  |
|
|
|
Influenced by both Hegel and Kant, Kierkegaard distinguishes himself for his novel approach to the discussion of morality.
In his study of morality, Kierkegaard distinguishes three stages of life’s way or modes of existence. These are mainly discussed in pairs in the two works mentioned above. The discussion of the first phase of life is carried out, mainly, in Either/Or, which tackles the difference between the aesthetic individual and his ethical counterpart. Aesthetic Life in Either/OrThe structure of the work itself, written as an exchange between two different pseudonyms, enhances the sense of contraposition between the two outlooks on life. A is the aesthete and the author of Either, the first part of the book edited by Victor Eremita (one of Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms), which is a collection of aphorisms, anecdotes, epigrams intending to explain the aesthetic way of life. He is the crystallisation of such types as Mozart’s Don Juan or, we can infer, the legendary Casanova. The variety of genres employed here mirrors the ever-shifting nature entailed by this mode of existence. The life of the aesthete, with its running from one option to the other, without an overarching purpose but the immediate satisfaction of an impulse, is what sophistry is to philosophy: mere virtuosity and affectation devoid of content. The last part of the volume, “Diary of a Seducer”, recounts the plots and intrigues of a carefully planned seduction carried out just as a feat to obviate the author’s boredom. So life, for this kind of individual, is but a procession of possibilities to be sampled according to one’s fancy and not a project to work at and realise, both on the practical and on the moral level. Such an approach does nothing but placing A in the hands of life, when it should clearly be the reverse, and leaves him at the mercy of contingencies which are, by definition, uncertain and mutable (Either/Or vol. 2, p. 63). The Aesthetic WillA’s will has no effect on the world and is severely restricted to the immediate decision between alternatives placed beyond his power. The aesthete can only choose between what the world makes available to him because, by refusing to address life with a goal, he does not engage actively in creating options for himself. A has therefore a passive approach to life and is effectively subjected to external circumstances. The Role of DespairUpon self-analysis, this condition is liable to cause a sense of despair to such an individual (Either/Or vol. 1, p. 164). But for Kierkegaard, it is paradoxically through despair that the aesthete can ransom his life from passivity and lack of direction. This dismay at the emptiness of the aesthetic life could kindle in A the will to stepping towards an ethical life, governed by purpose and pro-activity. On the other hand though, a mismanaged despair could lead even deeper into the pit of meaninglessness. A can decide to wallow in despair rather than searching for a way out. Sorrow can then become a way of life, the mode in which A chooses to exist by claiming to be fated to it: in plain words, despair can become the ultimate excuse not to act. But again, this idea of doom is nothing by the refusal of action which eliminates the risk of being held accountable for one’s deeds. In the face of fatalism, choice becomes unimportant and almost futile; whatever one sets out to accomplish will ultimately be frustrated by one’s doom. This is the ultimate renunciation of individuality and freedom. Bibliography
The copyright of the article Kierkegaard's Seducer in Western Philosophy is owned by Emanuela Puosi. Permission to republish Kierkegaard's Seducer in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
