   Published in two volumes in 1843, '''''Either/Or''''' (original Danish title: ''Enten ‒  Eller'') is an influential book written by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, exploring the aesthetic, see also aestheticism, and ethical &quot;phases&quot; or &quot;stages&quot; of existence. Victor Eremita, the pseudonymous editor, says he &quot;doubts the philosophical maxim that the external is the internal and the internal the external&quot; and his view of the whole book is that it presents an unending debate between &quot;A&quot; the author of Either and &quot;B&quot; the author of Or. Eremita advises the &quot;fair reader&quot; to follow &quot;B's&quot; advice.Either/Or Volume I Edited by Victor Eremita, February 20, 1843, translated by David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson Princeton University Press 1971 Preface David F. Swenson says, &quot;Each man is &quot;sold&quot; on his own position, and each one is out to &quot;sell&quot; the other-and you!Either/Or Volume I, Foreword by the Revisor  ''Either/Or'', February 20, 1843 was offered to the world along with ''Two Upbuilding Discourses, 1843'', May 16, 1843. Everyone loved ''Either/Or'', especially Johannes the Seducer, but no one noticed the ''Two Upbuilding (Edifying) Discourses'', which disappointed Kierkegaard.Point of View, p. 18-20 Lowrie  ''Either/Or'' portrays two life views, one consciously hedonistic, the other based on ethical duty and responsibility. Each life view is written and represented by a fictional pseudonymous author, the prose of the work depending on the life view being discussed. For example, the aesthetic life view is written in short essay form, with poetic imagery and allusions, discussing aesthetic topics such as music, seduction, drama, and beauty. The ethical life view is written as two long letters, with a more argumentative and restrained prose, discussing moral responsibility, critical reflection, and marriage.Kierkegaard, Søren. ''The Essential Kierkegaard'', edited by Howard and Edna Hong. Princeton, ISBN 0-691-01940-1 The views of the book are not neatly summarized, but are expressed as lived experiences embodied by the pseudonymous authors. The book's central concern is the primal question asked by Aristotle, &quot;How should we live?&quot;Warburton, Nigel. ''Philosophy: The Classics'', 2nd edition. Routledge, ISBN 0-415-23998-2   ''Either/Or'' has to do with &quot;one category&quot;, &quot;the significance of choosing&quot; and this choosing always depends on the &quot;will&quot;.Judge Vilhelm, Either/Or, Vol II p. 213-215 Hong The absolute choice requires repentance. Identity is the choice between the finite (changeable) aspects of youth, beauty, power, etc., the historical and philosophical points of view, (reflection), Johannes the Seducer, who typifies Sexual objectification,Sickness Unto Death, by Anti-Climacus, Hannay p. 43-44 and Manifest DestinyJudge Vilhelm, Either/Or, Vol II p. 127-135 Hong and the infinite (unchangeable) aspect of freedom. The freedom to choose oneself absolutely, whether in joy or sorrow, hope or memory, fortune or misfortune leads to a higher good. In freedom you are no longer possessed by the world. You discover that the &quot;good things of the world&quot; are unreliable and that there is another good that is &quot;higher&quot; than all these goods; faith. Faith is &quot;original in [us], and every human being has it if he wants to have it-it is precisely the gloriousness of faith that it can be had only on this condition. Therefore, it is the only unfailing good, because it can be had only by constantly being acquired and can be acquired by continually being generated&quot;.Two Upbuilding Discourses - The Expectancy of Faith: p. 9-15 from Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses, Soren Kierkegaard 1843-1844 Copyright 1990 by Howard V. Hong Princeton University Press Kierkegaard says,in Either/Or &quot;You are trapped and have, so to speak, no time to extricate yourself; I am not trapped in my judgment of either the esthetic or the ethical, for in the ethical I am raised above the moment, I am in freedom, but it is a contradiction for anyone to be able to become trapped by being in freedom.&quot;Either/Or I p. 45-46 167, 173, 220-221, 322-323 Swenson, Either/Or II 127, 174-179 Hong  Finite goods can be obtained through a gift from one to another but the infinite goods of the spirit are goods that cannot be wished for or received as a gift. Kierkegaard essentially says, in ''Two Upbuilding Discourses, 1843'', and ''Point of View''; If power comes to me because someone gives power to me then I am indebted to that person because that person can take what has been given. The most one person can do for another is to &quot;constrain (compel) him to see the highest good,&quot; to take notice.Two Upbuilding Discourses, 1843 p. 15 POV, p. 35 Lowrie The single individual can either put his faith and its expectancy in the promises of the world or in God's promises.Two Upbuilding Discourses, 1843 Expectancy of Faith p. 23-24 and Every Good and Every Perfect Gift is From Above  p. 37-41 Kierkegaard says, &quot;My expectancy was not in the world but in God.