Reddit reviews Either/Or: A Fragment of Life (Penguin Classics)
We found 6 Reddit comments about Either/Or: A Fragment of Life (Penguin Classics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Penguin Classics
There once existed this philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (most people just call him Hegel for short). Hegel was an extremely influential philosopher during his time, and many people considered themselves Hegelian philosophers. The thing about Hegel is that he's very difficult to understand, and his works were interpreted in many different ways. Basically, you had three schools of thought regarding Hegel (we'll call them the Post-Hegelian philosophers): right-wing Hegelians, left-wing Hegelians, and another group that was a reaction towards left-wing Hegelians. The right-wing Hegelians believed that Hegel was saying Christianity is basically true, but that the Bible speaks in metaphors. The left-wing Hegelians believed Hegel was saying Christianity wasn't true at all, and thus he was advocating atheism (Marx fell into this category). The final group believed that the left-wingers were correct, that Hegel was saying Christianity was false, and therefore Hegelianism is an evil fraud (Kierkegaard). The final group did not align themselves with the right-wing group, because they felt that the Bible is literal (doesn't speak in metaphors), and that the right-wingers were misled.
Marx puts forward a theory of alienation, where our internal issues can be fixed via society. Kierkegaard believes you can fix your problems by establishing the right relationship with God. However, Kierkegaard also believes that one must fix themselves before anything else. (Marx believes on must fix society, and the fixing of self will follow from that). So, Kierkegaard focuses on self rather than society.
Now, the thing that's kind of interesting about Kierkegaard is that he's not really a philosopher -- in fact, he despises philosophers. He is a literary figure in Denmark who happens to find himself in a Denmark that becomes very Hegelian -- even the religious establishment goes Hegelian. Kierkegaard makes religion the topic on which he constructs his literature, thus his literature espouses much of his religious beliefs.
In Either/Or Kierkegaard puts forward two stages of human existence: the aesthetic stage, and the ethical stage. In order to better understand how Kierkegaard can reconcile his Christianity with his existentialism, it is important to understand these two stages. So, below I go into a very minor amount of detail on them, and in doing so I give you an incomplete picture. This is just scratching the surface, and if you find yourself interested in the subject I highly recommend reading the books I suggest at the end of this post.
The Aesthetic Stage
The aesthete is concerned not with the self, but rather with the world that they live in. They want the world to become a work of art. The aesthete lives for the immediate satisfaction of his senses, which conflicts with the aesthete's ability to reflect on his own life, and the way he in which he lives it. The aesthete moves from one pleasure to another, and enjoys himself, but he lacks introspection. The aesthete is not immoral, but rather pre-moral. Also, aestheticism does not equal hedonism. The aesthete abides by morals insofar as they are not boring or inartistic.
The Ethical Stage
To become an ethical human one first needs to take very seriously the norms of the community. The main thing that distinguishes Kierkegaard from Hegel here is choice. It's not a process of evolution that one becomes moral (Hegel), but rather you choose to be ethical. This means that you also have the choice not to be ethical (existentialism!). There can be no ethical life until you've chosen that there can be a difference between good and bad. In the ethical stage one can reflect on one's life, and thus is accountable for living a moral life (or not). The ethical person no longer sees the world as the most important part of living, but rather he now sees himself as the most important part of the world -- his inner existence is more important than anything else. The ethical person now has the choice to take control of his/her own life, or to not do so. The ethical person works towards being a moral and good person by shaping himself as a moral and good person, thus he is the most important aspect in his being, not society or any other external sources (existentialism!).
The Religious Stage
This is discussed in Fear and Trembling, not Either/Or. This stage is not reached by being ethical or anything else. In fact, it is my interpretation that Kierkegaard actually says the person in the ethical stage cannot reach the religious stage, but that's my spin and I could be wrong -- I didn't mention this, but Kierkegaard thinks that living in the Aesthetic stage leads one to despair, and suicide. However, it is my belief that in the state of despair in the Aesthetic stage, one makes the leap of faith to the religious stage, thus skipping the ethical stage entirely. Again, this could be wrong.
