( 8 reviews )
-
( 1 of 1 found this review helpful ) Posted: Oct 26 2008
This was Kierkegaard's first major work. It consists of two "parts": the first written by an aesthetic fellow named A and the second by an ethical fellow named Judge Vilhelm. The two parts are meant to show us the difference between the aesthetic and ethical modes of life. The first half, written by the aesthete A, reveals the importance of the interesting to the aesthete. The aesthete is someone who has no higher purpose, but who simply seeks enjoyment. For them the interesting is the highest good, as it is the best road to enjoyment. The worst evil is boredom, so there is an entire chapter about how to avoid boredom by practicing the art of forgetting. There are a few essays about sorrow and the erotic, in which Don Giovanni is held up as the supreme example of the "immediate erotic" (immediate meaning in this case that his enjoyment is entirely in the moment, not in any sort of reflection). A reflects on differing types of sorrow, seeking to find the interesting in them. For the aesthete everything is fair game for finding enjoyment. The section concludes with the famous (or infamous) Diary of a Seducer, in which Johannes the Seducer keeps a diary as he seduces an innocent young woman, whose love he sacrafices at the alter of the interesting. The second half is by Judge Vilhelm, who is attempting to convert A to the ethical mode of life. Just as A's half focused on the preference of seduction and the erotic to marriage, Vilhelm seeks to justify marriage. Surprisingly, he tries to justify marriage on aesthetic grounds before moving on to discuss the virtues of marriage from the ethical view of life. While A's writing style is witty and sarcastic, Vilhelm's style can be described as nothing short of boring. His "letters" are in the form of dry, extended essays which tax the readers endurance. Kierkegaard hides himself behind his pseudonyms, as he does in many of his books. The main point, as far as I could tell, was that from the aesthetic mode of life there appears to be a great Either/Or between aesthetic pleasure and ethical purpose and higher cause. This Either/Or is false, however, because if one is in the ethical mode of life it is not an either/or but a both/and. This is because the aesthetic mode of life is both superceded by and contained within the ethical mode of life, which is why Vilhelm defends marriage first from an aesthetic view. Kierkegaard argues (indirectly) that the aesthitic goal is only achievable in the ethical mode of life, so that the aesthetic mode is not only lower, but cannot even achieve its lower goal. This is definitely an interesting book, though its length and inpenetrability make it very tedious at times. The first half is mildy enjoyable to read (though often frustratingly vague), but the second half is extremely tedious (though ofter a bit clearer). I would definitely recommend the Penguin edition over the Hong edition, as it has cut out a few essays from the second half, which must have been tremendously tedious if they were cut out instead of the ones left in.
-
Posted: Sep 28 2008
Either/or is two parts in which Kierkegaard used different false names or pseudonyms. The first part discusses the aesthetic or personal experience, where imagination is the most powerful factor of aesthetic pleasure. For the aesthetic, imagination is the only way to break the boredom barrier just as Don Juan avoided repetition of the love act with the same woman in order to break the dullness of repetition. In that way, the aesthetic hunger for pleasure leads to the same void of repetition by seeking a way out of it. Not to spoil the book for readers, but the last section of the first part of either/or "the diary of the seducer" is a very interesting diary in which the character tries to avoid the climax of a relationship with a woman he desires because of the fear of emptiness in relationships. Imagination to the seducer is the only way to maximize his aesthetic pleasure, while the success of the seduction will definitely end the adventure and the prey should be replaced by a more difficult one. The second part, which deals with the ethical, or supposedly a higher form of existence, takes the form of letters written by different characters as a response to the first part where reason not seduction is used to defend values, relationships, and the pleasure of having a monogamous soul mate. The argument in this section promises greater fulfillment from devotion to higher morals which ultimately lead to a deeper aesthetic pleasure. It's widely thought that the discussion of the aesthetic and the ethical is a reflection of Kierkegaard's own confusion, especially after ending his engagement with the love of his life Regine Olsen, just as the seducer of either/or did. I, personally, think that Kierkegaard's either/or is a mature analysis of human nature and acknowledgment of both ethical and aesthetic sides of each individual. Kierkegaard shows the inconsistencies of both positions, the void in human reasoning in both cases and eventually he acknowledges that faith in God is the only way to avoid unhappiness. While Kierkegaard acknowledges religion on a personal level, he still condemns it on a society or church level. Either/or might be a projection of Kierkegaard's own spiritual and philosophical beliefs, or a result of his own experience with loved ones, or an act of frustration against society and church. In any case, I think either/or, though a difficult read, is a very engaging interesting work that deserves your time and attention.
-
( 0 of 3 found this review helpful ) Posted: Jan 18 2008
As Soren is, arching literarily, trop acute. Often edifying, slightly hilarious. This collection kaleidoscopic. Gay alto lank. Solo writhing smoking tea. I would propose it to HE whom seul desirs richer marryhoods, way.
