance! You, my only confident, the only being whom I consider worthy of being my ally and my enemy, always the same by forever being different, always incomprehensible, always a riddle!"^[25] These people stand at the crossroads. Either the individual will choose the "ethical," which is characterized as freedom from necessity and absolute differences or he will harden himself and close himself up, with his relative differences, in despair.^[26] Kierkegaard says, the one who lives esthetically has his life in the differences, which brings him to the conflict of which difference is more important than the other. Once he despairs over this he will find the universal.^[27] What is the difference? Riches, power, noble birth, intelligence, lowliness, distinction, talent, wittiness, race, color, creed, sexual orientation, gender and so on. These differences are necessary; they have nothing to do with freedom. Dwelling on the differences leads one to despair or depression. When one chooses himself "he chooses himself absolutely from the hand of God".^[28] If he doesn't choose himself then he lacks spirit. This power of choice does away with all differences. But there is another power that Kierkegaard mentions throughout his books. This power binds a person to the differences.^[29] "A" in Either said, "No one ever comes back from the dead, no one ever enters the world without weeping; no one is asked when he wishes to enter life, no one is asked when he wishes to leave." ^[30] We have no power over what our condition will be when we enter the world, because it is what it is. But, Kierkegaad argues, we have complete power over what our condition can "become", and in this we are all essentially equal.

He says choosing is what is important to the development of his personality.^[31] The esthete "is" what he is because he wills it, he allows himself to be swallowed up by externalities, and the ethicist "becomes" what he becomes because he wills it. The one develops with necessity and the other with freedom. Kierkegaard is always on the side of freedom.^[32] Johannes Climacus, the only pseudonym edited by Kierkegaard,^[33] sums this up nicely in Concluding Unscientific Postscript: "The subjective thinker is not a poet even if he is also a poet, not an ethicist even if he is also an ethicist, but is also a dialectician and is himself essentially existing, whereas the poet’s existence is inessential in relation to the poem, and likewise the ethicist’s in relation to the teaching, and the dialectician’s in relation to the thought. ... To exist is an art. The subjective thinker is esthetic enough for his life to have esthetic content, ethical enough to regulate it, dialectical enough in thinking to master it. ... The subjective thinker’s task is to understand himself in existence. "^[34] His question has never been what is existence, that's a question for philosophers, historians, and scientists. His question has always been how is an individual to live in existence. The person who has his life vested in what is outside of himself is lost^[35], Victor Erimeta says this is due to the philosophical "deficiency" which wants to make "the external the internal and the internal the external"^[36].

• The Eternal life-view comes before the either/or

Every human being, no matter how slightly gifted he is, however subordinate his position in life may be, has a natural need to formulate a life-view, a conception of the meaning of life and of its purpose. The person who lives esthetically also does that, and the popular expression heard in all ages and from various stages is this: One must enjoy life. There are, of course, many variations of this, depending on differences in the conceptions of enjoyment, but all are agreed that we are to enjoy life. But the person who says that he wants to enjoy life always posits a condition that either lies outside the individual or is within the individual in such a way that it is not there by virtue of the individual himself. I beg you to keep rather fixed the phrases of this last sentence, for they have been carefully chosen. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or II, Hong p. 179-180

…in our day, we see people who have despair in their hearts and yet have conquered doubt. This was especially striking to me when I looked at some of the German philosophers. Their minds are at ease; objective, logical thinking has been brought to rest in its corresponding objectivity, and yet, even though they divert themselves by objective thinking, they are in despair, for a person can divert himself in many ways, and there is scarcely any means of dulling and deadening as abstract thinking, for it is a matter of conducting oneself as impersonally as possible. … Despair is an expression of the total personality, doubt only of thought. Every life-view that has the condition outside itself is despair. ... the lowliest, least endowed person can despair ... When a person has truly chosen despair, he has truly chosen what despair chooses: himself in his eternal validity. Either/Or Vol II p. 212-213 Hong