End Stages
So, we are still left with the question, if Kierkegaard looks to the external (i.e., God), then how can he be considered an existentialist? The point that Kierkegaard is making with these stages is that we have a choice in this stages, thus we are responsible for our own lives. We have the choice of being religious, or being an aesthete. We are in control of our own lives, therefore we are responsible for everything that happens to us. It's important to note that these stages are not like Freud's stages of development. An aesthete can choose to be an aesthete for his entire life, and never enter a different stage. An ethical person chooses the ethical stage. Kierkegaard believes deeply in personal reflection, and the fact that we are responsible for our own lives. This is existentialism.
TL;DR (and encapsulated for a 5 year old): It is true that Kierkegaard looks to God, but his work is still existential because he focuses on the fact that we are free to choose our lives, and thus are responsible for how our lives are going. As well, Kierkegaard places a lot of importance on reflecting on ourselves, and the importance of the self rather than the world.
Further Reading
Either/Or
Fear and Trembling
The Living Thoughts of Kierkegaard - This book gives you a clear picture of Kierkegaard's religious beliefs. Also, gives a decent understanding of his philosophy, but not great.
Kierkegaard: An Introduction - This book makes things amazingly clear about Kierkegaard's philosophy.
Camus was both an essay writer and a fiction author, so reading a piece of each is a good idea. The Stranger would be his best work of fiction to read, and "The Myth of Sisyphus" his best essay. It really lays out his ideas regarding the absurd. It usually appears in a book called The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Both books, especially the first, are in most libraries.
I haven't read Kierkegaard, but I've heard that Either/Or is both a simple read and puts his ideas on display. If you'd prefer to read it online, here's a link that I found.
Miguel de Unamuno "Tragic Sense of Life"
Paulo Freire "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"
John Ruskin "Unto This Last"
William Morris "News From Nowhere"
Marge Piercy "Woman on the Edge of Time"
Aristotle "Nicomachean Ethics"
Tommaso Campanella "City of the Sun" / Michel de Montaigne "Of Cannibals"
Habermas "Philosophical Discourse of Modernity"
Soren Kierkegaard "Either/Or"
Kafka "The Castle"
Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There"
Of each, I would do as the King says: start at the beginning, and go on until you reach the end: then stop.
Sartre presented a lecture called "Existentialism and Humanism," which can now be found in print as Existentialism is a Humanism. It's almost like an Existentialism manefesto, per se. The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus is a good treatise on existentialism (Absurdism, really, but it'll do).
I would not hesitate to start reading fiction novels that have Existentialist themes. Camus' The Stranger, Sartre's Nausea, and Dostyevsky's Notes From the Underground are just a few that will find your studies well.
As for secondary literature, the only text I can knowledgeably recommend is Existentialism For Dummies, as I'm currently working my way through it. It's actually not as bad as you might think coming from the "For Dummies" series. It doesn't go too in-depth, and ideas are very concise and oftentimes humorous.
I have also heard good things about David Cogswell's Existentialism For Beginners, though I have never read it myself.
If your niece feels comfortable with this level of writing and philosophical examination, it is almost imperative to read Kierkegaard's Either/Or and Fear and Trembling, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, and Sartre's Being and Nothingness, among others. It is good to have some background understanding of Kant and perhaps have a few essays by Schopenhauer under your belt leading up to the more rigorous academics like Heidegger and Hegel.
Good luck, and happy reading!
First off, thank you responding so quickly, when I searched this in english I came across this (640 pages) and also this (702 pages) and this (536 pages), but when I try to find the turkish translation I can only find this (117 pages, seems to be about Johannes Climacus?).
I mean... what you claimed is analogous to:
> Please go ahead and link me to the literature claiming that objective morality exists.
Have you heard of Kant? The vast majority of moral philosophy since Kant is positivist. Consequentialism, utilitarianism, realism, cognitivism, humanism, etc.
> I refer you back to my last comment. An individual can believe that something is moral but not be obligated by it. I am certain that you are not obligated to do every single thing that you believe to be moral.
Then you aren’t a moral agent right? And if you are a moral agent, then to be a rational actor you’d have to act rationally. To be a rational actor, are you obligated to act rationally?
PS do you want me to write a summary of why moral realism is so prevalent so you don’t have to read them all? It’s super straightforward logically.