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…
aesthetic life centered on a shallow maximization of pleasure and Wilhelm’s, non-hedonistic lifestyle is ultimately the happier and more fulfilling one, evident in the development and spiritual benefits of conjugal love. A’s explanation of the aesthetic life occupies the first part of the book, ending with “The Seducer’s Diary,” written under the pseudonym “Johaness,” who is introduced by A himself. In this diary entry, Johaness adheres to a concept of love that aligns with A’s aestheticism. He claims to have loved Cordelia, one of his exploits, in the aesthetic sense, having engaged in a rather psychopathic pursuit of pleasure at her expense. Both A’s, and thus Johaness’s, and Wilhelm’s attempts to argue for one life view over the other hinges rather closely to self-righteousness, as there is no uniform, definitive lifestyle or conception of love that is suited for everyone; however, Wilhelm presents a stronger argument for the ethical, offering a wholesome conception of life and love without diluting any sense of romance. In fact, Wilhelm offers the more romantic view, despite A’s and Johannes’s hedonistic life views inspiring more scandalous and lustful fantasies. A’s aesthetic philosophy’s centers on the pursuit of pleasure and beauty — anything that is aesthetically pleasing. The aesthete’s raison d'être is enjoying life for one’s self without obliging any ethical standards that could infringe on the freedom to pursue pleasure. The aesthete lives by the motto “enjoy yourself; it is you yourself in the enjoyment that you must enjoy,” regardless of the trail of hurt and disaster that such a hedonistic lifestyle could leave (Kierkegaard). Johaness is the ultimate disciple of the aesthetic, a reflection of A’s aesthetic philosophy. He is the embodiment of a Casanova, the Don Juan “love ‘em and leave ‘em” type who has captured the fantasies and nightmares of men and women alike. Johaness, whose name rather ironically originates from the Hebrew “Yehochanan,” which means “God is gracious,” relishes in the art of seduction, having devised a wickedly intricate plan to seduce a young woman by the name of Cordelia. In his single-minded pursuit of selfish pleasure, he has become not a love but a predator capable of love only for himself. He targets Cordelia like a lion stalking a gazelle, yet Johaness’s seduction is psychological, not just physical. “With the help of his mental gifts, he knew how to tempt a girl, to draw her to him without caring to possess her in any stricter sense,” meaning his desire went beyond sexual pleasure and entered into the domain of mental domination (Kierkegaard). He brought his targets to the point where they imagined themselves willing to sacrifice everything for him “without the slightest advance on his part” (Kierkegaard). Because their relationships would have existed only in the “figurative sense,” his victims “constantly have to contend with the doubt that the whole thing might have only been imagined,” a cruel fate for the women but a self-gratifying one for Johaness (Kierkegaard). The ruthless aesthete studies everything about Cordelia, from her family and friends to her taste in books. He even exploits a young man named Edward, who is in love with Cordelia but lacks Johaness’s charm and suave. Johaness uses him to enhance his own image as a man in the eyes of his plaything. The lion and the gazelle eventually become engaged, but as soon as this happens, Johaness distances himself to encourage Cordelia to chase him for his affections and his attentions, engaging her in a twisted, Machiavellian form of romantic warfare. He blows hot and cold, eventually manipulating Cordelia into breaking off the engagement and noting that he would have had little interest in her once they were married (Kierkegaard). He reminds readers that he has remained faithful to his “pact with the aesthetic,” which is pleasure and enjoyment purely for one’s self, or as some like to phrase, “pleasure for pleasure’s sake” (Kierkegaard). This pact rejects any long-term relationships, especially marriage, because the aesthete sees them as the ultimate shackles of freedom, taking away the aesthetic beauty of life and subjecting one to the banalities that come with commitment and everyday life. According to the aesthetic viewpoint, this is why loyalty must remain to one’s self and one’s own pleasure — not to another human being. Johaness took what he wanted from Cordelia and then abandoned her, proving his ultimate loyalty to himself. Yet Johaness, in his own twisted way, believes that he loved Cordelia in the only way he knows how to or thinks is possible— selfishly and temporarily. When one realizes that Johaness really does not know any other way to love another person and is sincere in his belief that his relationship with Cordelia is a form of love itself, it casts a shadow of doubt over any one definition or viewpoint of what love is. However, general definitions and societal standards often exist for good reason. When one compares Johaness’s relationship to ones that are more common and socially acceptable, the flaws in his reasoning are too glaring to ignore or write off as just conception of love. He is, in his selfishness, mentally abusive of Cordelia. He seeks to destroy her for his own amusement — he is like a child playing rough with his favorite toy, dragging it through the mud or picking and poking as one would when playing with a doll for the first time and then discarding it when the novelty is gone. In a similar way, men and women who are abusive of their loved ones believe that they love them, but, as Sartre argues in “Being and Nothingness,” simply believing in something does not make it true (Sartre). Even at its worst, love does not carry abuse as an ingredient, and it ceases to exist once abuse enters the picture. Wilhelm’s conception of love is far more balanced and progressive, laying in stark contrast to Johaness’s abusive, selfish and primitive one.
