Either/ or phrase explains two possible situations. It has its roots from Kierkegaard’s critique of the Hegelian philosophy, for its contradiction in solving of solutions, involving a hypothesis that a thesis evolves into an antithesis and that the two results into a new thesis.
He disputed this contraction to the truth and law and claimed his belief in existence revolved around the aesthetic, ethical and religion. Moreover, the aesthetic and the ethical incorporate either/or perception. Kierkegaard revealed that either/or does not imply living aesthetically or ethically, but a blend of the two, which leads to the ultimate goal of living a Christian life (Kierkegaards 68).
Personal domain and the civil field of existence constitutes of the aesthetic and ethical aspects, respectively. Individuals have their low and high moments in life and they are granted the choice of ignoring or getting involved in the activities taking place in their environment.
Some individuals are carried away by both the aesthetic and the ethical life, which requires religion to be involved to solve these contradicting domains. In one of his books, Kierkegaard described that individuals are usually hidden behind the one they normally see; something that gives rise to their individuality spirit.
The idea of representation remains a firm ideology in people of middle Ages. A single individual represents totality; which is however, a single aspect portraying his individuality. Another individual is a representative of another aspect that too, is a representation of another aspect in life.
This is the reason why individuals are given different titles with some referred to as knights while others are simply acknowledged as laymen. Either/or aims at emphasizing Aristotelian logic that includes the identicality of something to itself; the knowledge that something cannot be true and false at any one distinct time and that an item is either itself or not – these are the laws of identity, no contradiction and excluded middle.
In his work, the science of Logic in 1812, Hegel critiqued the static approach of Aristotle’s laws. He formulated Aristotle’s laws by adding some of his dialectical logic that he thought was more becoming and dynamic. Hegel emphasized the inaccuracy of Aristotle’s laws.
He claimed that always things have more than one side to them; others portray the ability to show the traits of other things as well as that of it. He further claimed that a thing exist, and at the same time can fail to exist. These suggestions acted to nullify the laws Aristotle work for a long time.
In 1844, Kierkegaard spoke ill of Hegel for incorporating the term “Actuality” in explaining of logic as a way of gaining popularity of making logic seem an easy concept. This led people to choosing either the highest or the lowest achievements, which are far from what logic is about. Kierkegaard further claimed that this inclusion is not right as having both terms in a person leads to no meaning in both. Moreover; contingency, which is a vital part of what is actual, is incorporable in the logic domain (Kierkegaards 72).
Hegel’s theory is further critiqued for neutralizing the meaning in the title either/or, thus denying people’s personalized freedom and choice. Kierkegaard found Hegel’s philosophy to be dehumanizing for denying individual choice and instead making them to submit to the will of the idea that life is easy, and eventually conflicts disappearing naturally without any mediation by humans. Kierkegaard despised the theories in Hegel’s philosophy. This motivated him to campaign on the importance of choice making and personal responsibility.
The “Either” represents the aesthetic domain of existence, and it is well elaborated in the first volume of Kierkegaard’s book that is written by “A”, though it was founded by Victor Eremita. In this book, Aesthete is defined as someone who succumbs to despair due to the limitations that aesthetic life approach renders.
This is a version similar to the one Angst explained by existential. Kierkegaard explains how the push the aesthetic approach comes about, and eventually one has no choice but to jump into the decision making domain – this is the ethical aspect. He then claims of how the two phases argues and creates space to incorporate religion.
The contrast of the two phases is clear as the aesthetic lives to satisfy his imagination, emotions, sensuality and impulse with no regards for moral standards or religion. He is driven by the need to attain freedom by transcending all walks regardless of his limitations as an individual. This quest is short lived as it proves to be futile and translates to despair in the individual. This individual is faced with the option of making a move to the next level or to hold on his ego and retain his position.
The book, Either and Or, has many essays that try to further elaborate between the aesthetical and ethical forms of existence with both Judge Vilhem; and “A” placing focus on the best in their mode of existence. Immediacy is explained as a character associated with the aesthete, and many of its forms have been explored. Desire to satisfy unworthy activities such addiction and substances like alcohol and drugs have been classified as unrefined immediacy.
Refined immediacy, on the other hand, is associated with living the aesthetical life through proper planning, and an example of this is crop rotation. Refined aesthetes cultivate their enjoyments for maximum pressure instead of doing it mindlessly like the unrefined aesthete. Nonetheless, the two immediacy categories agree to the prevailing circumstances and do not aim at modifying it.
The aesthete lives on the claim that life is meaningless and attributes wrong trends in life to existence rather than to someone. They never wish to accept responsibility of the problems they encounter (Kierkegaards 52).
The ethicist, on the other hand, is bound by commitments. He is adherent to all the set laws and sees them as a guide in their living. The freedom to choose is not available to ethics. He believes in self denial as a way of enabling him to fulfill his obligations, duty, honor and respect, especially because he is a participant in society’s activities.
According to Judge Vilhelm, marriage is the best example of commitments that an ethicist bows to. The aesthete cannot exist for a second in the world of an ethicist as they would view it as a complete boredom. This would be evident especially, if an aesthete was to opt for the commitment of marriage as he is unable to live with one woman for long.
Marriage is stressed further as a channel that gives birth to a new and eternal thing for the ethical and religious person. The eyes of an aesthete cannot, however, envision the new opportunity that marriage brings. Aesthete has been known to make temporary decisions based on impulse.