Perhaps you are already slightly irritated by the popular expression for living esthetically that I stated, and yet you will scarcely be able to deny its accuracy. Often enough you have been heard ridiculing people, saying that they do not know how to enjoy life, while you yourself, on the other hand, think that you have studied it from the bottom up. Admittedly, it is possible that they do not understand it, but they nevertheless agree with you on the expression itself. You may now have a suspicion that in this deliberation you are going to end up joining hands with people who ordinarily are an abomination to you. You must be thinking that I ought to be sufficiently courteous to treat you as an artist and tacitly ignore the bunglers who are enough of a nuisance to you in life and with whom you in no way wish to have anything in common. But I cannot be of assistance to you, for you do nevertheless have something in common with them, and something very essential-namely, a life-view-and what distinguishes you from them is in my eyes something unessential. Either/Or II p. 180

What, then, is depression? It is hysteria of the spirit. There comes a moment in a person’s life when immediacy is ripe, so to speak, and when the spirit requires a higher form, when it wants to lay hold of itself as spirit. As immediate spirit, a person is bound up with all the earthly life, and now spirit wants to gather itself together out of this dispersion, so to speak, and to transfigure itself in itself; the personality wants to become conscious in its eternal validity. If this does not happen, if the movement is halted, if it is repressed, then depression sets in. Either/Or II p. 188-189 Hong

The aesthete and the ethicist both note that philosophers can always begin with nothing but never know how to stop. They just keep contemplating the past. The question for "A" and "B" is "What am I supposed to do?" Kierkegaard is the "policeman" who constantly says, Stop, Halt, Go Back!, because "the true eternity does not lie behind the either/or, but before it." ^[37]

Introducing the ethical stage it is moreover unclear if Kierkegaard acknowledges an ethical stage without religion. Freedom seems to denote freedom to choose the will to do the right and to denounce the wrong in a secular, almost Kantian style. However, remorse (angeren) seems to be a religious category specifically related to the Christian concept of deliverance.^[38] Kierkegaard covers Remorse, Repentance, Confession: Eternity’s Emissaries to Man in Chapter 2 of Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing read it and then decide what he means by remorse.

There is something unexplainable in depression. A person with a sorrow or a worry knows why he sorrow’s or worries. If a depressed person is asked what the reason is, what it is that weighs on him, he will answer: I do not know; I cannot explain it. Therein lies the limitlessness of depression. This answer is altogether correct, because as soon as he knows what it is, it is eliminated, whereas sorrow in the sorrowing one is not eliminated by his knowing why he sorrows. But depression is sin, is actually a sin that stands for all, for it is the sin of not willing deeply and inwardly, and this is the mother of all sins. This sickness, or more correctly this sin, is very prevalent in our day, and it is under the same sin that all of young Germany and France are now groaning. Either/Or II p. 189 Hong

Here I may remind you of a phrase you fling around often enough: “It’s not the given that is great, but the acquired,” for the conquering nature in a man and his making conquests are actually the given, but his possessing and wanting to possess are the acquired. To conquer takes pride, to possess takes humility; to conquer takes violence, to possess, patience; to conquer-greed, to possess-contentment with little, to conquer requires eating and drinking, to possess, prayer and fasting. Either/Or II p. 131 Hong

Ultimatium

The volume ends in a discourse on the Upbuilding in the Thought that: against God we are always in the wrong.

Discourses and Sequel

Along with this work, Kierkegaard published, under his own name, two upbuilding discourses^[39] on May 16, 1843 intended to complement Either/Or, "The Expectancy of Faith" and "Every Good and Every Perfect Gift is from Above".^[40] Kierkegaard also published another discourse during the printing of the second edition of Either/Or in 1849.^[41]

Kierkegaard presents another anecdote in Two Upbuilding Discourses, 1843: The Expectancy of Faith, "How, then, shall we face the future? When the sailor is out on the ocean, when everything is changing all around him, when the waves are born and die, he does not stare down into the waves, because they are changing. He looks up at the stars. Why? Because they are faithful; they have the same location now that they had for our ancestors and will have for generations to come. By what means does he conquer the changeable? By the eternal. By the eternal, one can conquer the future, because the eternal is the ground of the future, and therefore through it the future can be fathomed. What, then, is the eternal power in a human being? It is faith. What is the expectancy of faith? Victory-or, as Scripture so earnestly and so movingly teaches us, that all things must serve for good those who love God."^[42] He moves the person from the outer to the inner and on to the eternal.