&quot; His first discourse is based on the following Biblical passages.Expectancy of Faith p. 25[ Galatians 3:23-29]  The individual who lives in an either-or is never satisfied with what the world has to offer while the individual who lives in faith accepts every worldly gift, whether for good or evil in the eyes of the world, as a good and perfect gift from God. [ James 1:17-22] He says:     == Structure == The book is the first of Kierkegaard's works written pseudonymously, a practice he employed during the first half of his career.Magill, Frank N. ''Masterpieces of World Philosophy''. HarperCollins, ISBN 0-06-270051-0Gardiner, Patrick. ''Kierkegaard: Past Masters''. Oxford, ISBN 978-0-19-287642-3 In this case, four pseudonyms are used: *''&quot;Victor Eremita&quot;'' - the fictional compiler and editor of the texts, which he claims to have found in an antique escritoire. *''&quot;A&quot;'' - the moniker given to the fictional author of the first text (&quot;Either&quot;) by Victor Eremita, whose real name he claims not to have known. *''&quot;B&quot;'' - &quot;Judge Vilhelm&quot;'' - the fictional author of the second text (&quot;Or&quot;). *''&quot;Johannes&quot;'' - the fictional author of a section of 'Either' titled &quot;The Diary of a Seducer&quot;.  The first volume, describes the &quot;aesthetic&quot; phase of existence. It contains a collection of papers, found by 'Victor Eremita' and written by 'A', the &quot;aesthete.&quot;Chamberlin, Jane and Jonathan Rée. ''The Kierkegaard Reader''. Blackwell, Oxford, 0-631-20467-9 His view of life is that the &quot;outer&quot;, or experience, is everything. One could call him John Locke.   The aesthete, according to Kierkegaard's model, will eventually find himself in &quot;despair&quot;, a psychological state (explored further in Kierkegaard's ''The Concept of Anxiety'' and ''The Sickness Unto Death'') that results from a recognition of the limits of the aesthetic approach to life.  Kierkegaard's &quot;despair&quot; is a somewhat analogous precursor of existential angst.  The second volume, describes Judge Vilhelm's argument with the aesthete. The aesthete has already spoken and now the ethicist presents his side. Kierkegaard wrote volume II before volume I.POV p. 18 Lowrie  === Diapsalmata === The first section of ''Either/Or'' 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 &quot;refrains&quot;. It contains some of Kierkegaard's most famous and poetic lines, such as &quot;What is a poet?&quot; &quot;What am I good for?&quot; &quot;the Lord only knows what he meant by me.&quot; &quot;Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.&quot; &quot;Nature still recognizes the dignity of humanity...&quot;... what is the significance of life? &quot;What is the power that binds me?&quot; &quot;Strangely enough, it is always the same thing which at every age engages our attention, and we go only so far, or rather, we go backward. ... Knowledge of the truth I may perhaps have attained to; happiness, certainly not. What shall I do?&quot; &quot;...my soul's poisonous doubt is all consuming. My soul is like the Dead Sea...&quot;''Either/Or'' Vol I p. 19, 24-24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36 &quot;Freedom of Speech&quot; vs. &quot;Freedom of Thought&quot;, the &quot;Unmovable chess piece&quot;, the tragic clown, and the laughter of the gods.Oden, Thomas C. ''Parables of Kierkegaard''. Princeton University Press, ISBN 9780691020532. This section has to do with the question, &quot;What shall I do?&quot; He says, &quot;Accomplish something in the world, men tell me. Shall I then publish my grief to the world, contribute one more proof for the wretchedness and misery of existence, perhaps discover a new flaw in human life, hitherto unnoticed? I might then reap the rare reward of becoming famous, like the man who discovered the spots on Jupiter. I prefer, however, to keep silent.&quot;Either/Or Vol I p. 34 Swenson He tries his hand at the philosophy of &quot;regret” but is never able to move forward because &quot;philosophy remains within itself, and admits of no higher philosophy.&quot; Either/Or Vol I p. 37-38  Swenson   This is what the aesthete has to say about the meaning of life, &quot;In the last analysis, what is the significance of life? If we divide mankind into two great classes, we may say that one works for a living, the other does not need to. But working for a living cannot be the meaning of life, since it would be a contradiction to say that the perpetual production of the conditions for subsistence is an answer to the question about its significance which, by the help of this, must be conditioned. The lives of the other class have in general no other significance than that they consume the conditions of subsistence. And to say that the significance of life is death, seems again a contradiction.&quot;''Either/Or Vol I'', Swenson p. 30  === The Immediate Stages of the Erotic, or Musical Erotic === 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''. You know very well that the most intensive enjoyment is in clutching the enjoyment in the [[consciousness that it may vanish the next moment. That is why the finale of Don Giovanni has pleased you so much. Pursued by the police, by the whole world, by the living and the dead, alone in a remote room, he once again gathers together all the powers of his soul, once again raises the goblet, and once again rejoices in the sound of music. ''Either/Or Part II'' p. 25]]   === Essays read before the Symparanekromenoi === The next three sections are essay lectures from 'A' to the 'Symparanekromenoi', a club or fellowship of the dead. The first essay, which discusses ancient and modern tragedy, is called the &quot;Ancient Tragical Motif as Reflected in the Modern&quot;.   The second essay, called &quot;Shadowgraphs: A Psychological Pastime&quot;, discusses modern heroines, including Mozart's Elvira and Goethe's Gretchen.  The third essay, called &quot;The Unhappiest One&quot;, discusses the hypothetical question: &quot;who deserves the distinction of being unhappier than everyone else?