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
else. Wilhelm argues that romantic love in purely the aesthetic form is “temporal,” as it is based on physical “beauty” and and “sensuous” lust — both of which are fickle and fleeting (Kierkegaard). Individuals in such a relationship are “convinced” that their love is eternal, but because the “eternal is thus based upon the temporal,” it “cancels itself” and can never truly exist long-term (Kierkegaard). An aesthetic life can only offer such a relationship because it is based on temporal desires and values, but conjugal love stands the test of time because those who enter into it make a conscious decision to become lifelong partners, willing to bear with the challenges that come with such a partnership. When the initial honeymoon phase is over, they have a deeper form of connection to look forward to, rather than abandoning each other in an empty and tiring pursuit of pleasure. Although aesthetic love may feel real in the moment, conjugal love is superior because it involves what Wilhelm calls “possession” (Kierkegaard). Wilhelm does not speak of the misogynist form of possession, where a wife is considered her husband’s property, but of the spiritual kind. He uses of the example of an aesthete romantic who has remained faithful to a lover, whom he has not married, for 15 years, stating that he has only remained faithful because he has not yet acquired possession through marriage, hence he can lose her at any given moment (Kierkegaard). This plays into the notion that people want what they do not or cannot have. Yet the married individual, or the married romantic, has already acquired his or her partner but makes the conscious choice to remain faithful and committed, even though he no longer stands to lose his companion because they are bound in metaphysical eternity through marriage, which the judge sees as a divine union blessed by God. The married romantic has managed to defeat time, which Wilhelm describes as the “greatest foe” to conjugal love because it applies the greatest strain (Kierkegaard). Without that psychological incentive of wanting what one does not have, the married romantic has defeated time by choosing to remain married. Time can actualize A’s and Johaness’s fears of marital life leading an individual to a life of boredom and banality, yet the married individuals find beauty in knowing that they are meant for each other. Wilhelm’s conceptualization of conjugal love and his presentation of it as a source of happiness and balance gives the ethical, non-hedonistic way of life more appeal—it is more than just pleasure for pleasure’s sake. Making the decision to marry equates to making a decision to pursue a higher form of love than lustful liaisons. In this way, romantic love in the form of marriage is “by its very nature free” because an individual makes a choice to marry someone for love and companionship, rather than giving into base, hedonistic and primitive desires and jumping from one dead-end affair to another. When making a decision based purely on primitive pleasure, one is not practicing free will because they are not engaging in any form of higher thought — they are merely slaves to their desires. Wilhelm’s conception of love is not without flaw — in his assertion that love in the ethical lifestyle offers a greater aesthetic, he essentially further encourages the aesthete’s pursuit of pleasure. However, feeling and desiring pleasure is not wrong, so long as it is not sought after in blind lust. Purely aesthetic pursuits for one’s own pleasure not only victimize individuals who become the aesthete’s objects of desire, but they eventually leave most pursuers with a lonely, hollow existence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The first chapter begins with an exploration of love and marriage in many ancient and current cultures. Surprisingly many cultures either avoid the discussion of love in marriage or spit on the idea completely. China and other societies believed that love was simply a product of marriage and shouldn’t get too out of hand, while a few Greek and Roman philosophers shunned excessive
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.
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.
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
― Timothy J. Keller, The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God
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
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.
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...
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.
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
married. However, “for pragmatic reasons, the author’s conclusions favor marriage as the ultimate solution, but her pairings predict happiness” (“Austen, Jane”). Als...