8/18/2019 Subtitle (12)

1/5

[MUSIC]. After he returned to Copenhagen,Kierkegaard continued to work on his manuscript and he publishedeither or on February 20th, 1843. That is,two years after the Concept of Irony. Now as we've seen, in the secondpart of the Concept of Irony, Kierkegaard examined the use ofirony in the German romantics. Now here in either or Kierkegaardtries to create a literary character like that of the romantic ironistin the figure of the estete. So in a sense one can saythat in the concept of irony he gave a third person description of themodern ironist but then In either or he moves to a first person description fromthe perspective of the Ironist himself. Moreover he moves from an academicwork in the concept of irony which is in dialogue with other academic works andwhich quotes extensively in German and Greek to a literary work, which allowshim a greater degree of literary freedom. The first volume of either orostensibly written by the aesthete A, consists of a series of different texts inwhich we can discern many traces of his earlier analysis of romanticirony from his previous work. For example the final text in the firstpart is entitled The Seducer's Diary which tells the story of a certain Johannes whoseduces the naive young woman Cordelia. Johannes strikes the readeras calculating and unfeeling in the way he goesabout seducing Cornelia. He seems to disregard allconventional ethics and to act merely to satisfy his own desires. Johannes mentions humourously this place,

which is the old college called much of student life at the Universityof Copenhagen during Kierkegaard's time, took place at colleges like this one,where the students lived, ate and studied. Students gathered here to debatethe important topics of the day such as Martensen's lectures,Hegel's philosophy and so on. In The Seducerâ s Diary,Johannes the seducer writes, "If I wanted to impart toa young man a distaste for tobacco, I would take him into somesmoking room or other in Regensen.". But one of the clearest texts thatillustrates the esthete as a romantic ironist, is the first chapter ofthe book entitled, The Diepsolmoton. This is a series of scattered aphorismswritten and collected by aesthete. They seem to ramble fromone topic to another with no clear organization or rules. The aesthete seems tojot down

whatever happens to pop into his mind after he has an experience orreads a text. When one reads these aphorisms atfirst one has the impression that they are rather flippant and perhaps a bitconfusing, but as one continues to read, the world view andpersonality of the estate begin to emerge. Let's take a few examples. The aesthete writes I preferto talk with children. One may still dare to hope thatthey may become rational beings. But those who have already become that,good Lord. What does this tell us about Dia Fe? Children are naive andinexperienced in the ways of the world. According to the romantic view adultlife has been corrupted by society we have been taught to repress ourfeelings into a beta rules. Adults develop different waysto hide their true feelings they engage in strategies and

intrigues In order to get what they want. But this undermines honest and open humanrelations and corrupts individuals. Children are mercifully free from thissince it takes time to learn such things. Thus, the aesthete prefers totalk with children who are still in touch with their own basichuman feelings and emotions. They're true to themselves, anddon't try to dissemble who they are. To be sure, they've not yetdeveloped the rational capacity and thus, might be subject totemper tantrums occasionally. But even in this,there's a certain authenticity, and one knows exactly what

8/18/2019 Subtitle (12)

2/5

a child wants and doesn't want. Knows exactly where onestands with children. By contrast, with adults,one's never certain, since they often strategically hide who they really are andwhat their true intentions might be. Although adults have developed theirrationality, it's used in a negative way, to plot and deceive others. By sayingthat he prefers to talk withchildren, the aesthete is, in a sense, offering an indictment against bourgeoisculture, which corrupts people, and destroys the true humanspirit found in childhood. In another of the aphorisms, the aestheteexclaims, "I don't feel like doing anything." And he goes on to enumeratea stream of different activities that he doesn't feel like doing, some of whichare even the opposite of one another. What does this tell us about this person?The romantic ironist isalso a kind of nihilist. He doesn't believe that there's anythingthat has any intrinsic truth or value. We remember how the ironist exploited thisin order to invent himself, so to speak. But the negative side of this dispositionis that if nothing is true or viable, then there's noreason to do anything. For the person who truly believesthis it would be very difficult to be motivated to do anything at all. Why would you study hard if you reallybelieve that it didn't matter at all? Why would you read a book ortake a class if you really believed that it didn't matter or

nothing meaningful would ever come of it? This is the view of the aesthete, andit leaves him in a state of lethargy,with no inclination to do anything at all. In another aphorism the estete claims themost ludicrous of all ludicrous things, it seems to me,is to be busy in the world, to be a man who is brisk at his meals andbrisk at his work. Here the estete criticizes the sense ofimportance that people invest in bourgeois life They take themselves very seriously,and their work and activities become monumental laborsof world historical importance. From the perspective of the nihilist,none of this really matters. Nothing in bourgeois life hasany deeper or lasting meaning. Seduced by the routine of daily life,