&quot; Kierkegaard answers, &quot;The unhappy person is one who has his ideal, the content of his life, the fullness of his consciousness, the essence of his being, in some manner outside of himself. He is always absent, never present to himself.&quot;Either/Or Vol I, Swenson,  The Unhappiest Man p. 220-221  === The First Love === In this volume Kierkegaard 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.  === Crop Rotation: An Attempt at a Theory of Social Prudence === In agriculture, one rotates the crop, to keep the soil fertile and full of nutrients. The Rotation method, in ''Either/Or'' refers to the aesthete's need to keep life &quot;interesting&quot;, to avoid both boredom and the need to face the responsibilities of an ethical life.  === Diary of a Seducer === Written by 'Johannes the Seducer', this volume illustrates how the aesthete holds the &quot;interesting&quot; as his highest value and how, to satisfy his voyeuristic reflections, he manipulates his situation from the boring to the interesting. He will use irony, artifice, caprice, imagination and arbitrariness to engineer poetically satisfying possibilities; he is not so much interested in the act of seduction as in willfully creating its interesting possibility.  === The Aesthetic Validity of Marriage === The spiritual in marriage is higher than that in the first love, and the higher the heaven is over the marriage bed, the better, the more beautiful, the more esthetic it is; and it is not the earthly heaven that arches over marriage but the heaven of the spirit. It is in the instant, sound and powerful; it points beyond itself, but in a deeper sense than in the first love, for the abstract character of first love is precisely its defect, but in the intention that marriage has, the law of motion is implicit, the possibility of an inner history. ''Either/Or Part II'' p. 61 The first letter is about the aesthetic value of marriage and defends marriage as a way of life. Marriage was under attack in the early 1800's, &quot;In 1797 Schlegel made the acquaintance of Dorothea Veit, daughter of Moses Mendelssohn and wife of a Berlin banker. She was nine years his senior. A strong attachment grew up between them, and presently the lady was persuaded to leave her husband and become the paramour of Schlegel. Even after the divorce was obtained Schlegel refused for sometime to be married in the church, believing that he has a sort of duty of perform in asserting the rights of passion against social convention. For several years the pair lived in wild wedlock before they were regularly married. In 1808 they both joined the Catholic Church, and from that time on nothing was heard of Friedrich Schlegel’s radicalism. He came to hold opinions which were for the most part the exact opposite of those he had held in his youth. The vociferous friend of individual liberty became a reactionary champion of authority. Of course he grew ashamed of ''Lucinda'' (1799)It's reviewed in ''Friedrich Schlegel and Goethe, 1790-1802: a study in early German romanticism'' in the link provided in section Web. and excluded it from his collected works. It was an era of lax ideas regarding the marriage tie. Wilhelm Schlegel married a divorced woman who was destined in due time to transfer herself without legal formalities to Schelling. Goethe had set the example by his conscience marriage with Christiane Vulpius.&quot;''The German classics of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries masterpieces of German literature'', translated into English. Published 1913 by German Publication Society in New York, P. 122 Kierkegaard refuted this view of life,     === Equilibrium between the Aesthetic and the Ethical in the Development of Personality === 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 by arguing that the aesthete has never known himself. The aesthete can courageously doubt everything and fight everything, but he doesn't know anything. He says, anecdotally, &quot;What portends? What will the future bring? I do not know, I have no presentiment. When a spider hurls itself down from some fixed point, consistently with its nature, it always sees before it only an empty space wherein it can find no foothold however much it sprawls. And so it is with me: always before me an empty space; what drives me forward is a consistency which lies behind me. This life is topsy-turvy and terrible, not to be endured.&quot;Either/Or Vol I, Swenson p. 23-24 And ''Johannes the Seducer'' has the same problem; he says, &quot;Accursed Chance! Never have I cursed you because you have appeared; I curse you because you do not appear at all. Or is this perhaps a new invention of yours, unfathomable being, barren mother of all, sole remnant of the past, when necessity gave birth to freedom, when freedom was again lured back into its mother’s womb? Accursed Chance! You, my only confident, the only being whom I consider worthy of being my ally and my enemy, always the same by forever being different, always incomprehensible, always a riddle!&quot;Either/Or Vol I:  Diary of the Seducer 5th day, Swenson p. 322-323 These people stand at the crossroads. Either the individual will choose the &quot;ethical,&quot; which is characterized as freedom ''from'' necessity and absolute differences or he will harden himself and close himself up, with his relative differences, in despair.Either/Or Vol II, Hong p. 223-225 Kierkegaard says, the one who lives esthetically has his life in the differences, which brings him to the conflict of which difference is more important than the other. Once he despairs over this he will find the universal.Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or II, Hong p. 228-229 ''What is the difference?'' Riches, power, noble birth, intelligence, lowliness, distinction, talent, wittiness, race, color, creed, sexual orientation, gender and so on. These differences are necessary; they have nothing to do with freedom. Dwelling on the differences leads one to despair or depression. When one chooses himself &quot;he chooses himself absolutely from the hand of God&quot;.Either/Or Vol II p. 216-217 Hong If he doesn't choose himself then he lacks spirit. This power of choice does away with all differences. But there is another power that Kierkegaard mentions throughout his books. This power binds a person to the differences.Either/Or Vol I, Swenson, p. 33 See also Fear and Trembling Eulogy on Abraham &quot;A&quot; in Either said, &quot;No one ever comes back from the dead, no one ever enters the world without weeping; no one is asked when he wishes to enter life, no one is asked when he wishes to leave.&quot; Either/Or Vol I, Swenson p.  25 We have no power over what our condition will be when we enter the world, because it is what it is. But, Kierkegaad argues, we have complete power over what our condition can &quot;become&quot;, and in this we are all essentially equal.  He says choosing is what is important to the development of his personality.Either/Or II p. 163 Hong The esthete &quot;is&quot; what he is because he wills it, he allows himself to be swallowed up by externalities, and the ethicist &quot;becomes&quot; what he becomes because he wills it. The one develops with necessity and the other with freedom. Kierkegaard is always on the side of freedom.Either/Or II, p. 223-224 Hong Johannes Climacus, the only pseudonym edited by Kierkegaard,''POV'' Lowrie, 1962 P. 13 sums this up nicely in ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript'': &quot;The subjective thinker is not a poet even if he is also a poet, not an ethicist even if he is also an ethicist, but is also a dialectician and is himself essentially existing, whereas the poet’s existence is inessential in relation to the poem, and likewise the ethicist’s in relation to the teaching, and the dialectician’s in relation to the thought. ... To exist is an art. The subjective thinker is esthetic enough for his life to have esthetic content, ethical enough to regulate it, dialectical enough in thinking to master it. ... The subjective thinker’s task is to understand himself in existence. &quot;Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Hong p. 351 His question has never been '''what''' is existence, that's a question for philosophers, historians, and scientists. His question has always been '''how''' is an individual to live in existence. The person who has his life vested in what is outside of himself is lost,Either/Or Vol I, Swenson,  Diapsalmata ad se ipsum - Kierkegaard expresses this throughout this section esp p 21-25 Victor Erimeta says this is due to the philosophical &quot;deficiency&quot; which wants to make &quot;the external the internal and the internal the external&quot;.Either/Or Vol I, Swenson Preface  *''The Eternal life-view comes before the either/or''         egotistical depression naturally fears on its own account and, like all depression, is self-indulgent in enjoyment. It has a certain exaggerated obeisance, a secret horror of any contact with life. “What can one depend upon; everything may change; perhaps even this being I now almost worship can change; perhaps later fates will bring me in contact with another being who for the first time will truly be the ideal of which I have dreamed.” Like all depression, it is defiant and is conscious of it; it thinks: Perhaps just this, that I bind myself to one person with an indissoluble bond, will make this being, whom I otherwise would love with my whole soul, become intolerable to me, perhaps, perhaps, etc. Sympathetic depression is more distressing and also somewhat more noble; it fears itself for the sake of the other. Who knows for certain that he cannot be changed; perhaps what I now regard as the good in me can disappear; perhaps what the beloved finds so captivating in me and what I want to keep only for her sake can be taken from me, and now she stands there disappointed, deceived. Perhaps a splendid prospect comes along for her; she is tempted, she perhaps does not withstand the temptation-good lord, to have that on my conscience. I have nothing to reproach her for; it is I who have become changed. I forgive her everything  if she can only forgive me, that I was so incautious as to let her take such a decisive step. ''Either/Or II'' p. 25-26]]   The aesthete and the ethicist both note that philosophers can always begin with nothing but never know how to stop. They just keep contemplating the past. The question for &quot;A&quot; and &quot;B&quot; is &quot;What am I supposed to do?&quot; Kierkegaard is the &quot;policeman&quot; who constantly says, '''Stop''', '''Halt''', '''Go Back!''', because &quot;the true eternity does not lie behind the either/or, but before it.&quot; Either/Or Vol I 37-39 Swenson Vol II p. 170-176 Hong Point of View p. 74-75  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, remorse (''angeren'') seems to be a religious category specifically related to the Christian concept of deliverance.Kierkegaard, Søren. ''Samlede Vaerker''. (2), II, p. 190. 1962-1964. Kierkegaard covers ''Remorse, Repentance, Confession: Eternity’s Emissaries to Man'' in [ Chapter 2] of Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing read it and then decide what he means by remorse.      === Ultimatium === The volume ends in a discourse on the Upbuilding in the Thought that: against God we are always in the wrong. {| class=&quot;toccolours&quot; style=&quot;float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#ABC9F2; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;&quot; cellspacing=&quot;5&quot; | style=&quot;text-align: left;&quot; | &quot;Do not interrupt the flight of your soul; do not distress what is best in you; do not enfeeble your spirit with half wishes and half thoughts. Ask yourself and keep on asking until you find the answer, for one may have known something many times, acknowledged it; one may have willed something many times, attempted it—and yet, only the deep inner motion, only the heart's indescribable emotion, only that will convince you that what you have acknowledged belongs to you, that no power can take it from you—for only the truth that builds up is truth for you.&quot; |- | style=&quot;text-align: left;&quot; | Judge Vilhelm; ''Ultimatium'' (Hong Translation) |}  == Discourses and Sequel == Along with this work, Kierkegaard published, under his own name, Two Upbuilding DiscoursesReligious works penned under his own name. ''Commentary on Kierkegaard'', D. Anthony Storm,[ on May 16, 1843 intended to complement ''Either/Or'', &quot;The Expectancy of Faith&quot; and &quot;Every Good and Every Perfect Gift is from Above&quot;.Kierkegaard, Søren. ''Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses''. Princeton, ISBN 0-691-02087-6. Kierkegaard also published another discourse during the printing of the second edition of ''Either/Or'' in 1849.Collected by Princeton University Press in ''Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses''  Kierkegaard presents another anecdote in ''Two Upbuilding Discourses, 1843'': ''The Expectancy of Faith'', &quot;How, then, shall we face the future? When the sailor is out on the ocean, when everything is changing all around him, when the waves are born and die, he does not stare down into the waves, because they are changing. He looks up at the stars. Why? Because they are faithful; they have the same location now that they had for our ancestors and will have for generations to come. By what means does he conquer the changeable? By the eternal. By the eternal, one can conquer the future, because the eternal is the ground of the future, and therefore through it the future can be fathomed. What, then, is the eternal power in a human being? It is faith. What is the expectancy of faith? Victory-or, as Scripture so earnestly and so movingly teaches us, that all things must serve for good those who love God.&quot;Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses, Soren Kierkegaard 1843-1844 Copyright 1990 by Howard V. Hong Princeton University Press p. 19 He moves the person from the outer to the inner and on to the eternal.  In addition to the discourses, one week after ''Either/Or'' was published, Kierkegaard published a newspaper article in ''Fædrelandet'', titled &quot;Who Is the Author Of Either/Or?&quot;, 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 using the pseudonym 'A.F.' writes, &quot;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.&quot;[ D. Anthony on Who is the Author?]  The &quot;Ultimatium&quot; 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.Kierkegaard, Søren. ''Stages on Life's Way'', trans. Howard and Edna Hong. Princeton University Press, ISBN 9780691020495  == Examples of an Either/Or == ''Inner or the outer, freedom or necessity, the finite or the infinite, the personal the civic or the religious. Balance!''  The first Either/Or, picture on the right, deals with the single individual who is existing with a choice. In the second Either/Or, picture and caption below picture on the right, an individual made some poor choices in life but things turned out alright for him. Next an aesthetic individual is offered the goods of the world but chooses an inner good, a sense of humor, instead.  Now the individual discovers that he has an inner history and that he can choose between the aesthetic or the ethical. Then the absolute Either/Or, the choice between freedom or necessity is considered and one becomes conscious of their eternal validity. The individual discovers that he has a soul. Now the trick is to balance the personal, civic and religious life so you don't become too one-sided. Kierkegaard says, &quot;The appointed task is simultaneously to relate oneself absolutely to the absolute end and relatively to relative ends.&quot; In this way you are absolutely choosing yourself. You no longer view life as a spectator but as an active participant.''Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments'' Volume I, by Johannes Climacus, edited by Soren Kierkegaard, Copyright 1846 – Edited and Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong 1992 Princeton University Press p. 431 ffEither/Or II, Hong p. 207-218Johannes Climacus, by Soren Kierkegaard, Edited and Introduced by Jane Chamberlain, Translated by T.H. Croxall 2001 p. 82  Imagine a captain of a ship the moment a shift of direction must be made; then he may be able to say: I can do either this or that. But if he is not a mediocre captain he will also be aware that during all this the ship is ploughing ahead with its ordinary velocity, and thus there is but a single moment when it is inconsequential whether he does this or does that. So also with a person-if he forgets to take into account the velocity-there eventually comes a moment where it is no longer a matter of an Either/Or, not because he has chosen, but because he has refrained from it, which also can be expressed by saying: Because others have chosen for him-or because he has lost himself. ''Either/Or Vol II p. 164 Hong 1987'' The Soul of the Good Thief -- &quot;Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men’s thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy. They do their duty, these shopkeeping souls, but they clip the coin a trifle, like the Jews; they think that even if the Lord keeps ever so careful a set of books, they may still cheat Him a little. Out upon them! This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings; they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.” ''Either/Or Vol I'' p. 27     The aesthete in Part I thinks this way about knowing yourself, &quot;One ought to be a mystery, not only to others, but also to one’s self. I study myself; when I am weary of this, then for a pastime I light a cigar and think: the Lord only knows what he meant by me, or what He would make out of me.