Book Review: Kierkegaard A Very Short Introduction

Reading 20th-century existentialist authors like Sartre or Camus makes one wonder about the forebears of their thought. In what way were they connected to earlier thinkers and movements, who were these men and women who pondered being at a time when large parts of Europe were still ruled by monarchs? Who is better suited to shed a light on this question than the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, the man who is sometimes described as the first existentialist? I was delighted to read his biography authored by Patrick Gardiner and published as part of Oxford University Press’ A Very Short Introduction series and am even more delighted to write down a short summary, coupled with my thoughts, in this very blog.

On the shoulders of giants

To understand the origins of Kierkegaard’s thought and its contrast to common modes of thinking at the time, Gardiner introduces other philosophers and especially focuses on a man who is still considered among the greatest of them all: Immanuel Kant. In his Critique of Pure Reason the German professor struggled with the turmoil brought by the Enlightenment and the Scientific Method and worked out a framework where pure reason alone is not enough to obtain knowledge, it always needs to be complemented by empirical evidence. Kierkegaard, who studied theology and was deeply religious, saw this verdict with suspicion. He was worried that if practical reason and morality presuppose faith, the message and overall approach to religiosity are severely altered. The reason why Kant still found great appeal, even among religious people, was made out by Kierkegaard to be the perpetual passivity among his contemporaries. Gardiner here quotes from his work The Present Age:

In fact there are handbooks for everything, and very soon education, all the world over, will consist in learning a greater or lesser number of comments by heart, and people will excel according to their capacity for singling out the various facts like a printer singling out the letters, but completely ignorant of the meaning of anything.

Kierkegaard thought people had become automatons, unable to hold their own opinions and devoid of human emotion. Naturally, such a condition could not be remedied through methods such as theorizing or teaching an authentic way of life, as these approaches dismissed human agency and lay therefore at the root of the problem. Instead, people should be encouraged to reflect on their existence and place in the world.

The good and the pretty

In a following chapter, the focus is shifted to some of Kierkegaard’s main works, primarily Either/Or. In this treatise, one of his main ideas is highlighted in the form of a dialogue between characters portraying the aesthetic and the ethical. The aesthetic frequently changes his opinions and way of life; is dominated by outside factors like a feather by the wind and sometimes sees himself as an unfortunate victim, thereby absolving him of all personal accountability. The contrast to this is the ethical, who is in thrall to no one but his own person. Occupied with internals instead of externals, this character can choose his own values and alter his personal characteristics.

Nor, from the standpoint he adopts, can success or failure be measured by whether or not his projects in fact find fulfilment in the world. What finally matters is his total identification of himself with these projects; it is the spirit in which things are done, the energy and sincerity with which they are undertaken and pursued, that are relevant here – not the observable consequences of the actions performed.

At this point, I found myself disagreeing strongly with Kierkegaard’s assertions. Putting your heart into something is nice and enjoyable, but ultimately useless if it does not lead to success. Who would you rather have as your dentist: A drone who has no problem admitting they hate their profession and frequently daydream during surgeries – but whose hands are so talented that all the patients walk away satisfied and without pain, or an enthusiast who has so much passion for their work, he frequently pull more than the necessary number of teeth and constantly has to settle malpractice lawsuits? I am not sure if I completely misunderstood Kierkegaard here and “projects” means purely intellectual or recreational endeavors, but for me being able to choose your own reality does not follow from being able to choose your own values.

On subjectivity

In several chapters focusing on subjectivity, Gardiner examines Kierkegaard’s ideas of subjectivity. In contradiction to the hard materialists, who deny any idea of personal choice, and the Hegelians, who see individuals only mirroring the ideas of their time, Kierkegaard grants us the ability to make a decision and “live life forward”. This freedom, however, also produces anxiety or Angst, which is different from fear. As Sartre later describes it in a famous text about vertigo, this anxiety represents the multitude of possible actions opening up at every moment and the fact that we have to take one. Did you ever sit in the first row of a theater and your skin crawled at the thought that you are one second away from jumping on the stage? This is what it feels like.

The prose

Reading this book, I was awestruck by the beauty of Gardiner’s writing. His sentences are long, very difficult, but a pleasure to read. Presented here is a relatively tame example:

At first sight it may seem puzzling to be told that we can forget what it means to exist, as if existence were something we can intelligibly be said to engage in or undergo, like swimming or having a headache. And it is certainly true that in more recent times many of Kierkegaard’s existentialist successors have not been averse to discussing the concept in ways liable to cause justifiable perplexity. In the present context, however, there seems to be nothing in what he says that need occasion logical unease.

I felt that I always needed my full concentration to stay focused – which made it even for fun.

Overall, the connections between Kierkegaard’s work and later authors, which I have read, were not as strong as I had hoped. There were some common themes relating to the freedom of choice, but a lot of his writings seem to have been taken up by issues not directly related to later forms of existentialism. Still, I can highly recommend the book for its content and, especially, the quality of the writing.