In addition to the discourses, one week after Either/Or was published, Kierkegaard published a newspaper article in Fædrelandet, titled "Who Is the Author Of Either/Or?", attempting to create authorial distance from the work, emphasizing the content of the work and the embodiment of a particular way of life in each of the pseudonyms. Kierkegaard using the pseudonym 'A.F.' writes, "most people, including the author of this article, think it is not worth the trouble to be concerned about who the author is. They are happy not to know his identity, for then they have only the book to deal with, without being bothered or distracted by his personality."^[43]

The "Ultimatium" at the end of the second volume of Either/Or hinted at a future discussion of the religious stage. This discussion is included in Stages on Life's Way (1845). The first two sections revisit and refine the aesthetic and ethical stages elucidated in Either/Or, while the third section, Guilty/Not Guilty is about the religious stage.^[44]

Examples or an Either/Or

Inner or the outer, freedom or necessity, the finite or the infinite

The first Either/Or deals with the single individual who is existing with a choice. In the second Either/Or the aesthetic is offered the goods of the world but chooses an inner good instead; the third is a choice between the aesthetic or the ethical, then the absolute Either/Or, the choice between freedom or necessity is considered and finally the choice between the world or God, the Eternal choice. Kierkegaard says, "The appointed task is simultaneously to relate oneself absolutely to the absolute end and relatively to relative ends." In this way you are absolutely choosing yourself. You no longer view life as a spectator but as an active participant. ^[45][46][47]

Imagine a captain of a ship the moment a shift of direction must be made; then he may be able to say: I can do either this or that. But if he is not a mediocre captain he will also be aware that during all this the ship is ploughing ahead with its ordinary velocity, and thus there is but a single moment when it is inconsequential whether he does this or does that. So also with a person-if he forgets to take into account the velocity-there eventually comes a moment where it is no longer a matter of an Either/Or, not because he has chosen, but because he has refrained from it, which also can be expressed by saying: Because others have chosen for him-or because he has lost himself. Either/Or Vol II p. 164 Hong

"Something marvelous happened to me. I was transported to the seventh heaven. There sat all the gods assembled. As a special dispensation, I was granted the favor of making a wish. "Do you wish for youth," said Mercury, "or for beauty, or power, or a long life; or do you wish for the most beautiful woman, or any other of the many fine things we have in our treasure chest? Choose, but only one thing!" For a moment I was bewildered; then I addressed the gods, saying: "My esteemed contemporaries, I choose one thing — that I may always have the laughter on my side." Not one god said a word; instead, all of them began to laugh. From that I concluded that my wish was granted and decided that the gods knew how to express themselves with good taste: for it would indeed have been inappropriate to reply solemnly: It is granted to you." A; Diapsalmata (Hong Translation, slightly abbreviated

You see, there is an Either/Or here. … if you want to go on amusing your soul with the trifling of wittiness and the vainglory of the intellect, then do so. Leave your home, emigrate, go to Paris, devote yourself to journalism, court the smiles of languid women, cool their hot blood with the chill of your wit, let it be your life’s proud task to dispel an idle woman’s boredom or the gloomy thoughts of a burned out sensualist; forget that you were a child, that there was piety in your soul and innocence in your thoughts; muffle every lofty voice in your heart, loaf your life away in the glittering wretchedness of social gatherings; forget that there is an immortal spirit within you, torture the last farthing out of you soul; … But if you cannot do that, if you do not want to do that-and that you neither can not will-then pull yourself together, stifle every rebellious thought that would have the audacity to commit high treason against your better nature, disdain all that paltriness that would envy your intellectual gifts and desire them for itself in order to put them to even worse use; disdain the hypocritical virtue that is unwilling to carry the burdens of life and yet wants to be eulogized for carrying it; but do not therefore distain life, respect every decent effort, every modest activity that humbly conceals itself, and above all have a little more respect for women. … if you cannot control yourself, you will scarcely find anyone else who is able to do it. Judge Vilhelm, Either/Or, Vol II p. 206-207 Hong

