Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Kierkegaard and Existentialism · Acedra
Home
Explore
Philosophy
Kierkegaard and Existentialism
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
42 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:02
Soren Kierkegaard is considered the first existentialist philosopher. But who was he? How did he use literature to revolutionise philosophy and become the father of existentialism? And why did he say that freedom causes anxiety? And what was his answer to our existentialist angst? So today, I will answer all those questions as I discuss Kierkegaard’s life, and his journey of becoming a philosopher and writer. In the next segment, I will summarise and
0:28
discuss his most famous philosophical books, Either/Or and Fear and Trembling. So get yourself a cup of tea and some Danish pastry, gather your lego pieces, or just put on your viking hat or whatever Danish cliche you have, because we’re talking about existentialism of to be or not to be—that famous line by the Danish Prince Hamlet. Life Soren Kierkegaard was born in 1813 into a wealthy Danish family in Copenhagen. While his mother came from a modest background,
0:59
his father was a wool merchant in trade to keep the Danes warm in the cold winter, but on the inside he was a stern Nordic man with an interest in rational philosophy and intellectual activities. As a young boy, Kierkegaard was exposed to works by Scandinavian, German and ancient Greek philosophers, including Plato and Socrates. Despite his exposure to philosophy, he was not interested in becoming a philosopher himself,
1:25
instead he went to the University of Copenhagen to study theology and who knows perhaps to become a clergy or theologian. After all, his name Kierkegaard literally means churchyard in Danish. But despite his religious belief in god, he was deeply lost at times and as a result he was more drawn to literature. In fact he wrote his MA thesis on socratic irony through the works of Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes. What is Socratic irony?
1:55
It simply refers to the father of Greek philosophy, Mr Socrates, who was pretending to be ignorant, stupid or naive in order to confuse his opponents so they their guards down in a debate. It’s like a detective who plays a fool for the defendant to reveal something by themselves. So Kierkegaard’s philosophy was heavily influenced by this ironic method that we know less than we think as he utilised naive characters in his writings to shell out some basic ideas.
2:26
In 1837, when he was 24, one of the most famous events in philosophy took place. This single decision became the most important decision in Kierkegaard’s philosophical writings for the rest of his life. What was it? He met a woman. Yes, it’s a boy-meets-girl story but immensely transformative in the philosophy of existentialism. Kierkegaard met and fell in love with Regine Olsen. Then he met her family. Four months later he proposed
2:54
marriage. She said yes. Everyone in Denmark celebrated and expected a beautiful nordic wedding. But a year later, he broke up with her. Why? It’s complicated. The same line every single woman uses today to describe their relationship. But in Kierkegaard’s case, he had an answer. He was too melancholic therefore unsuitable for marriage. But the real reason remains unknown. But it doesn’t take a detective to work it out. The man wanted
3:23
freedom. Marriage in those days meant for life. A handsome young man perhaps had a lot of choices and didn’t want to limit himself to only one woman. In his writings, Kierkegaard uses this decision to tell the world that he sacrificed his love for a beautiful woman for the sake of faith. He didn’t want to be a half-ass husband and commit a sin. We know men can never be truly monogamous. But there could be another reason. It could be that he was influenced by Arthur Schopenhauer’s
3:52
pessimistic philosophy. Many writers including Gustave Flaubert never married nor had any children saying the world was too cruel to bring another life to it. A masterpiece of Danish literature, Lucky Per by the Nobel Prize-winning author Henrik Pontoppidan published in 1904 fictionalised a similar scenario in which the male character suddenly breaks up with the woman of his dreams citing he was not suitable to get married and retreats to
4:21
the countryside where he lives a simple life. Two million years ago, the Danish prince Hamlet asked the same question: to marry or not to marry. It has become a Danish tradition now that all Danish men ask themselves. Ok, joking aside, this decision had a profound influence on Kierkegaard’s writing. Kierkegaard journals of his thoughts and experiences detail his struggle with his life’s purpose despite his religious faith. This was also partly because he lost both parents at a young
4:51
age. But mainly due to his melancholic personality. While his parents died when he was in his 20s, they left him a handsome sum of money so he could live and travel around Europe somewhat comfortably, so he could focus on writing under different pseudonyms. While in Berlin in the 1840s, he attended lectures given by Schelling, the German idealist philosopher who was also a romanticist poet. In the 18th century, in Europe, romanticism had created
5:20
a wave. For example Goethe’s novel, The Sorrows of Young Werther made a huge splash and the literary movement of Sturm und Drang, literally meaning storm and stress was about passionate first love. But Kierkegaard who had rejected love and marriage a few years earlier saw these Germans as either a bit ungodly and a bit too rationally objective, or a bit too focused on love between the sexes so he started writing like crazy. As an outsider,
5:49
he saw German philosophy with a fresh perspective: his own subjective experience on how to live. This is the birth of existentialism. In 1843 he published 3 books trying to tell people that hedonistic love is not worth it. He published Either/Or, considered his magnum opus, under the pseudonym of Victor Eremita in which he outlines his philosophical views on two distinctive life choices, whether to pursue love through a hedonistic lens or live a moral life by taking responsibility. In
6:23
other words, whether to pursue what gives you pleasures in life or do something bigger that is appreciated by society as a whole. Just remember that in the preceding decades romanticism encouraged men and women to pursue their inner desires through the works of poets such as Lord Byron who left England for some freedom in Europe. In the same year he published two more books, of which Fear and Trembling under the name, Johannes de Silentio, is the
6:50
more well-known. In it he further talked about choices we make in life, more specifically sacrificing one’s personal romantic pursuit for his religious conviction. This refers to Kierkegaard’s own break-up with Regine Olsen, stating that his anxiety made him not marriage material. Kierkegaard wrote Repetition which was published in the same year detailing how love hides many religious sins. I should point out that Kierkegaard was 30 years old
7:17
at the time, so many people were curious as to why the wealthy Dane wasn’t married. This is the 19th century, so single men of that age who were not walking around with a family and wife were seen as a bit strange. Except if you were playboys like Lord Byron type. But Kierkegaard was a man born in a churchyard. So by writing these books, he was deflecting the whole question on the outside, and convincing himself on the inside that he was a man of god.
