Soren Kierkegaards Either Or Explained

TITLE: Søren Kierkegaard’s Either/Or EXPLAINED (Full Analysis) CHANNEL: Two Dudes Philosophy DATE: 2025-06-21 ---TRANSCRIPT--- either or might just be one of the most confusing works of philosophy I have ever read, but also one of the most rewarding. Besides the fact that it is over 600 pages in length, and it took me forever to finish reading it, like most things worth your time in life, greatness usually comes wrapped with a lot of confusion and just a hint of suffering. But if you’re even remotely interested in existential philosophy, it’s a must readad in your shelf. Kikiak is often called the first existentialist and either or can be considered the perfect starting line in exploring existentialism. It is one of his earliest major works. Other notable works being fear and trembling, the concept of anxiety and the sickness unto death. As is the case with most of Kirkart’s works, it was first published under a surname in 1843 for this book that was Victor Eramita, a title that quite literally translates to victorious hermit in Latin. In either or, Kiki cuts straight to a timeless philosophical question. How should one live? Should life’s focus be hedonistic in nature, chasing joy and following our desires? Or should we focus on what is considered a more morally righteous life? A life of commitment and security and more importantly which of these is the better way to live? These two modes of living Kikat calls the aesthetic and the ethical. And as should be immediately clear, they give us two very distinct life approaches. Now you might be thinking why choose between these lifestyles at all? Why not just mix and match? you know, get the best of both worlds. And yes, that was a reference to Hannah Montana. Kirkagard would probably hand you the book himself and tell you to read the title again slowly. It’s called either or, not both. And Kart captures this tension with biting irony in one of the book’s most famous passages. If you marry, you will regret it. If you do not marry, you will also regret it. If you marry or if you do not marry, you will regret both. Whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret both. Laugh at the world’s follyies, you will regret it. Weep over them, you will also regret it. If you laugh at the world’s follyies or if you weep over them, you will regret both. Believe a girl, you will regret it. If you do not believe her, you will also regret it. If you believe a girl or you do not believe her, you will regret both. Whether you believe a girl or you do not believe her, you will regret both. If you hang yourself, you will regret it. If you do not hang yourself, you will regret it. If you hang yourself or you do not hang yourself, you will regret both. Whether you hang yourself or you do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This gentleman is the sum of all practical wisdom. Now, back to those two different approaches, the aesthetic and the ethical. In either or, Kikiga talks through the lens of fictional characters. Kind of in the same way as him always using madeup names for his books. Each character represents the aesthetic or the ethical. They write to each other to convince each other which lifestyle is superior over the other. And obviously, they disagree on almost everything. The estid lives a life focused on the pursuit of pleasure and desire. But as soon as his lust for pleasure is attained, he becomes bored and needs to move on. This is where Kirkart mentions Mosart’s Don Joani, an opera based off of the story of the great lover Don Huan. Don Juan, according to Ky being the prime example of an ait because he is constantly chasing a new lover. He is quite literally already imagining his next partner while still being with his current one. All in an attempt to prevent boredom which is the root of all evil as boredom is the aid’s greatest enemy in achieving true aesthetic pleasure. The character of the second part of the book called be or judge Wilhelm lives according to the ethical mode of existence. He is not bothered by simple pleasures or desires and instead dedicates himself to the pursuit of a moral lifestyle in which marriage and a meaningful relationship stand central. This character urges the aesthetic young man of the first part of the book to abandon his obsession over a lifestyle based purely on desire and to commit to things that will last like a meaningful relationship. But as I mentioned earlier, sadly none seem to be able to convince one another. The aesthetic character criticizes the ethical one that his lifestyle is really boring and vice versa. The ethical character criticizes the aesthetic character that his life is bleak and superficial. This ambiguity is what makes either or quite a fun read because in the end who makes the most sense and in a certain way maybe both characters showcase Kiki’s own personal ambiguity in some form it reminds me of Carl Yung when he writes about shadow sides unconscious parts of ourselves that we don’t want to face but which we necessarily need to face to discover our life’s purpose. And that’s exactly what these characters are struggling with. After about 500 pages of these characters going back and forth, Kirkad starts pointing beyond the aesthetic and the ethical towards something else, the religious. He doesn’t spell it out fully in either or, but he drops hints that maybe neither pleasure nor duty is enough to provide us with a fulfilling life. that maybe what’s missing is fate, not as a belief system, but as an individual way of living that goes beyond both aesthetic enjoyment and moral responsibility. In this religious mode of life, meaning is found in a personal relationship with the absolute, not