A European Informational Website
learn more
Either/Or (original Danish title: Enten-Eller) is an influential book written by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in 1843, in which he explores the aesthetic and ethical "phases" or "stages" of existence.[1][2][3][4]
Either/Or portays the two lifeviews, one being consciously hedonistic and one based on ethical duty and responsibility, in two volumes. Each lifeview is written and represented by a fictional pseudonymous author and the prose of the work depends on which lifeview is being discussed. For example, the aesthetic lifeview is written in short essay form, with poetic imagery and allusions, discussing aesthetic topics such as music, seduction, drama, and beauty. The ethical lifeview is written as two long letters, with a more argumentative and restraint prose, discussing moral responsibility, critical reflection, and marriage.[2] The views of the book are not neatly summarized, but are expressed as lived experiences and embodied by the pseudonymous authors. The book's central concern is the question asked by Aristotle, "How should we live?"[1]
After writing and defending his dissertation The Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates (1841), Kierkegaard left Copenhagen in October 1841 to spend the winter in Berlin. The main purpose of this visit was to attend the lectures by the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling who was an eminent figure at the time. The lectures turned out to be a disappointment for many in Schelling's audience, including Mikhail Bakunin and Friedrich Engels, and Kierkegaard described it as unbearable nonsense.[5] During Kierkegaard's stay, as well as working on the manuscript for Either/Or, he took daily lessons to perfect his German and attended operas, particularly by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Kierkegaard returned to Copenhagen in March 1842 with part of his manuscript completed. It was completed near the end of 1842 and published in February 1843.
The title Either/Or is an affirmation of Aristotelian logic, particularly
In Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's work, The Science of Logic (1812), Hegel had criticized Aristotle's laws of classical logic for being static and being, rather than dynamic and becoming, and replaced it with his own dialectical logic. Hegel formulated addendums for Aristotle's laws:[6][7][8][9][10]
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 because of 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.[9][10]
The book is the first of Kierkegaard's works written pseudonymously, a practice which he employed during the first half of his career.[3][4] In this case, four pseudonyms are used: "Victor Eremita", "A", "Judge Vilhelm", and "Johannes". Victor Eremita is the fictional compiler and editor of the texts, which he claims to have found in an antique escritoire. "A" is the moniker given to the fictional author of the first text ("Either") by Victor Eremita, whose real name he claims to have not known. "Judge Vilhelm" is the fictional author of the second text ("Or"), while "Johannes" is the fictional author of a section of 'Either'; "The Diary of a Seducer".[2]
The first volume, the "Either", describes the "aesthetic" phase of existence. It contains a collection of papers, found by Victor Eremita, the pseudonymous editor, and found to have been written by a pseudonymous author, whom Victor calls, A, the aesthete.[5][10]
The aesthete, accordingly to Kierkegaard's model, will eventually find him or herself in "despair," a psychological state (explored further in Kierkegaard's The Concept of Dread and The Sickness Unto Death) that results from a recognition of the limits of an aesthetic approach to life. Kierkegaard's "despair" is a somewhat analogous precursor of existential angst. The natural reaction is to make a "leap" to the second phase, the "ethical," which is characterized as a phase in which rational choice and commitment replace the capricious and inconsistent longings of the aesthetic mode. Ultimately, for Kierkegaard, the aesthetic and the ethical are both superseded by the final phase, which he terms the "religious" mode.
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". The section contains some of Kierkegaard's most famous and poetic lines, such as "What is a poet?", "Freedom of Speech" vs. "Freedom of Thought", the "Unmovable chess piece", the tragic clown, and the laughter of the gods.[11]
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.
The next three sections are essays lectures from A to the Symparanekromenoi, a club or fellowship of the dead. The first essay is called the Ancient Tragical Motif as Reflected in the Modern which discusses ancient and modern tragedy.
The second essay is called Shadowgraphs: A Psychological Pastime. The essay discusses modern heroines, including Mozart's Elvira and Goethe's Gretchen.
The third essay is called The Unhappiest One and discusses who deserves the distinction of being unhappier than everyone else.
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.
In agriculture, one rotates the crop to keep the soil fertile and full of nutrients. Crop Rotation in Either/Or refers the aesthete's need to keep life "interesting", to avoid boredom and to avoid facing the responsibilities of an ethical life.
Written by Johannes the Seducer, the aesthete illustrated holds the interesting as his highest value, and in life attempts to manipulate his situation from a boring one to an interesting one, to satisfy his voyeuristic reflections. He uses irony, artifice, caprice, imagination and arbitrariness to engineer poetically satisfying possibilities; he is not so interested in the act of seduction, but in willfully creating the interesting possibility of seduction.
The second volume represents the ethical stage. 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. However, an ethical person can still enjoy aesthetic values. The difference is that the pursuit of pleasure is tempered with ethical values and responsibilities.
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, mourning (angeren) seems to be a religious category specifically related to the Christian concept of deliverance.[12]
Along with this work, Kierkegaard published, under his own name, two upbuilding discourses on May 16, 1843 intended to complement Either/Or, titled The Expectancy of Faith and Every Good and Every Perfect Gift is from Above.[13] Kierkegaard also published another discourse during the printing of the second edition of Either/Or in 1849.[14]
In addition to the discourses, one week after Either/Or was published, Kierkegaard published a newspaper article in the 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 as 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."[15]
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.[16]
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.
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. Alcohol, drugs, one-night stands, couch-potatoes and other self-indulgent lifestyles are some such examples of unrefined immediacy. 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.[10]
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.[10] 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.[10]
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 On my Work as an Author and the Point of View.[17]
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 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.[1]
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.
A recent way to interpret Either/Or is to read it as an applied Kantian text. Scholars for this interpretation include Alasdair MacIntyre[18] and Ronald M. Green.[19] In After Virtue, MacIntyre claims Kierkegaard is continuing the Enlightenment project set forward by Hume and Kant.[20] Green notes several points of contact with Kant in Either/Or:[21]
However, other scholars think Kierkegaard adopts Kantian themes in order to criticize it, and yet others think that while 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."[22]
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.[23] 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.[1] Ultimately however, Either/Or stands philosophically independent of its relation to Kierkegaard's life.
Either/Or established Kierkegaard's reputation as a respected author.[24] 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. .."[24]
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."[24]
Either/Or was translated into English in 1944; however, several of Kierkegaard's later works had already been translated, making Kierkegaard's first great book, one of the last to be translated for an English reading audience. 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".[25]
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.[26]
The Diary of a Seducer by itself, is a provocative novella, and has been reproduced separately from Either/Or several times.[27][28][29][30] 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".[30]
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 criteria for one to adopt an ethical way of life, many scholars have since replied to MacIntyre's accusation in Kierkegaard After MacIntyre.[18][31]
<div class="references-small">
<div class="references-small"> </div>
Contents