How to live one’s life is a question faced by any human being with relatively normal cognitive functioning. Some find beauty in every day life, reveling in something as simple as the gentle shaking of leaves dancing to the whispered song of the wind, or waking up to someone they have decided to spend the rest of their lives with. Others only see the mundane and the tedious, growing bitter and resentful as a relentless existential crisis latches on to the deepest parts of their psyche, casting a grim and ominous shadow over every thought and action. This probing question of how to live is at the forefront of Soren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or: A Fragment of Life.” The aforementioned views are, indeed, reflected in the fragmented perspectives provided by Kierkegaard’s fictional characters, “A” and “Judge Wilhelm,” who perhaps reflect Kierkegaard’s own divided views. Love and companionship are at the crux of how to live for both A and Wilhelm, despite the glaring contrast between A’s calls for a hedonistic, …show more content…
He attempts to convert A into an ethicist by using conjugal, or companionate love, as an example of how leading an ethical life does not mean surrendering all enjoyment and pleasure. Marriage falls under the umbrella of conjugal love. In “The Aesthetic Validity of Marriage,” Wilhelm offers an enlightening comparison of romantic love (in the aesthetic form) and conjugal love, arguing that the aestheticism of romance is not lost with long-term companionship or marriage and the challenges and responsibilities that come with it. Rather, marriage speaks to a higher form of aestheticism because it includes both love and sensuality — not just fickle lust (Kierkegaard). Those, like Johaness, who view long-term love with cynicism either marry for convenience or end up alone because they are blind to the possibility of anything
People one can never really tell how person is feeling or what their situation is behind closed doors or behind the façade of the life they lead. Two masterly crafted literary works present readers with characters that have two similar but very different stories that end in the same result. In Herman Melville’s story “Bartleby the Scrivener” readers are presented with Bartleby, an interesting and minimally deep character. In comparison to Gail Godwin’s work, “A Sorrowful Woman” we are presented with a nameless woman with a similar physiological state as Bartleby whom expresses her feelings of dissatisfaction of her life. Here, a deeper examination of these characters their situations and their ultimate fate will be pursued and delved into for a deeper understanding of the choice death for these characters.
The problem we find in this story, and in puritanism, is that it presents contrasting views of love. Attachment to earthly possessions, to other people in fact, is discouraged, because everything physical leads to temptation and damnation, and ultimately hell, while the road to salvation of the individual wanders through a spiritual discipline, rigour, austerity. A man should not love his wife more than he loves God; in fact, it is recommended that he not derive pleasure from his wife, but rather seek suffering, in order to redeem himself from his earthly condition, his impure state.
Either/Or, published in 1843, was Kierkegaard’s first publication.The book, written under the pseudonym of Victor Eremita (Latin for "victorious hermit"), has two parts: the first deals with the aesthetic, a word that Kierkegaard uses to denote personal, sensory experiences. The second part of Either/Or deals with ethics. Kierkegaard's work outlines a theory of human development in which consciousness progresses from an essentially self-indulgent, aesthetic mode to one characterized by ethical imperatives arising from the maturing of human conscience. (Kierkegaard) 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. Thus, existentialists see Kierkegaard 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 they
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
Through many writers’ works the correlation of mortality and love of life is strongly enforced. This connection is one that is easy to illustrate and easy to grasp because it is experienced by humans daily. For instance, when a loved one passes away, even though there is time for mourning, there is also an immediate appreciation for one’s life merely because they are living. In turn, the correspondence of mortality and a stronger love for life is also evident in every day life when things get hard and then one is confronted by some one else whom has an even bigger problem, then making the original problem seem minute. This is seen as making the bad look worse so then the bad looks good and the good looks even better. The connection of mortality and one’s love for life is seen in both T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland and Yulisa Amadu Maddy’s No Past No Present No Future.
Have you ever woke up in the morning and asked yourself, “Why am I living this life?” Throughout the book of Walden, Henry David Thoreau questions the lifestyles that people choose; he makes his readers wonder if they have chosen the kind of lifestyle that give them the greatest amount of happiness. Thoreau stated, “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them().” This quote is important because most of society these days are so caught up in work and trying to make ends meet that they lose the values in life. Thoreau was forced to change his life when he found himself unhappy after a purchase for a farm fell through. On Thoreau’s journey he moves to Walden and builds a house and life from nothing but hard work, symbolizes many different objects.
