O Lo Uno O Lo Otro Un Fragmento De Vida II

by Søren Kierkegaard

O lo uno o lo otro (1843) es la primera obra publicada por Søren Kierkegaard, en la que comenzó a trabajar casi inmediatamente después de la lectura de sus tesis Sobre el concepto de ironía. Escrito de compleja estructura textual y, en muchos sentidos, el más excelso de todos los suyos, fue fruto de una intensa dedicación de dieciséis meses, si bien la primera elaboración de algunos de sus materiales se remonta a años atrás. Bajo el pseudónimo de Victor Eremita, presunto responsable de la edición, la aparición del libro señalará para Kierkegaard el inicio de su carrera como escritor en sentido estricto.

Dicha carrera comienza pues con la disyunción existencial indicada en el título de la obra: la oposición entre lo estético («aquello que un hombre inmediatamente es») y lo ético («aquello a través de lo cual un hombre llega a ser lo que llega a ser»). A los tratados estéticos que componían la Primera Parte se añaden ahora en esta Segunda, en estrecha vinculación dialéctica con aquéllos, los tratados éticos, en forma de tres cartas dirigidas al autor de los escritos estéticos: «La validez estética del matrimonio», «El equilibrio entre lo estético y lo ético en la formación de la personalidad» y «Ultimátum».

Se ofrece así por primera vez al lector hispanohablante la traducción del danés, íntegra y anotada, de los dos volúmenes de esta obra.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Christianity, Classics, Theology, Literature

336 pages, Paperback

First published February 20, 1843

About the author

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard was a prolific 19th century Danish philosopher and theologian. Kierkegaard strongly criticised both the Hegelianism of his time and what he saw as the empty formalities of the Church of Denmark. Much of his work deals with religious themes such as faith in God, the institution of the Christian Church, Christian ethics and theology, and the emotions and feelings of individuals when faced with life choices. His early work was written under various pseudonyms who present their own distinctive viewpoints in a complex dialogue.

Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted". Scholars have interpreted Kierkegaard variously as an existentialist, neo-orthodoxist, postmodernist, humanist, and individualist.

Crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, he is an influential figure in contemporary thought.

Reviews

[Luís · Rating 5 out of 5]

The second part is organized in the form of letters that Wilhelm seems to address to his correspondent A; we can see this part of the work as the logical continuity of the first, or, depending on the interpretation we make of it. , a brief role. I lean towards the first option because it is more about questioning the aesthetic stage to bring it to surpass itself in what seems to be the ethical stage. By refuting the too ideal part of the aesthetic approach, Wilhelm will retain the beauty lavished by love and, above all, marriage.

"The aesthetic value of marriage" is the first essay introducing the work's second part. Through a multitude of moral lucidity, Wilhelm tries to demonstrate that marriage has the value of eternity. Romantic love is the imperfect expression of eternal love since it rests on the fleeting foundation of a relationship; he will only see his greatness and outcome in marriage. However, the shadow of the monotony denounced by Johannes still hangs over this love inscribed in marriage. Is it inevitable? Yes, unless you have a genuine will from an exclusively moral vision. Reading this beautiful essay, we deduce that "Conjugal love, therefore, has its enemy in time, its victory over time, its eternity in time". Moreover, marriage captures absolute love, not in its immediacy but in its historical beauty. It empowers and leads to the examination of the second test.

An individual's choice determines their personality while being sincere with themselves and reconnecting with themselves. On the other hand, to choose is to express his freedom to the extent that the individual knows how he wishes to realize it. This fact is what "The Development of Personality" deals with, and it is no less relevant than the previous essay. But what a clarification for the reader! After more than five hundred pages, we finally find the treasure that gives all its meaning to the work title! To consider his choice of existence without omitting his relationship with reality, here is a decisive blow to the presence of the esthete, which rests on the poiesis, a concept based on an artistic reconciliation, but which does not register in any way in reality. Considering evil and good as notions inherent in any choice the individual will confront and thus become responsible, this seems to characterize the value of choice.

"The Ultimatum" finally closes the book. Of much more religious inspiration, this work component teaches us, through a pastor in Jutland and a friend of Wilhelm, that "vis-à-vis God, we are always wrong". This conception, primarily inspired by the Book of Job, illustrates the strong bond the individual can unite with a choice of existence linked to religion. Part both decisive and announcing the premises of philosophy of reality, at least this is what Kierkegaard's leitmotif seems to express at the end of the book: "only the truth that edifies is truth for you".