&quot;  ''Either/Or'' Part I p.26           Only on this condition can he choose himself. And this is the only condition he wants, for only in this way can he choose himself absolutely. Yet what is a human being without love? But there are many kinds of love. I love my father and my mother differently, my wife, in turn, in another way, and each different love has its different expression. But there is also a love with which I love God, and this love has only one expression in language-it is “repentance.” If I do not love him in this way, then I do not love him absolutely, out of my innermost being. Any other love of the absolute is fallacy, for (to take what is ordinarily so highly prized and what I myself esteem) when thought with all its love holds fast to the absolute, then it is not the absolute I love, then I do not love absolutely, for I love out of necessity. As soon as I love freely and love God, then I repent. And if there were no other basis for repentance as the expression of my love of God, it is this-that he has loved me first. And yet this is an imperfect designation, for only when I choose myself as guilty do I absolutely choose myself. ''Judge Vilhelm, Either/Or II p. 216-217 Hong 1987''}}      These stages can be contrasted to the three stages of philosophical instruction Hegel outlined in his letter to Niethammer, October 23, 1812. The first stage is the &quot;theory of religion, law, and duties&quot; and the second is &quot;the theoretically spiritual stage: the logical, metaphysical, and psychological&quot;, finally, the third stage is his encyclopedia, which includes &quot;the general content of philosophy, namely the basic concepts and principles of its particular sciences, among which I count three principal ones: logic, philosophy of nature, and philosophy of spirit.&quot;A copy of his whole letter can be found here.  He said the following about Hegel,s historical ideas in 1846. He already stated that history is interested only in the outer world and has no regard for the inner life of the single individual.     Kieregaard's whole tone is a criticism of &quot;Friedrich Schlegel’s philosophy of life, which was based upon the theory of supremacy of the artist, the potency of poetry, with its incidental corollaries of disregard for the Kantian ideal of Duty and aversion to all Puritanism and Protestantism. “There is no greater world than that of artists,” he  declared in ''Athenaeum''; “artists form a higher caste; they should separate themselves, even in their way of living, from other people.” Poetry and philosophy formed in his thought an inseparable unit, forever joined, “though seldom together-like Castor and Pollux.” His interest is in “Humanity,” this is to say, a superior type of the species, with a corresponding contempt for “commonness,” especially for the common man as a mere machine of “duty.”&quot;''The German classics of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries masterpieces of German literature'' translated into English. Published 1913 by German Publication Society in New York P. 55 (48-70 and then his story ''Lucinda'' begins on page 124)   == Themes ==  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.  {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; | {| |+ '''''Summary of the Stages''''' ! Aesthetic ! Ethical |- | Defined by ''immediacy'': the failure to reflect seriously upon the nature of one's way of living | Defined by ''critical reflection'': able to make and take moral responsibility and accountability for his life choices |- | Sees the outer existence as more important: The self is entirely subject to external factors | Sees the inner existence as more important: The self shapes one's own character, values, inclinations, and personal identity; thus, the self is partially subject to internal factors |- | Accepts passively that one's life is based entirely upon external factors | Willing to take active control of one's life |- | Tends to avoid commitments, as they see it as boring | Commitments, like friendship and marriage, are cornerstones of a responsible ethical way of existence. |- | Exhaustion of aesthetic pleasure leads to boredom and despair | Strives to become a better human being through taking an active role in shaping oneself and one's manner of life. |} |  |}  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 (e.g. alcohol, drugs, casual sex, sloth, etc.) Refined immediacy is characterized by planning how best to enjoy life aesthetically. The &quot;theory&quot; of social prudence given in ''Crop Rotation'' is an example of refined immediacy. Instead of mindless hedonistic tendencies, enjoyments are contemplated and &quot;cultivated&quot; 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.  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. 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.  == Interpretation == 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 Point of View of My Work as an Author''.Kierkegaard, Søren. ''The Point of View'', translated by Howard and Edna Hong, Princeton University Press, ISBN 9780691058559  == Philosophical Interpretation == The title ''Either/Or'' is an affirmation of Aristotelian logic, particularly   * Law of identity (A = A; a thing is identical to itself) * Law of excluded middle (either A or not-A; a thing is either something or not that thing, no third option) * Law of non-contradiction. (not both A and not-A; a thing cannot be both true and not true in the same instant)  In Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's work, ''The Science of Logic'' (1812), Hegel had criticized Aristotle's laws of classical logic for being static, rather than dynamic and becoming, and had replaced it with his own dialectical logic. Hegel formulated addendums for Aristotle's laws:[ Hegel's Science of Logic]  &quot;From this it is evident that the law of identity itself, and still more the law of contradiction, is not merely of analytic but of synthetic nature. For the latter contains in its expression not merely empty, simple equality-with-self, and not merely the other of this in general, but, what is more, absolute inequality, contradiction per se. But as has been shown, the law of identity itself contains the movement of reflection, identity as a vanishing of otherness. What emerges from this consideration is, therefore, first, that the law of identity or of contradiction which purports to express merely abstract identity in contrast to difference as a truth, is not a law of thought, but rather the opposite of it; secondly, that these laws contain more than is meant by them, to wit, this opposite, absolute difference itself.&quot;  [ Hegel's Remarks § 883 &amp; 884]&quot;The law of the excluded middle is also distinguished from the laws of identity and contradiction ... the latter of these asserted that there is nothing that is at once A and not-A. It implies that there is nothing that is neither A nor not-A, that there is not a third that is indifferent to the opposition. But in fact the third that is indifferent to the opposition is given in the law itself, namely, A itself is present in it. This A is neither +A nor -A, and is equally well +A as -A. The something that was supposed to be either -A or not A is therefore related to both +A and not-A; and again, in being related to A, it is supposed not to be related to not-A, nor to A, if it is related to not-A. The something itself, therefore, is the third which was supposed to be excluded. Since the opposite determinations in the something are just as much posited as sublated in this positing, the third which has here the form of a dead something, when taken more profoundly, is the unity of reflection into which the opposition withdraws as into ground.&quot;  [ Hegel's Remarks § 952 - 954]Watts, Michael. ''Kierkegaard''. Oneworld, ISBN 1851683178Beiser, Frederick C. ''The Cambridge Companion to Hegel''. Cambridge, ISBN 0521387116  * Law of identity is inaccurate because a thing is always more than itself * Law of excluded middle is inaccurate because a thing can be both itself and many others * Law of non-contradiction is inaccurate because everything in existence is both itself and not itself  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 through 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.  === Kantian interpretation === A recent way to interpret ''Either/Or'' is to read it as an applied Kantian text. Scholars for this interpretation include Alasdair MacIntyreDavenport, John and Anthony Rudd. ''Kierkegaard After MacIntyre: Essays on Freedom, Narrative, and Virtue''. Open Court Publishing, 2001, ISBN 9780812694390 and Ronald M. Green.Green, Ronald M. ''Kierkegaard and Kant: The Hidden Debt.'' SUNY Press, Albany, 1992. ISBN 0-7914-1108-7 In ''After Virtue'', MacIntyre claims Kierkegaard is continuing the Enlightenment project set forward by Hume and Kant.Kierkegaard is familiar with Hume through the works of Johann Georg Hamann. See &quot;Hume and Kierkegaard&quot; by Richard Popkin. Green notes several points of contact with Kant in ''Either/Or'':Green, p. 95-98 Both believed that the struggle for freedom always takes place within the individual. &quot;A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least where the government is concerned, to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol. Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post. This [ spirit of freedom] is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism.&quot; Kierkegaard is an example of an individual who chose &quot;to use his own reason in all matters of conscience.&quot;, but he rejected the Kantian division of people into guardians, scholars and the unthinking masses and promoted the ideal of perfect equality before God.Works of Love Published in 1847 Edited and Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong 1995 Princeton University Press p. 52-60  {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; | {| |+ '''''Summary of Kantian Themes in Either/Or''''' |-  !  ! Immanuel Kant  ! Judge Vilhelm |- | &quot;The ethical is the universal&quot; | When acting on a maxim of mutual aid, one must mentally &quot;create&quot; a world with its own type of humanity and existence | An ethical choice requires one to convert to a &quot;universal man&quot; or model of &quot;essential humanity&quot; |- | &quot;Moral judgments cannot be private or privileging&quot; | Universalization of maxims; Distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives | &quot;earthly love is ... partiality; spiritual love has no partialities&quot; |- | &quot;Ethical laws are universally known and applicable&quot; | Derived from a priori principle of reason | Criticizes philosophers and historians who attempt to prove ethical relativity. |- | &quot;Rationality determines moral protection&quot; | Must respect rational beings as &quot;ends in themselves&quot; | &quot;[each person] even though he were a hired servant ... has his teleology in himself.