The spheres with which philosophy properly has to deal, the spheres proper to thought, are logic, nature, and history. Here necessity rules and therefore mediation has its validity. That this is true of logic and nature, no one will deny, but with history there is a difficulty, for here, it is said, freedom prevails. But I think that history is incorrectly interpreted and that the difficulty arises from the following: History, namely, is more than a product of the free actions of free individuals. The individual acts, but his action enters into the order of things that maintains the whole of existence. What is going to come of his action, one who acts does not really know. But this higher order of things that digests, so to speak, the free actions and works them together in its eternal laws is necessity, and this necessity is the movement of world history; it is therefore quite proper for philosophy to use mediation-that is, relative mediation. If I am contemplating a world-historical individuality, I can then distinguish between the deeds of which Scripture says “they follow him” and the deeds by which he belongs to history. Philosophy has nothing to do with what could be called the inner deed, but the inner deed is the true life of freedom. Philosophy considers the external deed, yet in turn it does not see this as isolated but sees it as assimilated into and transformed in the world-historical process. This process is the proper subject for philosophy and it considers this under the category of necessity. Therefore it rejects the reflection that wants to point out that everything could be otherwise; it views world-history in such a way that there is no question of an Either/Or. It seems, to me at least, that there is much foolish and incompetent talk mixed up in this point of view. I do not deny that the young necromancers who want to conjure up the spirits of history are especially ludicrous to me, but I genuflect deeply to the magnificent accomplishments our age has to exhibit. For the historical process there is no question of an Either/Or, but nevertheless no philosophy can think of denying that for the acting individual there is such a question. … So even the lowliest individual has a double existence. He, too has a history, and this is not simply a product of his own free acts. The interior deed, on the other hand, belongs to him and will belong to him forever; history or world history cannot take it from him; it follows him, either to his joy or to his despair. In this world there rules an absolute Either/Or. But philosophy has nothing to do with this world. Judge Vilhelm, Either/Or II p. 174-175 Hong

In a spiritual sense that by which a person gives birth is the formative striving of the will and that is within a person’s own power. What are you afraid of then? After all, you are not supposed to give birth to another human being; you are supposed to give birth only to yourself. And yet I am fully aware that there is an earnestness about this that shakes the entire soul; to become conscious in one’s eternal validity is a moment that is more significant than everything else in the world. It is as if you were captivated and entangled and could never escape either in time or in eternity; it is as if you lost yourself, as if you ceased to be; it is as if you would repent of it the next moment and yet it cannot be undone. It is an earnest and significant moment when a person links himself to an eternal power for an eternity, when he accepts himself as the one whose remembrance time will never erase, when in an eternal and unerring sense he becomes conscious of himself as the person he is. Judge Vilhelm, Either/Or II p. 206 Hong

There is “the familiar situation described in a story from the Middle Ages about a poor wretch who woke up in hell and shouted, “What time is it?” –whereupon the devil answered, “Eternity!” And although this cannot be portrayed artistically, then let your consolation be, as it is mine, that we are not to read about or listen to or look at what is the highest and the most beautiful in life, but are, if you please, to live it. Judge Vilhelm, Either/Or, Vol II Hong p. 138-139

Now he discovers that the self he chooses has a boundless multiplicity within itself inasmuch as it has a history, a history in which he acknowledges identity with himself. This history is of a different kind, for in this history he stands in relation to other individuals in the race, and to the whole race, and this history contains painful things, and yet he is the person he is only through this history. That is why it takes courage to choose oneself, for at the same time as he seems to be isolating himself most radically he is most radically sinking himself into the root by which he is bound up with the whole. This makes him uneasy, and yet it must be so, for when the passion of freedom is aroused in him-and it is aroused in the choice just as it presupposes itself in the choice-he chooses himself and struggles for this possession as for his salvation, and it is his salvation. He can give up nothing of all this, not the most painful, not the most hardest, and yet the expression for this struggle for this acquirement is-repentance. He repents himself back into himself, back into the family, back into the race, until he finds himself in God. Only on this condition can he choose himself. And this is the only condition he wants, for only in this way can he choose himself absolutely. Yet what is a human being without love? But there are many kinds of love. I love my father and my mother differently, my wife, in turn, in another way, and each different love has its different expression. But there is also a love with which I love God, and this love has only one expression in language-it is “repentance.” If I do not love him in this way, then I do not love him absolutely, out of my innermost being. Any other love of the absolute is fallacy, for (to take what is ordinarily so highly prized and what I myself esteem) when thought with all its love holds fast to the absolute, then it is not the absolute I love, then I do not love absolutely, for I love out of necessity. As soon as I love freely and love God, then I repent. And if there were no other basis for repentance as the expression of my love of God, it is this-that he has loved me first. And yet this is an imperfect designation, for only when I choose myself as guilty do I absolutely choose myself. Judge Vilhelm, Either/Or II p. 216-217 Hong

