Søren Kierkegaard

George L. Stengren

Steven L. Ross

Either/or

This is one of my favorite things I've read. Reading the Diapsalmata was quite interesting, but this concluding paragraph really stands out above the rest to me.

I get his point generally, despising the hedonistic life of pleasure and aesthetic desire, but to conclude such deeply dark and morbidly introspective writing with this wonderfully haunting story and its depressing irony, it's so beautiful and perfect. I felt like I was transported to the confrontation that Kierkegaard wants us to embrace; I was forced to reconcile with the arrogance of being a man who always aims to have laughter on his side. How beautiful.

Also, to choose laughter above youth, beauty, power, life, sex and all other aesthetic desires, it speaks to the power of irony that Kierkegaard so dearly loves and sews into his work. This quote from his thesis on Socratic irony really stuck out to me and helped me understand his perspective on expressing ideas through irony.

"If we turn back to the foregoing general description of irony as infinite absolute negativity, it is adequately suggested therein that irony is no longer directed against this or that particular phenomenon, against a particular existing thing, but that the whole of existence has become alien to the ironic subject and the ironic subject in turn alien to existence, that as actuality has lost its validity for the ironic subject, he himself has to a certain degree become unactual."

What a great paragraph to conclude the Diapsalmata. Like the quote on back of the book says, "What if everything in the world were a misunderstanding, what if laughter were really tears?"

Kay so Queso

Something wonderful happened to me. I was transported into the seventh heaven. All the gods sat there in assembly. By special grace I was accorded the favour of a wish. 'Will you,' said Mercury, 'have youth, or beauty, or power, or a long life, or the prettiest girl, or any other of the many splendours we have in our chest of knick-knacks. So, choose, but just one thing.' For a moment I was at a loss. Then I addressed myself to the gods as follows: 'Esteemed contemporaries, I choose one thing: always to have the laughter on my side.' Not a single word did one god offer in answer; on the contrary they all began to laugh. From this I concluded that my prayer was fulfilled and that the gods knew how to express themselves with taste, for it would hardly have been fitting gravely to answer, "It has been granted you."

I like this. I think young love will always feel special because of its exciting nature, but this kinda makes me think of the self-deception that occurs in young love. It reminds me of something about Vilhelm in the introduction that says a man has an unspecified lust for life and that a woman "awakens" this unspecified lust and "specifies" it. Like a man may not be in love with life until he meets a woman who makes him realize the love he has for life's content. Idk, something I'm thinking through.

I have more to say on Soren and love, but the thing that sticks out to me here is how badly this man, 'A', wants to feel his first love again. I think it's a completely natural desire, but it's probably really as simple as adolescence is a time of intense feeling and passion (due to hormones and shi, yeah, ik, I'm so deep), so this man is just such a victim to his desire for good feelings that he can't open himself up to any idea of companionate love. Disappointing, and a good reminder from Mr. Kierkegaard to choose the life of faith! Although his writing of Vilhelm's love also paints a picture of an egoist so we'll see what happens

Then I am reminded of my youth and my first love - I longed then, now I only long for my first longing. What is youth? A dream. What is love? The dream's content.

I didn’t expect to enjoy the preface so much, but I was totally enamored with his infatuation with the escritoire. It’s such an interesting way to set up his philosophical insights. 

Also, I didn’t expect this escritoire to birth the Either and the Or writings that are then presented. It’s an interesting representation of how his (our) indulgence in aesthetic pleasure leads to this critical dichotomy within oneself.

Oh and I love that he acts like the writings aren’t his works (and creates this whole backstory for it lmao). The man is truly dedicated to irony and I love him for it.

So the escritoire was set up in my apartment, and as my pleasure in the first period of my enamourmnent had been to look upon it from the street, so now I walked by it at home.