people become unreflective and fail to see the wider perspective. Instead, theydeceive themselves and try to conceive of their lives asprofoundly important and meaningful. They don't see that they will die andit will all have come to nothing. They could be struck by a fallingroof tile and die on the spot. This example that the aestheteuses sounds absurd at first, but it underscores the fragility of life andhuman existence. It reminds us that forhowever busy we are with our lives and daily activities, we should not losesight of the ultimate questions of life. We become absurd and comic when wepretend that we will live forever, and when we invest our trivial pursuits andendeavors with great importance. The voice of the nihilistcomes out perhaps most clearly in the aphorism that begins,how empty and meaningless life is. The aesthete contemplates

the death of a man. When we experience the deathof another person. It's always an occasion torecall our own mortality. We feel comfort that we stillhave some time left to live. But the aseet's point is that this islittle consolation in the big picture. Even a long human life is shorton a larger cosmic scale. What is really won byliving a few years longer? Moreover, the length of lifedoesn't invest it with any meaning. From this perspective, even things thatmight seem important, such as life and death, are, in fact,matters of indifference. Two aphorisms further down in the text,

8/18/2019 Subtitle (12)

3/5

he beckons come, sleep and death. You promise nothing, you hold everything. In another aphorism,the contrast between childhood and adulthood is again thematized. The aesthete recalls that when he wasyoung, he didn't laugh at things, presumably since he was onlylearning how the world worked. Then, when he learned about life andsociety, he could only laugh at it. The aesthete gives a long list of thingsthat are taken to be important by bourgeois society and claims thatthey're all worthy of laughter. He writes, I saw that the meaning oflife was to make a living, its goal to become a councilor, that the rich delightof love was to acquire a well-to-do girl, that the blessedness of friendship was tohelp each other in financial difficulties, that wisdom was whateverthe majority assumed it to be. That enthusiasm was to give a speech, that courage was to riskbeing fined ten dollars. That cordiality was to say mayit do you good after a meal. That piety was to go tocommunion once a year. This I saw and I laughed. The estate thus openly mocksthe virtues of bourgeoise society. In each case, he adjoins the readerto deposit higher ideals. Surely love must be somethingmore than marrying a rich girl. Friendship must be something more thanloaning money to someone in need. Religious piety must be something morethan just going to communion once a year. The aesthete doesn't elaborateon these things, but it's clear that he thinks that bourgeois

culture makes a mockery of them. By means of these rich aphorisms, Kierkegaard introduces his readerto the character of the aesthete. Which was a figure that he beganto study in the concept of irony in connection of Schlaglein romantic irony. Today we know either or is Kierkegaard'sgreat breakthrough work but at the time the immediate receptionof the work was very mixed. It caused a great stir in intellectualcircles of the Danish Golden Age. People were intrigued by the odd pseudonymVictor Erameta and they saw in the book something very original but the workwas also offensive for some people. Part one of the text, that is the part written by the estate,seemed to many to display as one of arrogant superiority that many people alsosaw in Kierkegaard's own personality. He seems to take himself to be more

intelligent than his fellow citizens, and this places him beyondthe sphere of bourgeois ethics. Especially, the diary of the seducerfrom the first part of the work offended the sensibilitiescontemporary reader. Yule harnessed the seducers cynicalmanipulative behavior made for uncomfortable reading. And one asked, what kind of a mindcould've produced such a figure. the leading literary critic of the day,Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Give a short review of the work in his journal,Inteligensible, on March the first, 1843. Heinberg lived here in this house with hiswife, the actress Johanna Louisa Heinberg. Heinberg seems to have been ratherannoyed by Kierkegaard's either or, which he regarded as poorly organized andrambling. his review is thus largely

dismissive of Kierkegaard's effort. Heiberg begins by poking fun atthe enormous size of the work by writing, it is therefore almost with respect toits volume that the book must be called a monster, for it is already impressivein its size before one knows what spirit lives in it, and I do not doubt that ifthe author wanted to let it be exhibited for money, he would take in just as muchas by letting it be read for money.". Here Heiberg sets a tonethat seems to indicate that he doesn't take the workentirely seriously. While he grants that the book containssome occasional interesting reflections or formulations He says that it's

8/18/2019 Subtitle (12)