This service-learning project has not only to better understand Kierkegaard’s philosophy but also Mill’s and Aristotle’s theories regarding ethics and virtue. For example, Aristotle reveals that a human being’s telos is eudaimonia (happiness). However, in order to achieve this we must practice virtue since it “comes into being as a consequence of habit” (21). Nonetheless, at the beginning of practicing virtue it will be unpleasant. Only through habit will a person become virtuous and eventually derive pleasure form such
Rilke and Fromm, fascinating authors who are passionate about love in its various forms, both use their gifts of words to enlighten readers about the difference between immature and mature love. Immature love is one that lacks a genuine emotional connection and is likely shared out of convenience. Fromm argues they might as well “be called symbiotic union” (Fromm, 18). Mature love, however, holds a deeper value that is harder to attain and far more worth
Brockmeier’s short story represents a damaged marriage between a husband and a wife simply due to a different set of values and interests. Brockmeier reveals that there is a limit to love; husbands and wives will only go so far to continually show love for each other. Furthermore, he reveals that love can change as everything in this ever changing world does. More importantly, Brockmeier exposes the harshness and truth behind marriage and the detrimental effects on the people in the family that are involved. In the end, loving people forever seems too good to be true as affairs and divorces continually occur in the lives of numerous couples in society. However, Brockmeier encourages couples to face problems head on and to keep moving forward in a relationship. In the end, marriage is not a necessity needed to live life fully.
Susan Wolf, born in 1952, is widely considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th and 21st century. One of Wolf’s most renowned works is The meanings of Lives, which drew a lot of attention in the philosophical world for a number of questions that arose from it. Arguably her most widely debated and questioned assertion in The meanings of Lives is “If you care about yourself you’re living as if you’re the center of the universe, which is false.” This however I don’t not believe to be true. Every human being, no matter how successful or unsuccessful, has the right to care for them sleeves and not believe they are the center of the universe while doing so.
In Sunset Limited, Black conveys Kierkegaard’s philosophy through his own life and words. In the beginning of the play, Black and White argue over the meaning of life—the former loving it, the latter trying to end it. Early on, Black tries to identify with White’s suicidal argument by noting that “Suffering and human destiny are the same thing” (55). Of course, Black’s admittance does not mean he believes in White’s argument, but instead that he understands White’s pain. Likewise, Kierkegaard’s description of life is similar to Black’s reasoning. In his writing, Kierkegaard recounts both the painful way a person is brought into the world and then taken out of it, saying, “[…] and then tell me whether something that begins and ends thus could be intended for enjoyment.” But the undertone of both Black and Kierkegaard’s statements cannot go unquestioned, and White replies, “You’re not making any sense” (55). White fails to understand that everything is common sense for Black, who has not only suffered more than White could ever imagine, but also believes in a force outside White’s wildest dreams. Originally a convict, Black turns his life around after a near-death experience, believing God chose him of all people to talk to. He lives in hopes of delivering God’s message and love to those bereft of it, for what pain can someone experience if God is on the other side? Comparatively, Kierkegaard’s detailed analysis of despair calls the obvious solution faith alone. Somehow, Black evinces Kierkegaard’s belief through becoming a productive member of society. After believing to have heard the Savior in his sleep, Black leaves his former friends and refrains from various forms of pleasure so he can help those less fortunate than himself. I...
― Timothy J. Keller, The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God
The Symposium, The Aeneid, and Confessions help demonstrate how the nature of love can be found in several places, whether it is in the mind, the body or the soul. These texts also provide with eye-opening views of love as they adjust our understanding of what love really is. By giving us reformed spectrum of love, one is able to engage in introspective thinking and determine if the things we love are truly worthy of our sentiment.
married. However, “for pragmatic reasons, the author’s conclusions favor marriage as the ultimate solution, but her pairings predict happiness” (“Austen, Jane”). Als...
Kierkegaard, a highly regarded philosopher of the 19th century, put to us the idea of living life in three different stages. He named these stages the Aesthetical, the Ethical and the Religious. He himself passed through each of the stages in his own lifetime and he adopted them as his own philosophy of human existence. The first two stages are characterized by a distinct set of beliefs and behaviors that are easily identified, whereas the last stage, the religious is characterized by a highly personal, subjective and non-rational ‘’leap of faith’’. The ideal is to progress from the aesthetical to the ethical, finally reaching the religious stage but as Kierkegaard himself realized, it is possible to regress or go back a stage. He said that he felt that he had never really left the first two, these stages were always there. He believed that one can move in and out and through all three stages within a lifetime. For the purpose of this essay I will explain each of the three stages in order to give an understanding of Kierkegaard’s philosophical theory of life. Also I will discuss why Kierkegaard considered the religious stage as the best kind of life for humanity and I will present to you some criticisms against Kierkegaard’s third stage.