A human being's eternal dignity lies precisely in this, that he can gain a history. The divine in him lies in this, that he himself, if he so chooses, can give this history continuity, because it gains that, not when it is a summary of what has taken place or has happened to me, but only when it is my personal deed in such a way that even that which has happened to me is transformed and transferred from necessity to freedom. What is enviable about human life is that one can assist God, can understand him, and in turn the only worthy way for a human being to understand God is to appropriate^[48] in freedom everything that comes to him, both the happy and the sad. Either\Or II p. 250 Hong

Themes

The various essays in Either/Or help elucidate the various forms of aestheticism and ethical existence. Both A and Judge Vilhelm attempt to focus primarily upon the best that their mode of existence has to offer.

Summary of the Stages Aesthetic Ethical Defined by immediacy: the failure to reflect seriously upon the nature of one's way of living Defined by critical reflection: able to make and take moral responsibility and accountability for his life choices Sees the outer existence as more important: The self is entirely subject to external factors Sees the inner existence as more important: The self shapes one's own character, values, inclinations, and personal identity; thus, the self is partially subject to internal factors Accepts passively that one's life is based entirely upon external factors Willing to take active control of one's life Tends to avoid commitments, as they see it as boring Commitments, like friendship and marriage, are cornerstones of a responsible ethical way of existence. Exhaustion of aesthetic pleasure leads to boredom and despair Strives to become a better human being through taking an active role in shaping oneself and one's manner of life.

Three Stages of Life. Either/Or discusses the aesthetic and ethical stages or spheres. An ethical person is still capable of aesthetic enjoyment. The size of the spheres are for illustrative purposes only.

A fundamental characteristic of the aesthete is immediacy. In Either/Or, there are several levels of immediacy explored, ranging from unrefined to refined. Unrefined immediacy is characterized by immediate cravings for desire and satisfaction through enjoyments that do not require effort or personal cultivation (e.g. alcohol, drugs, casual sex, sloth, etc.) Refined immediacy is characterized by planning how best to enjoy life aesthetically. The "theory" of social prudence given in Crop Rotation is an example of refined immediacy. Instead of mindless hedonistic tendencies, enjoyments are contemplated and "cultivated" for maximum pleasure. However, both the refined and unrefined aesthetes still accept the fundamental given conditions of their life, and do not accept the responsibility to change it. If things go wrong, the aesthete simply blames existence, rather than one's self, assuming some unavoidable tragic consequence of human existence and thus claims life is meaningless.^[17]

Commitment is an important characteristic of the ethicist. Commitments are made by being an active participant in society, rather than a detached observer or outsider. The ethicist has a strong sense of responsibility, duty, honor and respect for his friendships, family, and career.^[17] Judge Vilhelm uses the example of marriage as an example of an ethical institution requiring strong commitment and responsibility. Whereas the aesthete would be bored by the repetitive nature of marriage (e.g. married to one person only), the ethicist believes in the necessity of self-denial (e.g. self-denying unmitigated pleasure) in order to uphold one's obligations.^[17]

Interpretation

The extremely nested pseudonymity of this work adds a problem of interpretation. A and B are the authors of the work, Eremita is the editor. Kierkegaard's role in all this appears to be that he deliberately sought to disconnect himself from the points of view expressed in his works, although the absurdity of his pseudonyms' bizarre Latin names proves that he did not hope to thoroughly conceal his identity from the reader. Kierkegaard's Papers first edition VIII(2), B 81 - 89 explain this method in writing. On interpretation there is also much to be found in The Point of View of My Work as an Author.^[49]

Philosophical Interpretation

The title Either/Or is an affirmation of Aristotelian logic, particularly

• Law of identity (A = A; a thing is identical to itself)
• Law of excluded middle (either A or not-A; a thing is either something or not that thing, no third option)
• Law of non-contradiction. (not both A and not-A; a thing cannot be both true and not true in the same instant)

In Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's work, The Science of Logic (1812), Hegel had criticized Aristotle's laws of classical logic for being static, rather than dynamic and becoming, and had replaced it with his own dialectical logic. Hegel formulated addendums for Aristotle's laws:^{[50][51][52][53][17]}