Therefore, after this extended reading, the reader will emerge triumphant. Because of his impressive will, Triumphant crossed these great cleared paths of development and arguments that are sometimes poetic, sometimes indigestible. The author, overwhelmed by his subject, seems to have considered different ways. Her essay stems from her experience and her life with Régine Olsen, continuing with their fatal separation. It is, therefore, unavoidable that the report presents a very particular philosophical interest; on the other hand, it is the mirror of what seems to be a reassessment of the experience of its author, an internal tribunal as to the scope of the choices he could make. Is this not the greatest strength of the work in the end? To deal with subjects as interesting as they are personal, different alternating genres: from the collection of aphorisms to essays, through the novel, and then the epistolary form. Importantly, by its density, the work catches the reader by allowing them to travel between different forms of argumentation. Concepts also abound; some are of great interest, and others are not necessarily useful for understanding the general idea emanating from this titanic book.

At the same time, admiring the beauty of the work translated by the too famous Régis Boyer, the philosophical interest it carries, and the diversity that such a book offers to its reader, it could well be that anyone can be deceived. But again, the density of the book can repel the reader at first glance, too lazy to bother with arguments argued over several hundred pages. It would therefore be an exciting first reading to tackle Kierkegaard, although it is not essential. However, Enten-Eller remains the cradle of existentialism and a genuine original critique of Hegelianism that the author develops in his Post-scriptum with philosophical crumbs.

[Elina T.C.]

Finally finished, and am I grateful! Tears in my eyes.

[Lucas Sipe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most of my critiques of the first volume carry over. While Kierkegaard has his moments of brilliance here, it's often burdened by the obtuse, over ripe prose that reminds one of rotting fruit. 'Or' also has to reckon with it's simplicity (that the ethical is the universal and that we're called in all aspects to align ourselves to the universal) but over 350 pages, that simplicity is simply exhausting. The author of 'Or' dwells on the minute in such a way as to turn an interesting idea into a slog.

'Or' is superior to the 'Either' insofar as the idea is more clearly expressed. We know what the kind of life a person who chooses the 'Or' might lead. Such a life is roundly superior to that described in the 'Either.' That being said, the future writings of Kierkegaard (notably the brilliant 'Fear & Trembling') show the limitations of the 'Or.' As the introduction the collection says, these are early works prior to the full blooming of Kierkegaard's eloquence. While there are moments of such eloquence, it's clearly still in birthing pains.

[Pastor Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Either/Or Part 2 was very difficult for me to work my way through and required concerted effort, over and over again. It was rather like working out. With no chapters and a seemingly endless stream of thought, it seemed like there was no progress. And yet, gradually it became easier to move forward, to establish the discipline necessary to achieve the task.

I suspect that there is something of an object lesson that Kierkegaard has included in this book. It is about the ethical's superiority over the aesthetic, duty's triumph over mere pleasure. In reading this book I felt as though I had to persevere in order to accomplish an interior goal, and that this book was teaching me not just about it, but forcing me to do it. Or perhaps I'm a masochist.

[Tom Wolfe · Rating 4 out of 5]

No doubt a masterpiece. Even so, this and volume 1 make for a slog. Unless you're a serious student and have the intense determination it takes to piece together just how remarkable Kierkegaard's pseudonymous writing is, it's easy to glaze over and miss the detail.

[Michael Kress · Rating 5 out of 5]

Months after reading Parts I and II of this book, it appears I liked them quite well, however long they were. I gave Part II one more star than Part I, and I think that's because Part I was and seemed a lot longer. I was probably leaning toward a lower rating for Part I, but the end was so great that I had to kick it up a notch. The end of Part I is when the young man finally gets the girl and then immediately loses interest. It shows how worthless the aesthetic really is, and it seamlessly leads into Part II. The end of Part I is the true beginning of Part II; the transition from the finite into the infinite. Part II is not a page turner, but I didn't feel it was a slog either. I read a lot of it in the morning during my meditation, and it was better suited for that type of thing, where perhaps you're tapping into infinity, than Part I. And I wasn't worried about finishing the book; I just enjoyed being where I was in it. I think Kierkegaard was humble, so he didn't care about talent or being considered a great writer. All of these were just tools for the greater good. That being said, one of his talents was the ability to write from the perspectives of two such different personalities. And it's heartwarming that the young man and the judge both liked and respected each other.

[jeremiah]

The second half of the nineteenth century's greatest novel.