4/5

confusing and difficult to follow. Moreover he claims the readerloses patience with the author and quickly wants to move ahead. Heiberg imagines a reader who after havingfinished part one loses patience and closes the book with the words enough! I have enough of either,and I'll have no or. Kierkegaard was deeply offended bythis and could never forgive Heiberg, he responded to it with an article inthe journal The Fatherland, dated March 5, 1843, still under the pseudonymVictor The article is entitled, A Word of Thanks to Professor Heinberg. Kierkegaard in a sense takes the sameapproach as Socrates does with his interlocutors. He begins by acknowledging Heiberg'sgreat expertise in literary affairs, just as Socrates begins byacknowledging that the other person is an expert in whatever it is heclaims to know something about. Kierkegaard goes on to mock satiricallydifferent passages from Heiberg's review. Heiberg Cassius review, in terms ofthe experience of an imaginary reader whom he refers to asthe impersonal pronoun of one. Cuhard humorously seizes on this and constantly refers toone's view of the work. At the end Kierkegaard exuberantly thanksHeiberg for his insightful review. He does so with such enthusiasm thatthere can be no doubt about the sarcasm. He has Victor Arameta write quote Forall this I thank you, Professor! I rejoice that learning is soswiftly imitated. I thank you for

wanting to communicate it so quickly. If I were to choose the personin literature who I would thank, first of all I would choose you,professor. This profuse expression of gratitude can be seen to mirror Socrates'morereserved sarcasm when he claims, for example, to want to learn from Euthafruand to want to become his student. The natural reaction of most writerswho suffer a negative book review is to react by trying to point outthings that the book does well, and thus trying to refute the criticismsthat have been raised against it. But Kierkegaard doesn't try to defend themerits of his work in any positive way. Instead, his approach is negative,just like that of Socrates. He seems on the face of it, to grantthe truth of Heiberg's claims, and then indirectly to undermine him. With either or, Kierkegaard began a

remarkably productive period of writing He lived here, in this building, on a streetcalled Norregata during this time. Specifically, from April1840 until October 1844. This was where he lived both before andafter his trip to Berlin. Only eight months afterthe publication of either or, three new books appeared on the same day,October 16th, 1843. These works were repetition written by thesynonymous author Constantine Constantius. Feeling trembling by Johannes Di Silencio,and three edifying discoursesby it's own name. With regard to three edifying discourses. This is one of a series ofcollections of edifying or upbuilding works that Kierkegaard

published between 1843 and 1844. In each of these years, he publishedindividual collections of two, three andfour edifying discourses respectively. It is then later collectedby his publisher. And published under the title of 18Edifying or Upbuilding Discourses. These texts are generally regarded assome of the key works of Kierkegaard as a Christian author. They're all signed inKierkegaard's name and are not attributed topseudonymous authors. They're moreover intended tobe more popular works than the pseudonymous writings. They addressed the common

8/18/2019 Subtitle (12)

5/5

religiousbeliever without any sophisticated or complex argumentation. There's no direct reference for exampleto Greek or German philosophers by name, although Socrates is referredto as the wise man of old. Kierkegaard returned to Berlin fora short stay in May of 1843. And this provided him with the inspirationfor the short book Repetition. This novella is the story of a youngman who asks the question of whether or not a repetition is possible. Like Kierkegaard, the young man had beenin Berlin once before, and so he hits upon the idea of making a return trip tosee if he can repeat his experience. He thus goes back tothe Prussian capital and tries to visit the old places thathe went to during his first visit. But he finds that many thingshave changed in the interim and it's impossible to recreate hisoriginal experience of the city. Not only has the city itself changed,but he has changed. So the way in which he experiencesthe city is also different. His conclusion from this experiment isthat no true repetition is really possible since things are always changing. Given this, one might think thatthe concept of repetition isn't a very important one for Kierkegaard,but in fact, this isn't the case. It's quite an important idea for him. He speaks of repetition inthe sense of appropriation. There are for example, a number ofabstract, ethical principals or rules that the individual must appropriate in

terms of his or her particular situation. When one appropriates these rulesin a concrete action, one is, in a sense repeating the original rule. If there were no elementof repetition here, then one couldn't be saidto be following the rule. In this sense, Kierkegaard's exploresthe concept in the context of ethics. The third work that appearedon the same day, Fear and Trembling, is one ofKierkegaard's best known works. In this work, he takes as a central motif,the story from the Old Testament, about God's command to Abraham,that he sacrifice his son, Isaac. The work is divided into three chapterscalled problemata, or problems, which refers to the problems raised byAbraham's reaction to the command of God. In this work, Kierkegaard,through a pseudonym, focuses on the difficult demands of faith,

using Abraham as his example. Scholar's have often taken his analysishere to be presenting a model for the difficulties involvedin Christian faith. [MUSIC]