• Law of identity is inaccurate because a thing is always more than itself
• Law of excluded middle is inaccurate because a thing can be both itself and many others
• Law of non-contradiction is inaccurate because everything in existence is both itself and not itself

Kierkegaard argues that Hegel's philosophy dehumanized life by denying personal freedom and choice through the neutralization of the 'either/or'. The dialectic structure of becoming renders existence far too easy, in Hegel's theory, because conflicts are eventually mediated and disappear automatically through a natural process that requires no individual choice other than a submission to the will of the Idea or Geist. Kierkegaard saw this as a denial of true selfhood and instead advocated the importance of personal responsibility and choice-making.^[53][17]

Kantian interpretation

A recent way to interpret Either/Or is to read it as an applied Kantian text. Scholars for this interpretation include Alasdair MacIntyre^[54] and Ronald M. Green.^[55] In After Virtue, MacIntyre claims Kierkegaard is continuing the Enlightenment project set forward by Hume and Kant.^[56] Green notes several points of contact with Kant in Either/Or:^[57] Both believed that the struggle for freedom always takes place within the individual. "A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least where the government is concerned, to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol. Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post. This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism." Kierkegaard is an example of an individual who chose "to use his own reason in all matters of conscience.", a but he rejected the Kantian division of people into guardians, scholars and the unthinking masses and promoted the ideal of perfect equality before God. ^[58]

Summary of Kantian Themes in Either/Or Immanuel Kant Judge Vilhelm "The ethical is the universal" When acting on a maxim of mutual aid, one must mentally "create" a world with its own type of humanity and existence An ethical choice requires one to convert to a "universal man" or model of "essential humanity" "Moral judgments cannot be private or privileging" Universalization of maxims; Distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives "earthly love is ... partiality; spiritual love has no partialities" "Ethical laws are universally known and applicable" Derived from a priori principle of reason Criticizes philosophers and historians who attempt to prove ethical relativity. "Rationality determines moral protection" Must respect rational beings as "ends in themselves" "[each person] even though he were a hired servant ... has his teleology in himself." "Happiness as a supreme end" Happiness as a universal maxim is unstable as a universal law Happiness can only come from "within" the individual himself not from externalities.

Either/Or can be seen as endorsing Kantian ethics.

However, other scholars think Kierkegaard adopts Kantian themes in order to criticize them,^[54] while yet others think that although Kierkegaard adopts some Kantian themes, their final ethical positions are substantially different. George Stack argues for this latter interpretation, writing, "Despite the occasional echoes of Kantian sentiments in Kierkegaard's writings (especially in Either/Or), the bifurcation between his ethics of self-becoming and Kant's formalistic, meta-empirical ethics is, mutatis mutandis, complete ... Since radical individuation, specificity, inwardness, and the development of subjectivity are central to Kierkegaard's existential ethics, it is clear, essentially, that the spirit and intention of his practical ethics is divorced from the formalism of Kant."^[59]

Existential interpretation

A common interpretation of Either/Or presents the reader with a choice between two approaches to life. There are no standards or guidelines which indicate how to choose. The reasons for choosing an ethical way of life over the aesthetic only make sense if one is already committed to an ethical way of life. Suggesting the aesthetic approach as evil implies one has already accepted the idea that there is a good/evil distinction to be made. Likewise, choosing an aesthetic way of life only appeals to the aesthete, ruling Judge Vilhelm's ethics as inconsequential and preferring the pleasures of seduction. Thus, existentialists see Victor Eremita as presenting a radical choice in which no pre-ordained value can be discerned. One must choose, and through one's choices, one creates what one is.^[5]

However, the aesthetic and the ethical ways of life are not the only ways of living. Kierkegaard continues to flesh out other stages in further works, and the Stages on Life's Way is considered a direct sequel to Either/Or.

Biographical interpretation

Regine Olsen, a muse for Kierkegaard's writings.