in religion as institution, which Kiki openly criticized, but in something absurd and very personal, something that can’t be rationally justified. Now, at this point, you might be thinking, “Wait, I thought this guy was an existentialist.” And now we’re talking about all this god stuff. And I would agree that this makes Kirkart a bit confusing at times. So bear with me for a second while I enlighten you. Kirkart is often called the first existentialist because of his emphasis on the individual and the freedom, despair, and absurdity that comes with being one. But instead of freedom leading to some secular form of self-fululfillment, Gikiat’s point is that fate is still very much the best option to deal with these things. This is what is often coined as the leap of faith. An idea that he works out more deeply in fear and trembling using the story of Abraham and Isaac as an example. Let’s make a small field trip and look at what Kiki means with the leap of faith because it’s pretty crucial to understand where he is going with his entire either or dilemma because it is not as simple as just believing for the sake of it to truly exist as a singular individual. Kiart states that we must go beyond the aesthetic and the ethical stages of life and enter something far more radical, the religious life. However, for Kirkart, most so-called religious people never actually live religiously. They simply follow along with the herd. True religious life in his view has nothing to do with following normative ethics. It is having a personal absolute relationship with God. A relationship that at times may contradict the ethical. That is why he uses the biblical story of Abraham as an example. Abraham is told to sacrifice his son by God. From a moral standpoint, Abraham’s willingness is horrifying. It violates the universal command not to kill. But for Kirkart, this is precisely the point. Abraham doesn’t act out of normativity or some aesthetic ideal. He acts out of fate. What Kirkart calls the teological suspension of the ethical. This might all sound pretty obvious and you might be thinking what’s so mind-blowing about Kirkat’s entire philosophical framework in this book. To understand this a bit better, it helps to look at the historical context and the dominant philosophical school of thought that Kirkat was pushing against in his time, German idealism, specifically Hegelian philosophy. Hegel’s thesis is that human history unfolds according to a grand rational system. The individual finds freedom by identifying with the universal through participation in ethical life and society. Everything even religion is integrated into this dialectical process of development. The individual is a moment within a larger historical and logical process. Philosophy in this era was understood as a system that tries to understand the human being in constructs or systems. a paradigm that is based upon a scientific way of thinking and or boy Kirkiat was having none of it. Kirkiat is pretty much one of the very first thinkers that asks what does it mean to be a human being and what is it like to be a human being? To explain why we need to understand how distinguishes between objective and subjective truth. A structure or system like in Hegel’s philosophy implies that one looks at it from the outside like an architect making a plan to build a house. The architect can take this plan and show it to his clients explaining exactly how the house will be built. And if he’s good at his job at least, he can show this map to basically everyone and they will understand exactly how he will build it. You insert objectivity. But the question, what does it mean to be a human being? How should one live? Can only be answered from the inside. It’s a personal experience defined by a lived experience. No person will give you the same plan or answer as to what entails living a good life. And this makes it by definition subjective. Objective truth is about facts, things we can measure and verify. But subjective truth, questions about how to live, who to become, what to believe in, aren’t objective at all. They demand your personal commitment. All existential philosophy after Kirkart confronts us with the same general question. Not what should human life look like, but how should human life be lived? The answer lies in the individual. This marks the birth of existential philosophy and makes Kirkat its first avenger. But of course, Kirkat’s philosophy isn’t exactly a happy meal because it is exactly that freedom that comes from being an individual that gives birth to our anxiety. Kirkiart describes the experience of standing at the edge of a cliff. You could sense a fear of falling because fear always has a concrete threat, real danger. But what Kiriat says we might also feel is something far more existentially concerning. The fact that you are free to jump if you wish. So, this is what he calls angst that you are essentially free to make the leap. This metaphor comes from Kikiat’s The Concept of anxiety, but I think it fits either or perfectly because the book won’t tell you how to live, but it might give you some perspective that you were not expecting. So, if you thought all my rambling was leading to some clear life advice, then stay far far away from this philosophical behemoth. And if you enjoyed the video, feel free to check out some of our other content. If existential philosophy is your thing, I highly recommend our videos on the myth of Sysphus Duspoke Zagaratra and being end time just to name a few. And if you’re new here, consider subscribing and dropping your thoughts in the comments. We’d love to hear how you wrestle with the question, how should one live? Thank you for watching. Take care.