The ethical and especially the religious bind themselves to long-term resolutions that deem best for their life. Furthermore, they engage in these resolutions due to the strong will to see their fulfillment. Aesthetes lack the will required to persevere in commitments and are constantly in search of activities with easy solutions. Moreover, aesthetes thrive in the pleasures of life.
The title either/or does not provide a guide for rules to follow in deciding which choice to make, but rather offer a method for interpreting between two approaches. Thus, it is logical for the aesthete to choose the aesthetic way of life and the ethicist to choose the ethical way of life.
Suggesting the possibility of evil or moral behavior in different life style implies acceptance of evil and its appropriate existence. Eremita, an existentialist says there is no radical way of making a choice. In the long run, people must make choices, and the choice they make is what defines who they are.
Kierkegaard in his work, Stages on Life’s Way reveal that the aesthetical and the ethical are not the only available ways of living. In this book, he tries to demonstrate some of the struggles individuals go through in trying to understand what their lives mean. Victor Eremita buys a desk and equates the new physical item to a new approach in his life. “A” finds the meaning of his life through study.
He takes on learning of the history as Hegel did, and similar to the historians, he writes down letters for the departed. He fulfilled the desire of finding God. Don Juan, however, seduces “A” from God and Faust, in turn robbing off his innocence through language.
Tautology is the highest form of thought and his understanding is based on the environment as he reveals desires of and belief in eternities. He thinks himself to be complete due to external gratifications that he has succumbed to.
An argument that erupts between “A” and “B” causes contradicting approaches to life. “B” claims ethics to be the highest life forms. “A” is superimposed by the idea of a mystified life whereas “B” believes in personal identification and in the possibility of God blessing the ethical person, as opposed to blessing the aesthetic (Kierkegaards 25).
The voice of Kierkegaard is disguised as the up building, discourse at the end, rebuking both ways of trying to find God and equating them to child’s play. He explains that their translation will bear no meaning or happiness, but continue to mislead them. These external affiliations like science and art are prone to changes. Furthermore, we desire something so profoundly only to end up disappointed when we achieve it, and we find that not all glitter and glummer as we envisioned it.
In his discussion, Kierkegaard concludes by postulating the existence of life based on the three phases; the ethical, the aesthetic and religion. These are, however, limited by the border that project between the aesthetic and the ethical; and between the ethical and religion.
Combining the limited and the unlimited essentials of ethical gives rise to contradictions, and this further generates incongruity. An ethical individual has an inwardly unseen desire to be known. Incongruity can hide the first concept of something. For instance, it hides the desire of the ethical individual to be seen.
His outwards desires, on the other hand, aim at remaining in the multitude of the community’s shadow. The two contrasting desires in the ethical person reveal the meaning of the term Incongruity. This is similar to the acts of Hegelian, in his desire to make the courts the last resort to ethical solutions, yet he denied individual freedom of choice.
The use of irony had been proved both directly and indirectly by the ethicist in the book, Either and Or. On the balance between the aesthetic and the ethical essay, the ethicist indirectly proved their engagement in incongruous behavior when they agreed to make decisions that are influenced by religious guiding. However, the ethical’s desire to be known as an individual is evidently proven in the Marriage article, stages part.
He is heard criticizing religion because of the high pressures and demands from its followers, but, the ethical individual still uses it in his dealings. An ethicist, even in the face of his ethical beliefs, is adamantly objective to ethical laws that Hegelian stipulates. This shows the dual and opposite lifestyles of people. When under scrutiny by the public, they live one life under certain terms. They do this even when they opt to be different.
However, when they have locked themselves in the privacy of their homes, they live differently from what they portray when outside, but why all this Pretence and hypocrisy? This form of hypocrisy is mostly practiced by the people in the ethical form of life and it ends up into irony (Kierkegaards 56).
The choice to move from one stage in life to another and the commitment required are the rational reasons behind the transition from the aesthetical form of life to the ethical. Man is active and is ever striving to fit in every situation that life offers. Existential is the term Kierkegaard uses to characterize the mentioned behavior by man. He further claims man as an actor that is ever strategizing to realize and patch up the relationship between Him and God.
Man believes in freedom that propels him towards the unknown possibilities like believing in God. Also, this belief has the effect of deterring him from denouncing beliefs he has followed and held firmly for a long time, as it at times appears futile. This leads to the evolution of the two concepts of sympathy; the antipathy and the antipathetic.
Kierkegaard is said to be the first existentialist philosopher, and he deals with dread as the concept in his philosophy. Criticizing speculative systems such as the Hegel’s theory, which he termed as dehumanizing to individuality and complementing his views on faith, commitment and subjective thinking forms part of the factors that make Kierkegaard philosophy popular.
However, Kierkegaard has been criticized for shadowing all forms of reasons to faith. Commitment is hence regarded arbitrary due to irrationality. He bases the value of reason to extents in which paradox can be recognized, and the recognized paradox as the only criteria to base commitments. He does not offer any solution to the traditional religion-faith debate and leaves readers to beg the question, on what grounds the option of choice is justifiable (Kierkegaards 56).
Works Cited
Kierkegaards, Søren. Heiberg, V. Kuhr & E. Torsting, second edition Niels Thulstrup, Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1968.Print.
Kierkegaards, Søren. Samlede Værker, ed. A.B. Drachmann, J.L. Heiberg & H.D. Lange, 2nd edn, Copenhagen: Nordisk Forlag, 1920. Print.