[Michal Ong · Rating 4 out of 5]

Soren Kierkegaard’s Either/Or is a work of brilliance, and takes up its well-deserved place as the most popular of all his published books in his day (the only one to receive a second edition).

On the one level, it is the publication of an unnamed editor who has a fierce doubt of the truism, no doubt inspired by the popularity of the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, that “the outer is the inner and the inner is the outer” (3). This concern is evidently not just of philosophical interest to him, for the editor suggests in the very next sentence that he has sympathy for those who have “concealed a secret that in its joy or in its pain . . . was too intimate to share with others” (3). After a series of misadventures, this editor chances upon a series of papers from four different authors, whom we shall name “A”, “B”, “Johannes the Seducer”, and “the Jutland pastor” respectively.

The writings of ‘A’ and ‘B’ then take precedence. ‘A’ is meant to be representative of an individual who lives according to the aesthetic mode of life, one that is lived to the call of immediacy and pleasure, understood either in the physical or the reflective sense. And this comes out through his writings. ‘A’’s writings are brilliant, spanning across a variety of genres—from a series of Romantic aphorisms in the Diapsalmata to “serious” essays on the aesthetics of Mozart’s Don Giovanni (The Immediate Erotic Stages), the dialectics of sorrow (The Unhappiest One) and how one can maximize the pleasure one gains from life by cultivating the art of recollection, forgetfulness, and arbitrariness in Rotation of Crops. It concludes with the famous section Diary of a Seducer, which remains far and away the most beloved section of Either/Or, even gaining separate reprintings as a standalone work in the manner of Ivan Karamazov’s Legend of the Grand Inquisitor. In it, A claims to have found a diary from his friend Johannes, which recounts the latter’s method of cynically seducing a woman into falling in love and into breaking up an engagement with him in order to pursue an illicit love affair outside of the boundaries of marriage.

‘B’, on the other hand, is taken as the representative of the ethical stage, particularly with Kantian overtones in its emphasis on duty and one’s own freely-chosen commitment to the good and to the world. B writes two clear and focused letters to A, one on the aesthetic validity of marriage and the other on the balance as well as on the discontinuities between the aesthetic and ethical modes of life. Whereas A concludes with Diary of a Seducer, B concludes with an enclosed sermon by his friend, the Jutland pastor, on “The Upbuilding that Lies in the Thought That in Relation to God We are Always in the Wrong.”

Either/Or is worth reading for several reasons: (1) it destabilises the neat formalistic boundaries between literature and philosophy, and finds its nearest equivalence in the 19th century epistolary novel i.e., Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther that is well-suited to capturing the inner aspects of human experience; (2) it functions as the genesis of certain ideas that Kierkegaard would take up in his later pseudonymous works (such as the dialectical nature of "despair”); (3) it is a full attempt to demonstrate, not purely philosophically but existentially through pseudonyms that are meant to be taken as “real writers” distinct from Kierkegaard himself, the dialectical relationship between the aesthetic and the ethical stages of life, that is, to draw out the possibility of transitioning from the aesthetic to the ethical stage of life while keeping in mind the stark opposition between the two spheres; (4) in terms of its situatedness in the history of ideas, it is simultaneously an acerbic polemic against the the Hegelian system (the chief target in Kierkegaard's first authorship) as well as a masterful example of the Hegelian method of drawing out a higher content from the conflict between the outer and the inner.

The last word should probably be reserved for Kierkegaard himself, and how he evaluated his own work in an unreleased postscript that he contemplated adding to the second edition of Either/Or in 1849:

"I hereby retract this book. It was a necessary deception in order, if possible, to deceive men into the religious, which has continually been my task all along. Maieutically it certainly has had its influence. Yet I do not need to retract it, for I have never claimed to be its author (Journals, X 1 A 192)."

It is this, I think, that we should always bear in mind while reading this long and difficult work. This is the chief thought of Either/Or: how Kierkegaard is unflinchingly devoted to his task of building up the “single individual” into an awareness of his place in concrete existence. Such is a precursor to the the properly Christian life (broadly understood as the 'religious' sphere in works such as Fear and Trembling, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, and Practice in Christianity): one lived out in obedience to Christ, even unto suffering and death.

[Tiago Filipe Clariano · Rating 5 out of 5]

Não li a primeira parte de Ou-Ou, mas li a segunda. Trata-se de um conjunto de cartas que Kierkegaard teria enviado a outros pseudónimos (não creio estar a utilizar a nomenclatura correcta, talvez nem passem de personagens). As cartas que se encontram na segunda parte tratam d'"A Validade Estética do Casamento" e d'"O equilíbrio entre o estético e o ético na elaboração da personalidade", finalizadas por um sermão acerca de como "Diante de Deus estamos sempre em erro". Notar-se-á desde já a sorte religiosa deste autor.

