aesthetic / ethical

"the purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as i discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. by having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, i express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own." -kierkegaard

"as part of the dialectical approach that permeated his thinking, kierkegaard wished to put forward ideas from a number of different points of view. no single point of view was to be taken as correct or authoritative (or even as the author's). the reader was left to make up their own mind over the often conflicting ideas expressed.

in order to overcome the appearance of didacticism, plato had couched his ideas in the form of dialogues. but kierkegaard was a solitary. in his case, the arguments were taking place inside a single mind. . .

fundamentenally kierkegaard suggested that there are two ways we can live our life, the aesthetic and the ethical. each individual has the opportunity to make a conscious choice between these two. here lie the seeds of existentialism. . .

individuals who choose the aesthetic viewpoint basically live for themselves and their own pleasure. this need not be a shallow attitude to life. in working for our own pleasure, we almost invariable work for the pleasure of others too, if we are thinking in the longer term. indeed, it could be argued that the scientist who selflessly dedicates their entire life to curing a painful disease, sacrificing personal, domestic, and social pleasure in the process, is also living the aesthetic life if they do this simply because they enjoy scientific research. and in the context of modern psychology and the liberal society, it is difficult to see how anyone doesn't live the aesthetic life. . .

on a basic level, the individual who lives the aesthetic life is not in control of their existence. they live for the moment, prompted by pleasure. their life may be self-contradictory, lacking in stability or certainty. even on a more calculating level, the aesthetic life remains 'experimental.' we follow a certain pleasure only as long as it appeals to us.

the inadequacy of the aesthetic viewpoint is [that] it relies upon the external world. it 'expects everything from without.' in this way it is passive and lacking in freedom. it relies upon things that remain ultimately beyond the control of its will - such as power, possessions, or even friendship. it is contingent, dependent upon the 'accidental.' there is nothing 'necessary' about it.

. . . when an individual who lives the aesthetic life reflects on their existence, they soon realize that it is lacking any certainty or meaning. such a realization often leads to despair.

this despair may be repressed or ignored, and it can even be forgotten altogether by living a bourgeois existence. in other cases an individual may come to see this very despair as the meaning of their life. perversely they will reassure themselves that at least this is certain. if nothing else, this something of which they cannot be deprived. . .

in this way they can take pride in their 'heroic' despair and achieve a level of tranquil understanding. but kierkegaard is quick to point out the flaw in this 'seductive fatalism.' by accepting it we renounce something vital, something central to the very notion of our existence. we renounce even the possibility of freedom. by accepting that we are 'fated,' we disavow responsibility. . . we are not accountable for our lives; we are mere pawns in the hands of fate. . .

kierkegaard is very good at detecting the subterfuges of self-delusion. (in rejecting what he fundamentally believed during his student years, he had tried them all on himself.)

his stripping away of the layers of self-delusion points the way out of the aesthetic condition. we may find it difficult to agree with his ultimate conclusion (which was inevitably christianity, in a forbiddingly spiritual guise), but the steps by which he leads us along the way are compelling. he is leading us out of the abyss of despair, into a life where we take full responsibility for what we make of that life. . . in kierkegaard's words, the way out of the abyss was 'to will deeply and sincerely.'

this leads us to the alternative to the aesthetic life - the ethical. here subjectivity is the 'absolute,' and the foremost task is 'choosing oneself.' the individual who lives the ethical life creates themself by their choice, and self-creation becomes the goal of their existence. where the aesthetic individual merely accepts themself as they are, the ethical individual seeks to know themself and to change themself by their own choice. they will be guided in this by their self-knowledge and their willingness not to accept what they discover but to try to improve upon it.

here we see the categorical difference between the aesthetic and the ethical: the former is concerned with the outer world, the latter with the inner. the ethical individual seeks to know themself and tries to turn themself into something better - they aim at becoming 'an ideal self.' what is clear is that the ethical individual is no longer contingent, inconsistent, or accidental. . .

we can never live an exclusively ethical life - there will always necessarily be an element of the 'outer' and accidental about our lives. even when we have chosen the ethical, an element of the aesthetic is bound to remain.

by a process of dialectic this very unsatisfactoriness concerning the ethical now brings about a third viewpoint, which is a synthesis of the previous two opposites. this kierkegaard calls the religious, and he deals with it in his next work, fear and trembling. . .

in this work kierkegaard examines the notion of faith. this he characterizes as the ultimate subjective act. it is irrational - a 'leap' beyond all possible justification. it has nothing to do with ethics or good behavior. the ethical life, with its notion of self-creation and responsible choice, is unable fully to accommodate the leap of faith. such 'higher irrationality' lies beyond the ethical, which requires rational behavior. faith relates the individual to something higher, which is itself the essence of everything ethical. the religious can be viewed as a dialectical synthesis of the aesthetic and the ethical. it combines both the inner and outer life, certainty and uncertainty. . .

sacrifice is necessary if we wish to achieve something. the sacrifice is usually irrational and may well conflict with our previously understood notions of right and wrong. subjectively we often discover our purpose in life through an irrational leap of faith which has little or nothing to do with the ethical. but it is also how anyone gives their life a consuming purpose - by believing in themself. . . as kierkegaard put it, 'a poet's life begins in conflict with the whole of existence.'

. . . kierkegaard's aim was to make existence as intense as possible. only in this way do we see it as it is, see it for what it can be. existence is a colossal risk. we can never know whether the way we choose to live is the right way. anyone who realizes this fully, who makes themself constantly aware of it, is bound to feel anguish. such subjective truths, supported by no objective evidence, are grounded on nothing. we thus come to know the nothingness of existence, the utter uncertainty that lies at its heart. life is fundamentally tentative and elusive.

even consciousness itself is a contradiction. this is the intersection of actuality and possibility, the meeting place of what is and what is not. consciousness is thus a 'doubleness.' as kierkegaard noted, the word double and doubt stem from the same root. consciousness itself is a form of doubt. . .

he distinguishes between two different types of dread. first is the dread we experience when we are threatened by an external object (such as a roaring lion). the second type of dread results from an inner experience - our confrontation with the limitless possibilities of our own freedom. when we become aware of this freedom we understand its enormity and its irrationality. . . our state of mind makes us understand our freedom. and we realize our freedom to its fullest extent when we experience the state of mind called dread. . .

conscious despair is aware of itself. this comes in two forms. the false notion of conscious despair occurs when an individual knows they despair but imagines that others do not. ('no one knows the way i feel.') this drives them to even greater despair. the true notion of conscious despair realizes that despair is in fact part of the human condition, and as such a part of every self. this true despair is thus conscious of belonging to a self. for kierkegaard, the only way out of despair is for an individual to choose their own self and make the leap of faith." - paul strathern