7:46
If 1843 was the year of rejecting romance, 1844 was the year of finding god. Kierkegaard published several books titled One, Two, Three and Four Upbuilding Discourses on the existence of god. This was partly in response to the debate that was raging in Europe, particularly after the 1841 publication of Ludwig Feuerbach’s influential book, Essence of Christianity, in which the German anthropologist argued that god didn’t create humans but quite
8:16
the opposite, humans created god. As I discussed before, this had a profound influence on Nietzsche who abandoned god altogether, but Kierkegaard, the guardian of religion and churchyard, wanted to prove otherwise. While the debate on the existence of god centred more on the sociological aspect of religion, in how it glued a society together positively or negatively, Kierkegaard moved the debate inside the individual person. He argued it was up to the individual to find
8:47
god within him. This makes sense, because the science of anthropology had questioned the historical existence of god. In other words, there were no concrete records of any concrete god ever existing, except the account of humans. So Kierkegaard was clever and moved the debate inside the individual. God cannot be found on the outside through the rational and scientific method but it can be found inside the individual.
9:13
But why did Kierkegaard make everything about the individual? It was simple. At the time, Hegel was biggest dude in philosophy who said that we are the product of history and history is only moving forward in a progressive way, ultimately landing us in a future perfectionist utopia. So Kierkegaard took a Hegelian view of us being the product of history that each generation within a particular historical epoch is different, therefore can define their
9:41
own views and each individual should have a new beginning from his or her own birth, so we shouldn’t be burdened with the views of previous or future generations. In other words, you are in here and now, and it’s up to you to define your religious convictions. This microscopic philosophy of the individual agent makes Kierkegaard the father of existentialism, because he put the responsibility of one’s faith or life in general onto that person
10:09
himself or herself. They shouldn’t follow the previous generations nor should they worry about future generations, solely focusing on their own lives. But here is the irony though. It was his father’s inheritance, the previous generation so to speak, that allowed him to continue writing and publishing. This financial freedom allowed him to write what he wanted, not what his audience wanted. Thanks to his family inheritance,
10:33
he didn’t have to worry whether people read his books or not. It turned out, the sales were pretty bad. People were frustrated with his style of indirect communication, which goes very contrary to nordic direct speech. In Scandinavia you say what you mean and mean what you say. Kierkegaard used pseudonyms and referred to the people with obscure references. For instance he would call a religious person as the knight of hidden inwardness. It makes you laugh, doesn’t it?
11:03
His style of writing matched his own personality. Kierkegaard was an indecisive person. Not a total flip flop, but close to it. His marriage proposal and sudden break up is a good example of an indecisive man. In many ways he was similar to the Portuguese poet, Fernando Pessoa who also employed heteronyms who were often in fierce debate among themselves. I think we have all been there. We often find our own views are challenged inside us either
11:32
through cognitive dissonance or utter confusion. So Kierkegaard embodies that confusion we all experience. Modernity has done everything to make things certain, predictable and reliable on the outside. From time-keeping, trains, supermarkets and everything in between. However, when it comes to our own thoughts and convictions, we have become less decisive. So today more than ever we experience analysis paralysis because we have too many choices. So what
12:04
goes inside the individual being is anything but certain. In his writings too, he employed 13 different pseudonyms and indirect references and in some cases incoherent arguments which caused confusion. I think he was worried about the backlash from the church as he was quite against church telling people about god or holding a monopoly on god and religious faith. Instead Kierkegaard wanted to free god and religion
12:30
from the grip of the established church, just like Leo Tolstoy who considered himself an anarchist Christian, putting faith as an individual journey rather than a church communion. Kierkegaard thought the church was treating the congregations as children or herds and spoon-feeding them about god and religion. In English the word flock is sometimes used for a church congregation as well as a group of animals such as sheep or birds. So Kierkegaard wanted each individual
13:00
to take responsibility in finding god within themselves, not in a church. Later in life, he made direct attacks at the Danish church, arguing that his earlier writings were mere preps in his attempt to make religion the responsibility of the individual. His imprecise language shows Kierkegaard was unsure himself. In some ways, his books are like thinking loud for everyone to hear. He is not fully sure, but he keeps thinking aloud.