&quot; |- | &quot;Happiness as a supreme end&quot; | Happiness as a universal maxim is unstable as a universal law | Happiness can only come from &quot;within&quot; the individual himself not from externalities. |} |  |}  However, other scholars think Kierkegaard adopts Kantian themes in order to criticize them, while yet others think that although Kierkegaard adopts some Kantian themes, their final ethical positions are substantially different. George Stack argues for this latter interpretation, writing, &quot;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.&quot;Green, p.87  === Existential interpretation === 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 the idea that 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.  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''.  === Biographical interpretation ===  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.[ Dr. Scott Moore's Summary of the Diary] ''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. Ultimately however, ''Either/Or'' stands philosophically independent of its relation to Kierkegaard's life.Warburton, p.181.  == Reception == === Early reception === ''Either/Or'' established Kierkegaard's reputation as a respected author.Garff, Joakim. ''Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography''. Trans. Bruce H. Kirmmse. Princeton, 2005, 0-691-09165-X Henriette Wulff, in a letter to Hans Christian Andersen, wrote, &quot;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....&quot;   Johan Ludvig Heiberg, a prominent Hegelian, at first criticized the aesthetic section, ''Either'', especially the section on the &quot;Diary of a Seducer&quot;, revolted by the aesthetic's actions, saying, &quot;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''.&quot; However, Heiberg read ''Or'', which impressed him, saying of it, &quot;... 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.&quot;  Kierkegaard wrote in his Journals, &quot;Heiberg remarked in his outcry over ''Either/Or'' that it was really hard to tell whether some of the observations in it were profound or not. Professor Heiberg and his consorts have the great advantage that what they say is known in advance to be profound. This is partly due to the fact that not a single primitive thought is to be found in them, or at least rarely. What they know they borrow from Hegel, and Hegel is indeed profound — ergo, what Professor Heiberg says is also profound. In this way every theological student who limits his sermon to nothing but quotations from the Bible becomes the most profound of all, for the Bible certainly is the most profound book of all.&quot;Journals IVA 162 1843  === Later reception === Although ''Either/Or'' was Kierkegaard's first major book, it was one of his last books translated into English in 1944.Rée, Jonathan and Jane Chamberlain (eds). ''The Kierkegaard Reader'', Wiley-Blackwell, 2001, p.9. Frederick DeW. Bolman, Jr., insisted that reviewers consider the book in this way: &quot;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&quot;.Reply to Mrs. Hess, ''Journal of Philosophy'', Vol. 42, No.8, p. 219   Thomas Henry Croxall was impressed by 'A''s thoughts on music in the essay, &quot;The Immediate Stages of the Erotic, or Musical Erotic&quot;. Croxall argues that &quot;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&quot; and goes on to discuss the psychological, existential, and musical value of the work.A Strange but Stimulating Essay on Music, ''The Musical Times'' Vol. 90, No. 1272, p.46, February 1949  The ''Diary of a Seducer'' by itself, is a provocative novella, and has been reproduced separately from ''Either/Or'' several times.Published in 2006, with Gerd Aage Gillhoff as translator, ISBN 9780826418470Published in June 1966 by Ungar Pub Co., ISBN 9780804463577Published in March 1999, by Pushpin Press, translated by Alastair Hannay, ISBN 9781901285239Published in August 1997 by Princeton, with an introduction by John Updike, ISBN 9780691017372 John Updike said of the ''Diary'', &quot;In the vast literature of love, ''The Seducer's Diary'' is an intricate curiosity &amp;ndash; a feverishly intellectual attempt to reconstruct an erotic failure as a pedagogic success, a wound masked as a boast&quot;.  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 criterion for one to adopt an ethical way of life, many scholars have since replied to MacIntyre's accusation in ''Kierkegaard After MacIntyre''.[ After Anti-Irrationalism]  ==Notes==   ==The Web== *[ ''Either/or: a fragment of life'', By Søren Kierkegaard] online text from Google.com (accessed February 19, 2011) *[ ''The seducer's diary'', By Søren Kierkegaard], Howard Vincent Hong, Edna Hatlestad Hong (Google Books) *[ ''Friedrich Schlegel and Goethe, 1790-1802: a study in early German romanticism''], By John William Scholl, University of Michigan, 1906 *[ SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855).”, ''Either/Or''] SparkNotes LLC. 2005. (accessed February 19, 2011) *[ Summary and Comments on Kierkegaard's &quot;Diary of a Seducer&quot; from Either/Or , vol. I], by Dr. Scott H. Moore, Dept. of Philosophy, Baylor University (accessed February 19, 2011) *[ D. Anthony Storm's Commentary on ''Either/Or''] (accessed February 19, 2011)  *[ ''Either/Or: A Fragment of Life'', Søren Kierkegaard - Introduction] (accessed February 19, 2011)  