A leitura foi demorada, teve início em Dezembro e alongou-se até Abril: não é fácil confrontarmo-nos com tamanhos parágrafos e tanta nota de rodapé (o primeiro caso, defeito do autor, o segundo, extraordinária empresa filológica da tradutora). Mas nem é pela enormidade dos parágrafos que a leitura destas cartas se torna difícil, por outro lado, difícil é encontrar tão clara expressão em português de ideias que originalmente foram dinamarquesas, que têm o peso de se tratar de filosofia e, pior ainda, de ética e estética. Os mais recentes livros que tenho lido têm-me feito contestar a ideia corrente de que a estética se prende com elaborar um "bom gosto" padronizado pela sociedade (pelo que tem de se ver filmes europeus, documentários artísticos e admirar performance art estranha) quando os seus mais importantes escritos se prendem com a elaboração de um bom gosto, sim, mas pessoal.

A validade estética do casamento prende-se com a postura religiosa e amorosa de Kierkegaard: é um bom cristão e um bom marido. Vê no amor da pessoa com quem casou não um primeiro amor, mas uma força tão grande que arrebata o lugar do primeiro amor em intensidade. O casamento serve de cerimonial de teor social que atesta a validade desse amor. O casamento é ético, portanto, faz parte de comportamentos aceites socialmente, o amor é estético, por outro lado, é constituído de comportamentos que, por vezes podem não ser olhados com bons olhos em festas. Creio que basta acerca deste capítulo.

É em "O equilíbrio entre o estético e o ético na elaboração da personalidade" que Kierkegaard melhor explicita o que quer dizer por "Ou-Ou": a vida trata-se de balançar numa escolha entre fazer o que é estético e o que é ético, entre o que nos apraz e o que apraz a sociedade, entre o que nos forma e o que nos educa, o que nos torna homens fora do comum e o que nos permite ser homens em primeiro lugar. Mas essa escolha, por sua vez, é paradoxal, visto que fazer a escolha é o que é ético e não fazer a escolha é estético. Uma pessoa que só viva para si, recusa-se a escolher entre si e a sociedade, o seu comportamento apraz-lhe unicamente a ela e é estético; não requer escolha. Mas quem faça parte da sociedade sabe que o seu comportamento tem de ser equilibrado, que há momentos para escolher o aprazível e momentos para escolher o cultivado.

O "Ultimato" em que Kierkegaard considera que "Diante de Deus estamos sempre em erro" permite-lhe argumentar em favor da acção. Cada indivíduo deve descobrir o seu talento na vida, a sociedade deve permitir-lhe cultivá-lo e a divergência de talentos não deve ser questionada. O ponto é extremamente inclusivo, mas pode ser mal interpretado por ter por base a palavra "talento", o ponto é que nesta vida há lugar para todos, desde que se saiba escolher entre o ético e o estético, ou melhor, gerir o tempo entre o ético e o estético. Estar sempre em erro diante de Deus parece-me facultar ainda um ponto que aproxima Kierkegaard de Nietzsche, na permissão que é concedida por via deste pé de igualdade social. O que Kierkegaard tem de cristão educado é o que tem Nietzsche de ateu anarca, o erro partilhado pela humanidade face a Deus é o mesmo que a permissão atribuída pela morte de Deus destoutro filósofo.

[Keith Karr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Either/Or Part 2 is the other side of the introduced in the first volume. While the first half could stand on its own, Part 2 is really dependent on the first half. Beyond the scattered references throughout, the author's argument is dependent on the ideas and the persona presented in the first half. The second half is framed as two letters written by a friend of the author of the first volume. The first defends the validity of marriage and the second the superiority of the ethical over the esthetic.

Whereas the first volume was a series of seemingly disconnected series of writings revolving roughly around several themes, this volume is far more focused, making a recognizable and coherent argument. While the personality of the author seems to be more prominent in the first and the argument secondary, these are reversed in the second. In both though, the personality that can be discerned behind the writings personifies the ideas each presents. One is scattered and seemingly unfocused, the other is disciplined and methodical in his presentation and his lifestyle. For Judge William, his letters are not abstract examinations, but an attempt to persuade his erstwhile friend to embrace his perspective and lifestyle. His persuasion entails him returning to themes and characters examined in A's writings. These two essays are a direct response to the prior volume. While the first could stand alone, on the whole or each essay individual, the second depends on the first. While the second volume is dependent on the first, it is necessary to understand not only the dilemma posed in the title, but to truly understand both the esthetic and the ethical. They can only be truly understood dialectically.

