Kierkegaard’s Stages of Subjective Response to Absurdity

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a great Danish philosopher who attempted to understand what motivates a person to make the decisions they do throughout their life. His work was based on the idea that the human condition is objectively “absurd”, and that “truth is not to be found in objectivity, but in subjectivity, or passionate commitment to an idea” (236). Human nature seeks for meaning of existence, but objectively this is impossible to comprehend become of the complex and immeasurable answer to such a contemplation. Kierkegaard believed that meaning could only be found through one’s personal development and search for a uniquely subjective meaning of existence. He categorized three types of subjective responses to this absurd condition, being aesthetic, ethical, and religious. These three responses represent stages of life that a person must go through to reach a point where they are most connected with their true identity, represented with a connection with a higher power in the religious stage. Before a person can reach this point, they must go through the other stages in succession to build and develop their subjective meaning of life out of the innately absurd condition. The first stage of life that a person goes through is the aesthetic phase, defined by an overwhelming desire to fulfill one’s own self interests. In the aesthetic phase, Kierkegaard describes the decision-making process being based on the immediate, positive repercussions of one’s actions. For example, a young girl, following “the choice of her heart” is in the aesthetic phase because her choices are made based on the feelings she has in the moment (239). She weighs the direct pleasure that each decision will bring her and makes her choice according to what will be most rewarding at that time. Her decisions are not made with consideration of the future or of the ethical implications of any consequences. A choice made aesthetically is made “only for the moment,” a different choice may be made the next (239). When I think of a person in this stage of life, I think of a child who has yet to develop a real understanding of what Kierkegaard defines as “the universal,” the social norms that dictate how a more mature person conducts themselves and weighs their decisions as to the effect they have on their future and with the consideration of others. Living within the guidelines of the universal defines a person in the ethics stage of life. The main difference between the aesthetical and ethical stage involves the choice to now make decisions based on their societal implications, rather than just for potential personal gain. To live in this stage is to choose to weigh everything to the socially imposed set of ethical values. “It is not so much a question of choosing between willing the good or the evil, as of choosing to will” (240). Though Kierkegaard describes how choices are more limited to a person in this stage, “the act of choice has far more importance for him” (239). This stems for the fact that someone in the ethical stage is invested in himself or herself and in the society that they are apart of. So decisions are limited because there is a defined right and wrong to take into consideration; there is a question of either/or that must be weighed. In the ethics stage one is concerned with the future and how their choices fall in line with the values of the universal more than jus their own personal idea of right and wrong. A man begins to truly understand who they are and what they want in life at this point as choices are now made “with the whole inwardness of his personality” (239). Kierkegaards believed that once the instant gratification of an aesthetic life wears thin, one is naturally drawn towards the second stage of ethics, but they are not interchangeable. “One either has to live aesthetically or one has to live ethically” (240). There becomes a point in the life of a person in the ethics stage of life when they must find a deeper meaning to their existence than just the adherence to the values of the universal. This is found in the religious stage of life, but it requires a much more developed acceptance of the absurd. Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham in the Bible to explain how religion requires a “theological suspension of ethics itself” (244). In the story, God tests Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham becomes superior to the universal by holding the value of his faith over that of the societal ethics when he abides by Gods command. Kierkegaard believes that “the absurd lies precisely in the fact that he as Individual is superior to the universal” (242). A leap of faith is required by Abraham that is irrational in the eyes of one in the ethics stage of life. By accepting the absurd and embracing faith, the human condition is given meaning and connects the finite body with the infinite presence of God. Abraham’s behavior can be described as “going beyond the theology of ethics” (243). It is only with the same capacity can one embrace the religious subjective response to the absurd condition. I find Kierkegaard’s analysis of life to be very accurate in the sense that I do agree that people develop as they get older as they redefine their relationship with their sense of being and the meaning of their existence. As a religious person myself, I agree that a relationship with God reflects a deeper understanding of one’s existence and gives meaning to life in the absurd condition. I do not believe though that the ethics stage and religious state are necessarily separated in the way that I understand the aesthetic and ethical stage are. In my opinion, the human condition strives for meaning, but also strives for good over evil. Being religious is not necessary to embrace the absurd and still develop a personal, subjective understanding of ones purpose. In the same way, I do not believe one must be out of the aesthetic stage of life to embrace the universal and find satisfaction in adapting to social norms and ethical values. So overall, I found Kierkegaard to be very insightful as to how human nature presents itself and develops over time, but I feel his ideas are a little too confining and don’t offer more flexibility in their ability to define all different types of individuals.