Either/Or

[Matt Gregory]

Marry, and you will regret it. Do not marry, and you will also regret it. Marry or do not marry, you will regret it either way. Whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the stupidities of the world, and you will regret it; weep over them, and you will also regret it. Laugh at the stupidities of the world or weep over them, you will regret it either way. Whether you laugh at the stupidities of the world or you weep over them, you will regret it either way. Trust a girl, and you will regret it. Do not trust her, and you will also regret it. Trust a girl or do not trust her, you will regret it either way. Whether you trust a girl or do not trust her, you will regret it either way. Hang yourself, and you will regret it. Do not hang yourself, and you will also regret it. Hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way. Whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way. This, gentlemen, is the quintessence of all the wisdom of life. It is not merely in isolated moments that I, as Spinoza says, view everything aeterno modo [in the mode of eternity], but I am continually aeterno modo. Many believe they, too, are this when after doing one thing or another they unite or mediate these opposites. But this is a misunderstanding, for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or but before it. Their eternity will therefore also be a painful temporal sequence, since they will have a double regret on which to live.

Can anyone help me understand what Kierkegaard is saying here? I'm totally stuck. WTF is he talking about?

[sschaula]

I'll take a stab, although I know nothing of the philosopher:

In the first part, he says that suffering is basically a fact of life. You can't avoid things which make you feel bad, and then be peaceful...it doesn't work that way.

"Viewing everything in the mode of eternity" is looking at things truthfully. If you constantly do this, you can be referred to as enlightened. People who "unite or mediate the opposites" seem to be just temporarily fixing their problems instead of really facing the problem at hand...themselves. They still experience problems in their lives, despite the fact that they choose to never trust a girl again, for example. In not trusting girls ever again, they experience the suffering which goes along with that.

People who "unite or mediate the opposites" don't view things constantly "in the mode of eternity", they only do it after the fact. For them, "Their eternity will therefore also be a painful temporal sequence".

Hopefully that makes some more sense.

[Cory Duchesne]

The part about feeling regret about hanging yourself.......well......I dont know for sure what he was getting at. Either 1) He was referring to some sort of metaphysical continunity of conscious where suffering and tragedy continue after suicide. Or 2) He was reffering to those few given moments of consciousness where, as one dangles helplessly in anticipation of the final black-out/strangulation, one might have time to regret one's decision to hang oneself.

My take on the rest of it is this......(i'm assuming that you understand duality, in that, all worldly pleasures, not ony bring no satisfaction, but they excarberate suffering, and every pleasurable choice breeds the equivilant pain, or is even grouded and bound by pain)

By viewing everything in a mode of eternity, K realizes that 'conventional choices' are not only regretable in themselves, but there is also the regret of not living acestically, or being a genius as well. Kierkguarrd wanted badly to marry. However, he realized that, if he married, he would not only regret that action in itself, but he would also regret not being the genius, ascetic, religoius man he idealized (which he could only be if he renounced worldliness).

So there is the double regret. 1) I regret that I marry, and 2) I regret that I have lost my ability to veiw everything in a mode of eternity (aka: being a genius)

In Kierkguaard's actual case, there was only one thing he had to be regretful about: not living in a conventional way (getting married, etc.) Whereas, if he lived in a conventional way, he would not only regret the lifestyle demmanded by conventional living, but he would also regret not being the solitary, ascetic genius that he longed to be.

Many believe they, too, are viewing life in a mode of eternity when after doing one thing or another, they unite or mediate opposites. But this is a misunderstanding, for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or but before it.

This 'lying before' eternity rather than behind it is a sort of metaphor apparently. What he is trying to say in other words is: I can understand the outcomes of a decision before I make it, and hence, not make it!(in order to avoid regret) or I can go ahead with the decision and be clouded and tortued by it, not only regretting the decision, but regretting the loss of a reality where I could have beheld eternity with clarity without having to be mired and tangled in it. I could have remained behind, but instead I tried to get further ahead. Kieerkguard remained behind, and thus came out ahead.



I'm just kind of intuitively riffing here......correct me if you deem it appropriate.

[Blair]

It's not that complicated. he's saying you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[kjones]

I disagree with Scott and Cory. [edit: and prince].

It is similar to what Kevin referred to as your self escaping from behind your eyes, but it is a dialectic on that. That is, conceiving of the self as what is creating all things, with God behind it all.

Kierkegaard is saying that this is a double regret, because it is the self seeing itself doing whatever God is doing (it is in the eternal), and it secondly cannot avoid blaming itself for seeing itself in everything.

When Kierkegaard says he is the eternal mode, he doesn't bother with this intermediary self. It's utterly unnecessary.

I imagine that this wasn't Kierkegaard himself, but a pseudonym. Meaning, that's what he'd like to say of himself, but he couldn't rightly and honestly do it.



-

[Matt Gregory]

Here's the whole thing. There are no breaks or anything, it's just one huge paragraph, if that matters to anyone. I'm breaking it up here to make it easier to read.

Either/Or
An Ecstatic Discourse

Marry, and you will regret it. Do not marry, and you will also regret it. Marry or do not marry, you will regret it either way. Whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the stupidities of the world, and you will regret it; weep over them, and you will also regret it. Laugh at the stupidities of the world or weep over them, you will regret it either way. Whether you laugh at the stupidities of the world or you weep over them, you will regret it either way. Trust a girl, and you will regret it. Do not trust her, and you will also regret it. Trust a girl or do not trust her, you will regret it either way. Whether you trust a girl or do not trust her, you will regret it either way. Hang yourself, and you will regret it. Do not hang yourself, and you will also regret it. Hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way. Whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way.

This, gentlemen, is the quintessence of all the wisdom of life. It is not merely in isolated moments that I, as Spinoza says, view everything aeterno modo [in the mode of eternity], but I am continually aeterno modo. Many believe they, too, are this when after doing one thing or another they unite or mediate these opposites. But this is a misunderstanding, for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or but before it. Their eternity will therefore also be a painful temporal sequence, since they will have a double regret on which to live.

My wisdom is easy to grasp, for I have only one maxim, and even that is not a point of departure for me. One must differentiate between the subsequent dialectic in either/or and the eternal one suggested here. So when I say that my maxim is not a point of departure for me, this does not have the opposite of being a point of departure but is merely the negative expression of my maxim, that by which it comprehends itself in contrast to being a point of departure or not being a point of departure. My maxim is not a point of departure for me, because if I made it a point of departure, I would regret it, and if I did not make it a point of departure, I would also regret it.

If one or another of my esteemed listeners thinks there is anything to what I have said, he merely demonstrates that he has no head for philosophy. If he thinks there is any movement in what has been said, this demonstrates the same thing. But for those listeners who are able to follow me, although I do not move, I shall now elucidate the eternal truth by which this philosophy is self-contained and does not concede anything higher. That is, if I made my maxim a point of departure, then I would be unable to stop, for if I did not stop, I would regret it, and if I did stop, I would also regret it, etc. But if I never start, then I can always stop, for my eternal starting is my eternal stopping.

Experience shows that it is not at all difficult for philosophy to begin. Far from it. It begins, in fact, with nothing and therefore can always begin. But it is always difficult for philosophy and philosophers to stop. This difficulty, too, I have avoided, for if anyone thinks that I, in stopping now, actually stop, he demonstrates that he does not have speculative comprehension. The point is that I do not stop now, but I stopped when I began.

My philosophy, therefore, has the advantageous characteristic of being brief and of being irrefutable, for if anyone disputes me, I daresay I have the right to declare him mad. The philosopher, then, is continually aeterno modo and does not have, as did the blessed Sintenis, only specific hours that are lived for eternity.

Either/Or I at Amazon

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But this is a misunderstanding, for the true eternity does not lie behind either/or but before it. Their eternity will therefore also be a painful temporal sequence, since they will have a double regret on which to live.

The double regret here means that they have to live with the regrets caused by the choice (one leg of the either/or combo) but added to that the regrets resulting from the meditation when looking back on the choice, knowing that they could have chosen the other leg just as well. Or even that it didn't matter: they regret their regret now!

The true eternity lies before the choice - pure causality. Sins can now be forgiven.

[Pottovski]

I think Kierkegaard tricked y'all... He beliefs strongly in choices.. Every man/woman have to make choices in their lives about all kind of things. Live with the choices, but more live with the consequences! He said also somethat it doesn't matter what you believe or choose. If you do it with all of your soul it's worth the choice.
So this leg or that leg (to stay in Dieberts words), it doesn't matter. Live your life and you'll regret it anyway ...

[sschaula]

Kelly, I don't understand your post.

Matt, reading the rest of what he wrote it makes less sense to me.

[DHodges]

Do you live life in this way - do you make choices, and then regret them?

Is there another way to live?

[Cory Duchesne]

yes, there is another way to live. Don't make choices at all. Or better, understand why choice is an illusion. Doesnt regret imply that there is a self to feel regret? Regret ends when the self ends.

In the meantime I will continue to be bewildered, resistant and greatly troubled by what I just said.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think Kierkegaard tricked y'all... He beliefs strongly in choices.. Every man/woman have to make choices in their lives about all kind of things. Live with the choices, but more live with the consequences! He said also somethat it doesn't matter what you believe or choose. If you do it with all of your soul it's worth the choice.
So this leg or that leg (to stay in Dieberts words), it doesn't matter. Live your life and you'll regret it anyway ...

Hello Pottovski, I was already wondering when you'd finally show up here, considering your dedication to Kierkegaard, as seen on your site :) Are you going to swim in the deep now?

Not sure if anyone was 'tricked' so far, since no one questioned the apparent existence of choices that have to be followed through. Kelly's post explains that it's really a question of what the 'self' is and what the 'eternal mode' means, with which Kierkegaard identified himself with. Can one really experience regret when being aeterno modo. What do you think?

[Matt Gregory]

Scott wrote:

Matt, reading the rest of what he wrote it makes less sense to me.

Don't worry, it gets worse when you start looking at all the footnotes that the passage is tagged with in the book.

I'm think I'm starting to figure it out, though. Here's a passage on the same page that I didn't notice seems to be related:

Tautology is and remains the highest principle, the highest maxim of thought. No wonder, then, that most people use it. It is not so impoverished, either, and can well fill out a whole life. It has a jesting, witty, entertaining form; this is [the category of] infinite judgments. This kind of tautology is the paradoxical and transcendental kind. It has the serious, scientific, and edifying form. The formula is as follows: when two quantities are equal in size to one and the same third quantity, they are all of equal size. This is a quantitative conclusion. This kind of tautology is especially useful on podiums and in pulpits, where one must say much.

So, tautology seems to be his maxim, and the law of contradiction is the negative expression of it (I think). I'm inclined to think that he's just saying that do X, do not X, and regret are all equal quantities. I just can't figure out why, out of all the things he could have used as an example, he chose regret. I'm also not sure what he means by "point of departure". In Fear and Trembling he talks about stopping at faith vs. philosophers' propensity to "go further", and I think it must be the same topic, but I'm not really sure. I'm sure this is all very simple, though, I just can't decipher the language.

[MKFaizi]

He's saying life is a bitch and then you die.

I know that seems a little simplistic but, essentially, that's it. If you choose to participate in the bullshit of life that way -- trust a girl and you will regret it; don't trust a girl and you will regret it. Choose to marry and you will regret it. Choose not to marry and you will regret it. Participate in all that bullshit and, no matter what you decide, you will regret.

It is not merely the fact of choosing not to marry that makes a philosopher. Any jackass can decide to remain single for the same bullshit reasons that another jackass might decide to marry. Plenty of jackasses will not trust a girl for the exact bullshit reasons that other jackasses might trust a girl.

A jackass is a jackass no matter what he does.

A philosopher -- enlightened sage -- whatever term you prefer -- is someone whose thought is beyound rapproach. He does not choose to remain single in such a way that could cause regret. He does not choose to trust or not to trust in such a way that could cause regret. His thought has so evolved that regret has nothing to do with it. His way is certain.

Once you choose the path of thought; philosophy; enlightenment; there is no turning back. There is no regret.

Faizi

[Rhett]

.

Cory is doing the best here so far.

.

[MKFaizi]

It is not the choosing to do or not to do this or that thing that matters. Everything falls away in the face of philosophy. Once one decides on the path of truth; enlightenment; trivial choices are of no consequence. One does not have to make trivial choices that can cause regret.

One does not marry because truth precludes it. One does not trust a girl/boy because truth precludes such trust. One who decides or who is lead by God (sic) into the infinite cannot regret.

Once on the way to the infinite, regret is not an issue. If one
has yet capacity for regret, he does not know truth.

There is only one decision -- the way of enlightenment; philosophy -- and that decision is devoid of regret. Once you get to that decision or place, there is no turning back.

Faizi

[Jason]

Once on the way to the infinite, regret is not an issue. If one
has yet capacity for regret, he does not know truth.

There is only one decision -- the way of enlightenment; philosophy -- and that decision is devoid of regret. Once you get to that decision or place, there is no turning back.

Once you choose the path of thought; philosophy; enlightenment; there is no turning back. There is no regret.

Well I guess I am not a philosopher or a thinker then...
I feel regret sometimes, or at least I question the choice of thought and philosophy. The great pain that it causes raises doubts about if it is all worthwhile.

[MKFaizi]

He thinks tautology is crap; something one is obligated to say as a teacher or this or that other thing -- not much different from discussing the weather.

Faizi

[sschaula]

Rhett the ref,

Cory just said what mostly everyone's been saying already in the thread.

[MKFaizi]

The great pain that it causes raises doubts about if it is all worthwhile.

Such pain is, I think, natural. To a point. Then, one has no such need of emotional pain. It dissipates.

Do you have regrets, Jason, that cause you pain?

Faizi

[kjones]

In Fear and Trembling he talks about stopping at faith vs. philosophers' propensity to "go further", and I think it must be the same topic, but I'm not really sure. I'm sure this is all very simple, though, I just can't decipher the language.

Sorry if I didn't make my explanation clear.

Stopping at faith is essentially the key to this passage, and in fact to living correctly. It is not ongoing speculation, trying to find the nugget of Reality in the form of some thing, since this is obviously illogical, and ideally not something you want to spend your life doing.

Faith shows that any desire is basically belief that something can be really gained, ever. This is driven by any self, like a core CMOS desire (once it gets some instigating power, it boots up). (Did I get the terminology right?)

Your link to tautology is a handy explanation of how futile such desires are. For instance,

This sentence appears in a post about stopping at faith vs. ongoing speculation. This is also a sentence. This is a manifestation of Reality. This is also. This is an appearance of a sentence in a post about stopping at faith vs. ongoing speculation, that helps to form a paragraph.

And so on. Where is the beginning and end of this appearance? Where can there ever be something to create a stoppage or an ending, over which another thing can gloat with glee or wail with bereaval?


---
test for space:
[ ]

[Jason]

The great pain that it causes raises doubts about if it is all worthwhile.

Such pain is, I think, natural. To a point. Then, one has no such need of emotional pain. It dissipates.

Do you have regrets, Jason, that cause you pain?

Faizi

I regret my last post.

[Jamesh]

My philosophy, therefore, has the advantageous characteristic of being brief and of being irrefutable, for if anyone disputes me, I daresay I have the right to declare him mad. The philosopher, then, is continually aeterno modo and does not have, as did the blessed Sintenis, only specific hours that are lived for eternity.


Brief???

Kierkegaard is a fucking unhappy egotistical nut. Why bother interpreting his spew.

[Lennyrizzo]

Faizi is on the right track.

The avoidance of regret requires a proper-- the wise view of things.
It is an attitude rather than technique, method.
More precisely what one becomes, rather than does.

[Pottovski]

yes, there is another way to live. Don't make choices at all. Or better, understand why choice is an illusion. Doesnt regret imply that there is a self to feel regret? Regret ends when the self ends.

In the meantime I will continue to be bewildered, resistant and greatly troubled by what I just said.

These words takes us to another level... There 's no doubt about it.. but what can we do with such level? Then there is no self, no regret, no you&me?
Mayb then it's time for a leap.. to stay in Kierkegaardian terms a leap to the next level of awareness. The self will be stronger in some form. The self that don't need regret.
Choices are the most pure in filosophy.. but the art is to know on what ground we make them and regret for the things we don't like keeps up hanging to the lower self. Regret is a sign we are not ourselves yet. It means we don't understand the bases of our choices and the basis of ourself.

ps.. thanks to Diebert for attenting this forum.. it's the first interesting one I see on the net ;-)