Both sides of the discussion leave much to be desired. While the first volume is far easier to approach are far more memorable- the essays seem ultimately unfulfilling, and in places morally repugnant. The second volume is far more intellectually persuasive. Judge William has the ability to challenge A. We never hear A's response, if any. Even though William may prove not only the validity, but the beauty and duty of marriage- his abstract presentation is not fully convincing. One likewise agrees that the ethical is superior to the esthetic, both by defining and superseding it; but the reader feels that there must be something beyond the either/or. The prologue, a final sermon appended to William's letters hints at a third option that transcends the dilemma between the esthetic and the ethical. This option will be explored in other of Kierkegaard's writings.

[Daniel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Slightly better than Part I, as the point of view is presented in a more straightforward way. But it's still tedious and obtuse, and I think intentionally so, which makes it a not very enjoyable read.

There are two parts I found interesting. First, the discussion of the ethical life being superior to the esthetic life because living the latter to the ideal depends on circumstance, whereas the former can be lived regardless of life condition, so everyone has access to it. Second, the sermon that concludes the book where it notes that the most terrifying thing in the world is simultaneously believing in God and believing that one is right in relation to God, and God in the wrong. Both things are absolutely true. But these comprise maybe 15 pages out of the 900 pages of the book. Lots of work for low return.

[Will O'Hara · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve just started an Independent Study with one of my professors (protégé of Pippin and Pinkard) on Hegel. He is also teaching Either/Or. I’m seeing the Hegelian/Anti-Hegelian undertones present throughout this work, but much more interesting to me is what this book says about how to live one’s life. It is a beautiful reflection on our underlying human tendencies. This book is designed to work maieutically, and I can confidently say that Kierkegaard has accomplished his task; no other book has provided me with as much self-knowledge as these two volumes have.

[Zain Koreshi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book (along with the first part) is a moderately tough read and is overly descriptive. In fact, I felt as if the message in this book could have been presented in a much more concise way.

Throughout the work, Person B continuously challenges Person A’s outlook on life. He believes a person who doesn’t make choices ceases to be anything because one’s personality is shaped by the choices they make.

The correct way to live life, in his opinion, is to not seek pleasure, because pleasure is attained by those who don’t seek it.

[Peyton · Rating 4 out of 5]

"So even the lowliest of individuals has a double existence. He, too, has a history, and this is not simply a product of his own free acts. The interior deed, on the other hand, belongs to him and will belong to him forever; history or world history cannot take it from him; it follows him, either to his joy or to his despair. In this world there rules an absolute Either/Or, but philosophy has nothing to do with this world."

[Henrik Jespersen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jeg forstår hvorfor denne her fantastiske tekst er blevet berømt.
Ofte må man bøje sig, og læse teksten flere gange, alle sider er fyldt med noter, som klarificerer meget af det ellers uforståelige.
Andre gange må man trække på smilebåndet over de underfundige spekulationer, men hele tiden er man fastholdt i teksten, og kommer meget klogere og tænksom ud af Enten - Eller. Sikken et geni Kierkegaard var - jeg bøjer mig i støvet ❤️

[Aaron Schuschu · Rating 3 out of 5]

In some spaces he writes quite beautifully about women and what love really means but spends most of his time overthinking his yelling at somebody moping about being single to the point where they both seem to contradict themselves. And this was only the second part…

[Portal Prince · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterpiece

[Jake Theriot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read excerpts.

[Amira Litmanowicz · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to wake up and discover your inner self and your uniqueness, read this book. But be prepared to break some certainties.

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

This follows Either/Or Part one, and picks up from the point of view of B, the Judge. There are three letters, two of which are long letters to A, the third of which is a brief preface from B, followed by a short sermon from a preacher friend of B's. Reading this has helped to put part 1 into context - it has confirmed some of my suspicions about the relationship that A seems to have to void and emptiness (and subsequently, the relationship Kierkegaard sees between the aesthetic and emptiness/despair). Oddly enough, the ethical is also grounded, in some sense, in despair here, though this seems to be grounded in a sense that all of the things that we tend to occupy ourselves with in life are in some sense empty as far as their being things to live for, because only the infinite is truly appropriate for that, though they are at the same time important as things to live through, because we can only come to the infinite through the particular and concrete as an expression of the infinite.