13:27
In fact, inadvertently or on purpose, his writing displays the confusion of a modern man about god and the meaning of life. In other words, the modern man is lost. A society may have a clear purpose but some of the individuals within that society is often lost. So Kierkegaard’s existentialism squarely focused on the individual, not the crowd or congregation. Kierkegaard continued to write about religion and the modern man. He was responding to two
13:52
divergent movements at the time. On the one hand, Hegel’s theory of history put reason at the forefront of human progress, while Schelling and Goethe, on the other hand, championed a more romantic view of nature as dark and passionate force, which manifested itself in the philosophy of Schopenhauer as the blind will that pushes us without us knowing. Kierkegaard sat on the side witnessing Hegel's progressive philosophy championing human reason while
14:20
in literature the romantics fought against the human reason for the sake of passionate nature. For Kierkegaard the modern individual is often forced to make a choice between reason, passion and faith. He instead argues that the individual should take responsibility for their choices, but also have a leap of faith when it comes to god. While modernity emphasises individual freedom when it comes to jobs, spouse and so forth, there is another freedom. It’s
14:50
having faith in a divine power. Having such faith liberates one immensely. A good analogy would be visiting a doctor. You either trust the doctor’s ability and skill to diagnose your illness or you’re skeptical so you visit other doctors until you’re fully satisfied. In the first case, you leave your fate to the doctor which eases the burden on yourself. But in the second case, your cynical stance would make you more anxious. This anxiety
15:18
stems from our ability to choose. That’s what modernity has done to us. It has given us the choice but our psychology is not ready for it. So Kierkegaard’s ultimate answer is a leap of faith in which we go through a period of doubt and finally arrive at God who we relinquish our power to. This became his ultimate answer for the modern freedom-led anxiety. Kierkegaard died in 1855 after collapsing on the street of Copenhagen. He was 42 years
15:50
old, which is incredible given how much he wrote and how profound his ideas became later on. His writings had an immediate impact on the Danish church which quickly enacted changes such as allowing church members to attend other churches instead of being bound to one parish. Baptism of babies became voluntary. He also influenced the Swedish literary giant, August Strindberg whose novel, The Red Room I discussed here. As I mentioned before, Henrik Pontoppidan was also influenced by Kierkegaard.
16:24
So now the question is how did he manage to be the first existentialist philosopher? The dominant philosophy at the time saw the individual within a social, religious or historical framework. Georg Hegel was the dominant thinker at the time who saw history as an unstoppable force that moulded society. Arthur Schopenhauer placed the blame on the blind will somewhat similar to the force of evolutionary biology such as instinct that drives our choices.
16:53
But Kierkegaard shifted the attention to the individual, their choices and the consequences of those choices. Now the question is why or how did he do it? The answer is pretty simple. He approached philosophy from a literary perspective. In literature, we generally do not blame social or historical forces for the choices the heroes and villains make. That would make a boring story, so it is more exciting when we pay attention on how each
17:19
character makes decisions. We put the responsibility on the individual characters. Kierkegaard started from this premise that each individual is free to make choices in life and they have to live with the consequences of those choices. As terrifying as it may sound, we have the responsibility to make choices in life, and this freedom gives us immense anxiety. Imagine, Shakespeare’s Hamlet holding the skull of dead Yorick and asking himself the most frightening
17:48
question in literature: To be or not to be. Kierkegaard’s philosophy can be boiled down to this fundamental question: to do or not to do. We all have a choice. As a result, Kierkegaard revolutionised philosophy but also had a huge influence on psychology as well as art and literature. Kierkegaard’s style is also a break from the mainstream philosophy as he was drawn to literary metaphors, irony and storytelling in his writings. In his early writings, he
18:16
used pseudonyms, partly to put himself in different shoes, i.e. fictional characters, and partly because he wanted to distance himself from his religious conviction so he could see things more objectively. You could say, he was employing a fiction writing style into philosophical and religious books in order to see things from various character’s points of view. He moved between the subjective and the objective and concluded that neither pure
18:41
subjective nor pure objective view is complete. In other words, we cannot know the truth through our subjective experience, not purely through observation of the external world. The truth is somewhere in the middle. So Kierkegaard was a genius who responded to mainstream philosophy from his own individual perspective, using an innovative literary style to put his philosophical ideas forward. This became a very popular style in the 19th and 20th centuries. Philosophers such as Friedrich
19:14
Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre etc used the literary style to make philosophy more palatable for the ordinary people. Incidentally these men are all existentialist philosophers. So Kierkegaard made philosophy centred on the individual but also democratised philosophy so everyone could enjoy philosophical writings. In other words, his founded existentialism by looking at philosophy through the lens of literature which focuses, not on society,
19:44
but on the individual characters. So existentialism as a philosophical approach has a huge debt to literature. In the next segment, I will summarise his most famous book, Either/Or and discuss its themes. So stay tuned.
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat