Book Review: Either/Or by Soren Kierkegaard--Avia

 Introduction and Background: 

Appearing in 1843, philosopher Soren Kierkegaard released two volumes of his work Either/Or following a breakup with his fiancee. The volumes are written under a series of pseudonyms, “A—The Young Man” and “B—Judge William”, and imply the existence of two separate authors of the book, though these aliases were eventually traced back to Kierkegaard as the sole writer. Kierkegaard’s dedication to anonymity throughout his works even led him to adopt a pseudonym for the editor—called “Victor Eremita”—a spot he filled himself. This pen name is Latin for “victorious hermit”, an intentionally unique choice made in respect to his poetic vision as an idiosyncratic author. 

Summary:

“Rank, knowledge, renown, 

Friendship, pleasure and means, 

All is but wind, but smoke: 

To say it better, all is nought.” 

These words introduce the work of Either/Or by Soren Kierkegaard. Immediately, he begins with comparing civilized society (“rank, knowledge renown”) with elementary connections to happiness (“friendship, pleasure, and means”). This comparison sets up the remaining arguments of the publication, where Kierkegaard proposes that individual purpose exists on a spectrum of aesthetics to ethics. Essentially, Either/Or examines the opposition between pleasurable, sensation-seeking conduct and principled self-control. 

Volume 1, written by “A”—The Young Man—follows the life of the aesthete. The Young Man writes of loving pleasure, the sensory world, and excitement along borderline hedonistic suggestions. Art for art’s sake, beauty, seduction, and more are detailed in this section of the work—serving to remind rigid readers of carefree styles of life. Not only material pleasures, but emotions free from civic judgment are delineated in “A”’s perspective—something we come to realize is simply Kierkegaard’s uninhibited and indulgent side. Art and relaxation are glorified in Volume 1, though there is a limit to “A”’s acknowledgement. The Young Man develops to love pleasure so much that he finds evil in ironically inevitable boredom and repetition: “Idleness, we are accustomed to say, is the root of all evil. To prevent this evil, work is recommended.... Idleness as such is by no means a root of evil; on the contrary, it is truly a divine life, if one is not bored....”. As The Young Man indulges in life, he finds himself only able to live in the present, eventually abandoning commitment and love in search for stimulating activity. Thus, throughout volume 1, Kierkegaard highlights both the joy and pain in the extremely esthetic lifestyle—full of pleasure yet impermanence. 

Volume 2 differs greatly from the first. By comparison with the previous pseudonym, “B”—Judge William—lives a rather responsible and dignified life. He finds The Young Man to be incredibly selfish, as “A”’s immoderate and hedonistic lifestyle would require the neglect of societal roles, standards, and duties. Judge William lives ethically, therefore his decisions are shaped by perceived societal good, rather than sensory satisfaction. For example, Judge William, unlike The Young Man, strongly advocates for the institution of marriage throughout his volume of the work; As a symbol for the civilized, conscientious, and committed, he fervently disagrees with the seductory and nomadic romance of “A”—instead defending eternal devotion as a means of being. Judge William concerns himself with doing good, giving further advice on becoming a functioning and worthy member of society before finally offering a dissenting opinion. In a chapter titled “Ultimatum”, Kierkegaard offers that the life of the purely ethical man is not realistic. Instead, he claims the compromise must be made between the aesthetic and ethical—between the surface level and metaphysical state of humanity. It seems that, in this sense, Kierkegaard’s ultimate ideology lied searching for balance between the two extremes of aesthetician and judge. 

Analysis and Review: 

With its many perspectives and varying points of view, Kierkegaard’s work may be difficult to appreciate in its initial impression. However, the strength of his claims in Either/Or remain relevant even to this day. While most modern students and scholars will not find themselves in the position of a self-destructive pleasure-seeker or an over-concerned justice, the conflict between social responsibility and individual vigor plagues everyone regardless. Taking the higher road in an argument versus exploding for the sake of release, for example, circles back to Kierkegaard’s proposals almost 200 years ago. Following his advice, I find that much progress can be made in modern society by compromising between personal and public interests, thus demonstrating the significant social and literary value of Either/Or itself. 

Note: Modern readers may find it especially difficult to understand the merit in The Young Man’s perspective, which is central around immediate pleasure and gratification, but this was intentional in Kierkegaard’s commitment to the extreme portrayal of his aliases. In psychodynamic terms, The Young Man “A” might serve to represent our core selves: the Id—while Judge William “B”: the superego. It is only through finding balance in Ego that both these sides of Kierkegaard’s vision may come to agreement. Ultimately, the lifestyle one chooses to pursue between “A” and “B” does not necessarily matter. Rather, it is the degree of medium one is willing to take that determines our realities. As said in the first lines of the book, “All [the ethical, the aesthetic] is but wind, but smoke: To say it better, all is nought.”