There are distinct Christian and Kantian themes here - especially with respect to the relationship between freedom and desire though it looks at first blush that Kierkegaard is a great deal more complex than Kant on this account. Ultimately freedom is grounded in consideration of life as a whole and choosing with respect to one's whole life, whereas desire is grounded in the immediate - choosing what one wants right now. "The Aesthetic Validity of Marriage" really drives this point home, and attempts to connect the aesthetic and the ethical by claiming that it is the extended temporal (yet eternal) nature of marriage that makes it more beautiful than the transitory and immediate flash of a love affair. The discussion of the "Hero" in "The Balance of the Aesthetic and Ethical..." is pretty striking as well, and really helped me to see what Kierkegaard was driving at.

Overall, Either/Or was really great to read - there are numerous subtleties that I caught only a brief glimpse of, and others I am sure I missed entirely. Seeing the connection between the two "characters" is really fascinating - subtle mentions of various parts of A's papers in B's letters cast those ideas in a whole new light. As well, Kierkegaard's style really sparkles, and is a pleasure to read.

[Abril · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muchas de las veces es complicado encontrar la edición leída en goodreads y este es uno de los casos. Lo he leído en editorial Trotta y la segunda parte de este libro contiene: La Estética del Matrimonio, El equilibrio entre lo estético y lo ético en la formación de la personalidad, y Ultimátum; de los cuales leí los primeros dos.

La Estética del Matrimonio: El amor verdadero no es aquel que se eleva en castillos sobre comarcas hermosas, o aquel que viste de seda. Amor tampoco es un corazón eternamente afligido junto a una lápida de epitafio borroso. El verdadero amor es… simplemente común.

El equilibrio entre lo estético y lo ético en la formación de la personalidad: Amar es como el canto del pájaro. Pese a que este conmueva a los corazones más duros, su belleza no está en lo extraordinario sino en su naturaleza. El deber del pájaro es cantar y canta, esa es su maravilla. Y en un segundo momento así como la vocación, el amante más humilde puede ser tan preciado como el más dotado porque cumple con su deber de amar. Desde esta postura parece que aquel hombre que no sabe o no logra amar debe aceptarlo, revelarse y cargar con el dolor pero por ningún motivo justificarse adjudicándose el estado de extraordinario o diferente, lo cual sólo un esteta haría.

Dos tratados maravillosos escritos a manera de epístolas que pese a nos haber sido escritos de manera “académica” nutren con naturalidad temas por los que muchos filósofos se han desgarrado las vestiduras.

[David Calhoun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe it's because I'm getting older, I feel like this second book resonated more this time around. Even as an unmarried person I still identified with the aspect of a person's duty towards their life and profession, a sort of Zen-like approach to living. And the importance of an over-arching principle in one's life (starting to see this repeatedly in SK's writings, first seen in his criticism of Hans Christian Anderson's works), instead of life being just a nonstop series of meaningless disconnected amusements like author A's life, depending on external things to keep oneself titillated.

Will be doing a video on this soon, hope I remember to post a link here (apparently I am terrible at self-promotion). Also may expand on this review a bit later on!

[John Lucy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not nearly as readable a volume as the volume I, but necessary to understand the full force of Kierkegaard's power. If you read both volume I and volume II and understand what's going on, that Kierkegaard does not actually believe either position set forth in Either/ Or, except the little sermon included at the very end, then you cannot possibly escape Kierkegaard's brilliance. You may want to disagree with him, but it would require sheer willpower from you because there wouldn't be much room for argument or disagreement.

Again, this volume does ask you to work a bit, but it's worth it.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful. Challenging. Occasionally very long-winded, yet always for a reason. K wields his pseudonyms well. This is a monumental and amazing work, which I've no doubt I will return to, with benefit.

[Elsa Schmidt · Rating 4 out of 5]

re: Diary of a Seducer

[Aras · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://electric-pages.livejournal.com...

[Ankkca · Rating 3 out of 5]

my first "date" with philosophy, therefore a more literary approach to his work. obviously, many references didn't say much.

[Christy Leonardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

I kept returning to the impression that I was reading the textual equivalent of a golden spiral. Never has a philosopher embraced paradox as deftly as K.

[Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most difficult, and most rewarding book I have read to date.

[Olin Moseley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like listening to ur dad