I was skeptical of the introduction (just cuz I’m too much of Kierkegaard a fanboy) but I was absolutely elated to see it conclude with a position I agree with. I’ve heard Nietszche is the alter ego of Kierkegaard (having chose the either rather than the or) and this very eloquently combines the two.

I wonder if this is perhaps a bit too arrogant though. I guess if Kierkegaard and Nietszche meant to push us to think harder, they provide an interesting idea as to how faithful art can provide a way out, but idk. Part of what I respect about them is their willingness to embrace difficult questions and be a unique individual, and I think this take that splits the difference completely misses the point of being a brutally honest individual.

Having said that, I’m not as Great as these men and will gladly accept the compromise, but I’m excited to see if Kierkegaard can change my mind in the next few hundred pages.

An aesthetic ‘either’ is one that its ‘or’ can sympathize with because that is where it can come from; and it has the imagination and depth needed to grasp the force of appeals made it to choose the ‘or’.

Interesting ending to the preface by Kierkegaard. It intrigues me that he addresses his reader and ‘lady reader’ differently. Personally, I found the lady reader insight way more helpful, but is perhaps that’s just Kierkegaard calling me a pussy? 😂

I just find it so interesting how much more politely and delicately he addresses the female reader. I’m unsure of what to make of it. It seems more respectful but also more condescending? Idk, not my place to say but it’s an interesting nuance of Kierkegaard that I’d like to understand better.

‘Go out into the world, then; avoid if possible the attention of the critics, call on a single reader in a favourable attention of the moment and should you stumble upon a lady reader, I would say: “My fair reader, in this book you will find something you ought perhaps not to know, and something else you might well profit from knowing; so read the first something in such a way that you who have read it can be as though one who has not read it, the other in such a way that you who have read it can be as though one who has not forgotten what has been read." As editor I will only append the wish that the book meets the reader in a favourable hour, and that the fair lady reader succeeds in scrupulously following B's well-intentioned advice.

Axel with Valborg, Homer with the Trojan War, Raphael with Catholicism, Mozart with Don Juan. A wretched unbelief exists which seems to contain much healing healing power. 

Im sorry but this man does not stop spitting. 

He’s so wonderfully melancholic and ironic; the introduction to this section is wonderful

It thinks such a connection fortuitous and sees in it no more than a lucky concurrence of the different forces at play in life. It thinks it an accident that the lovers get each other, an accident that they love each other; there were a hundred other girls he could have been just as happy with, whom he could have loved just as deeply. It thinks many a poet has existed who would have been just as immortal as Homer had that marvellous material not been seized on by him, …

I’m gonna say it just one more time, this is amazing

Mozart has literally been my go to reading music on the few occasions I settle down with a book and background music, and I’m literally listening to him on the airplane while reading this rn

Kierkegaard knocking my socks off, the mad lad’s done it again (insert Rio Ferdinand “THIS IS WHAT HE DOES” meme)

Edit: This passage’s theme of immortality and egoistic loving of brilliance is killing me rn, I love it.

Immortal Mozart! You, to whom I owe everything to whom I owe the loss of my reason, the wonder that over whelmed my soul, the fear that gripped my inmost being

I don’t know if agree with this. I appreciate the point he’s making, especially with respect to Homer; however, I think he’s touching on the idea of a Magnum Opus and not so much the immortal value of an artist’s body of work

Interested in what more he has to say though, I think George Lucas is a particularly interesting modern example of this distinction

Now Mozart's case is similar: there is one work alone of his which makes him a classic composer and absolutely immortal. That work is Don Giovanni. 

This makes me happy I read his work on Socratic irony prior to reading this

Also I love his disgust with Hegel haha, idk if I agree but I damn respect the intellectual rigor with which he strikes

Strictly speaking, one would be urging the opposite of what one really intended, as always happens when one operates abstractly in dialectical categories, where it isn't just that we say one thing and mean another but we say the other; we say not what we think we are saying but the opposite. So it is when we make the subject-matter the principle of classification.

Either/or quotes

Join the club