I just finished the book Either/Or by Soren Kierkegaard, and oh what a book it is. As I said in my first post, the book is written under 3 pseudonyms. The Editor, A and B. The editor plays little part in the book, he just provides the backdrop to the papers of A and B.
A is an aestheticist while B is an ethicist. Originally when I wanted to get this book, I was under the impression that either/or was a book about the competeing life views of a moralist and a amoralist. When I started reading, I discovered that the former life views were far more interesting to read about.
I loved the papers of A, he was so poetic and passionate, he saw deep into the concepts of life and love and passion and brought it out onto paper. And don't even get me started on how excited I was while reading A's interpretation on what makes a classic work of art a classic. However I found him lacking in maturity, eventually he will discover that the aesthetic life has its limits and that he has wasted it in the chase for subjectivity.
B just pissed me off though (Judge Vilhelm). He only had two essays (letters to A) in the book, the first was discussing how an ethical marriage could also have aesthetic properties, the second was discussing how making a life binding choice was the best thing a man can do and that A was wasting his life in frivolity. This man was the most pretentious, dull, unbelievably annoying bore I have ever encountered in the world of literature. His essays are just attacking A's views on life, while lording over his own moral pedestal. I hope that when he finally falls off, he breaks his neck.
This is not the best interpretation of a book, I admit that, but eventually I will re read it, and re read it again, if only to grasp a better understand of the concepts introduced. But for now, I dive into A Theory Of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, hoping that I will understand it better
