|
The aesthetic versus the ethical
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a Danish philosopher who is regarded as one of the two “fathers” of existentialism (the other one being Friedrich Nietzsche). He was born in Copenhagen to a wealthy family and lived there most of his life in relative loneliness. He was once engaged to marry, but after several months broke his engagement (and the woman quickly married somebody else). His criticism of society and organized religion angered many people and alienated them. He died in a hospital from medical complications at the age of 42. His works became famous only in the 1920s, and they have been very influential ever since.
Kierkegaard’s extensive writings revolve primarily around the issue of how to live truly or authentically (or how to be a Christian, as he sometimes phrases it). For him, truth is subjective, and truly living means living with one’s entire being, with passion and commitment and faith. Most people, however, live a dull life of self-deception, so they do not really live.
The following text is adapted from Part 1 of Kierkegaard’s famous book Either/Or (1843). As in many of his books, Kierkegaard does not present one unitary theory. Rather, the book expresses several different voices, each one written by a different imaginary writer, sometimes in the form of letters, sometimes in the form of a personal diary, a poem, etc. In this way Kierkegaard presents to the readers several different perspectives on life, and he encourages them to find themselves in them.
The fragments that compose Either/Or describe two main attitudes to life, the aesthetic and the ethical. (Later Kierkegaard would add a third, religious attitude.) In the aesthetic attitude I immerse myself in immediate experience, and my life revolves around INTERESTING (fun, pleasure) versus BORING. Therefore, the aesthetic life is a collection of moments of pleasure or interest, in which nothing really matters (If not this woman, then the next woman). It has no long-term project, no self-development, no stable self.
The alternative attitude, the ethical, is based on decision and commitment. It revolves around GOOD versus EVIL, and it consists of long-term commitments and projects, self-development and self-creation.
The following text is written by the imaginary “Judge William” who looks at life from the ethical perspective. He is writing to another imaginary person, a young romantic man called “A” who lives an aesthetic life.
There are people who are too degenerate to understand such a dilemma, and their personalities lack the energy to say “Either/or” with pathos. This phrase has always made a deep impression on me, and it still does. […] And you – this phrase is often on your lips. It has almost become a slogan for you. What significance does it have for you? None at all. You, according to what you say, regard it as a wink of the eye, a snap of the fingers, a coup de main, an abracadabra. […] You take great delight in “comforting” people when they are in critical situations. You listen to their story and say, “Yes, I see that there are two possibilities – you can either do this or do that. My sincere opinion and my friendly counsel is this: Do it or don’t do it – you will regret both.” But he who mocks others mocks himself, and your response is a profound mockery of yourself, a sorry proof of how limp your soul is.”
[…]
Your choice is an aesthetic choice, but an aesthetic choice is no choice. The act of choosing is essentially an expression of the ethical. Whenever there is a question of either/or in the strict sense, you can always be sure that the ethical is involved. The only absolute either/or is the choice between good and evil, and this is the ethical. The aesthetic choice is either entirely a matter of immediate experience, or it loses itself in the many. Thus, when a young girl follows the choice of her heart, her choice, however beautiful it may be, is strictly speaking no choice, since it comes entirely from immediate experience [the feeling of love]. When a man deliberates aesthetically on life’s problems, as you did, he does not get ONE either/or but many, because when he does not choose absolutely he chooses only for the moment, and therefore he can choose something different the next moment.
The ethical choice is in a certain sense much easier, much simpler, but in another sense it is infinitely harder. A person who defines his life-task ethically usually doesn’t have a large selection to choose from. But on the other hand, the choice has a much greater importance for him. Making a choice is not so much a question of choosing the right but a matter of the energy, the seriousness, the pathos with which one chooses. In this way the personality announces its inner infinity, and thus the personality is consolidated. […] Since he made the choice with his entire inner being, his nature is purified and he relates directly to the eternal power whose omnipresence interprets the whole of existence. This higher consecration is never achieved by somebody who chooses aesthetically. The rhythm in his soul, despite its passion, is a spiritu levis. Perhaps you will succeed to accomplish much in life, perhaps you will even astonish the world, and yet you will miss the highest thing, the only thing which is truly significant – perhaps you will gain the whole world and lose your own self.
So you have to either live aesthetically or live ethically. In these two alternatives there is not yet a question of choice, strictly speaking. Because a person who lives aesthetically does not choose.
[…]
My either/or is not primarily about the choice between good and evil. It is about the choice between good-and-evi
l and excluding them. It is the question about the coordinates through which you would live and relate to existence. It is true that the person who has chosen good-and-evil chooses good, but this becomes evident afterwards. Because the aesthetic is not the evil but neutrality, and this is why the ethical constitutes the choice. The question is not, therefore, choosing between willing the good OR willing the evil, but rather choosing to WILL. And this choice posits the good and the evil.
|