From a purely literary and historical point of view, Either/Or can be seen as a thinly veiled autobiography of the events between Kierkegaard and his ex-fianceé Regine Olsen. Johannes the Seducer in The Diary of a Seducer treats the object of his affection, Cordelia, much as Kierkegaard treats Regine: befriending her family, asking her to marry him, and breaking off the engagement.^[60] Either/Or, then, could be the poetic and literary expression of Kierkegaard's decision between a life of sensual pleasure, as he had experienced in his youth, or a possibility of marriage and what social responsibilities marriage might or ought to entail.^[5] Ultimately however, Either/Or stands philosophically independent of its relation to Kierkegaard's life.^[61]

Reception

Early reception

Either/Or established Kierkegaard's reputation as a respected author.^[62] Henriette Wulff, in a letter to Hans Christian Andersen, wrote, "Recently a book was published here with the title Either/Or! It is supposed to be quite strange, the first part full of Don Juanism, skepticism, et cetera, and the second part toned down and conciliating, ending with a sermon that is said to be quite excellent. The whole book attracted much attention. It has not yet been discussed publicly by anyone, but it surely will be. It is actually supposed to be by a Kierkegaard who has adopted a pseudonym...."^[62]

Johan Ludvig Heiberg, a prominent Hegelian, at first criticized the aesthetic section, Either, especially the section on the "Diary of a Seducer", revolted by the aesthetic's actions, saying, "One looks at the book, and the possibility is established. One closes the book and says, 'Enough!' I have had enough of Either, I will not have any of Or." However, Heiberg read Or, which impressed him, saying of it, "... bolts of intellectual lightning ... a rare and highly gifted intellect who, out of a deep well of speculation, has drawn forth the most beautiful ethical views, [and who] laces his argument with a stream of the most piquant wit and humor."^[62]

Later reception

Although Either/Or was Kierkegaard's first major book, it was one of his last books translated into English in 1944.^[63] Frederick DeW. Bolman, Jr., insisted that reviewers consider the book in this way: "In general, we have a right to discover, if we can, the meaning of a work as comprehensive as Either/Or, considering it upon its own merits and not reducing the meaning so as to fit into the author's later perspective. It occurred to me that this was a service to understanding Kierkegaard, whose esthetic and ethical insights have been much slighted by those enamored of his religion of renunciation and transcendence. ... Kierkegaard's brilliance seems to me to be showing that while goodness, truth, and beauty can not speculatively be derived one from another, yet these three are integrally related in the dynamics of a healthy character structure".^[64]

Thomas Henry Croxall was impressed by 'As thoughts on music in the essay, "The Immediate Stages of the Erotic, or Musical Erotic". Croxall argues that "the essay should be taken seriously by a musician, because it makes one think, and think hard enough to straighten many of one's ideas; ideas, I mean, not only on art, but on life" and goes on to discuss the psychological, existential, and musical value of the work.^[65]

The Diary of a Seducer by itself, is a provocative novella, and has been reproduced separately from Either/Or several times.^{[66][67][68][69]} John Updike said of the Diary, "In the vast literature of love, The Seducer's Diary is an intricate curiosity – a feverishly intellectual attempt to reconstruct an erotic failure as a pedagogic success, a wound masked as a boast".^[69]

In contemporary times, Either/Or received new life as a grand philosophical work with the publication of Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, where MacIntyre situates Either/Or as an attempt to capture the Enlightenment spirit set forth by David Hume and Immanuel Kant. After Virtue renewed Either/Or as an important ethical text in the Kantian vein, as mentioned previously. Although MacIntyre accuses Victor Eremita of failing to provide a criterion for one to adopt an ethical way of life, many scholars have since replied to MacIntyre's accusation in Kierkegaard After MacIntyre.^[54][70]

References

Primary references

Secondary references and notes

Søren Kierkegaard Major works On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates · Either/Or · Repetition · The Concept of Anxiety · Fear and Trembling · Philosophical Fragments · Stages on Life's Way · Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments · Works of Love · The Sickness Unto Death · Practice in Christianity · The Book on Adler · For Self-Examination · The Point of View of My Work as an Author · The Journals Ideas Philosophy · Theology · Angst · Anguish · Authenticity · Double-mindedness · Indirect communication · Infinite qualitative distinction · Knight of faith · Leap of faith · Ressentiment · Rotation method Related topics List of works · Regine Olsen · Peter Kierkegaard · Danish Golden Age · Comparisons with Nietzsche · Søren Kierkegaard Research Center · Howard V. and Edna H. Hong Kierkegaard Library