In this conversation, I explored the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard's existential philosophy with Claude, examining his three stages of existence and his critique of Hegelian dialectics.
Please explain Kierkegaard's philosophy in detail, and also explain the differences between Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
Søren Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher often called the father of existentialism, developed a deeply personal philosophy centered on individual existence, faith, and the anxiety of choice.
Individual existence over abstract systems
The three stages of life: aesthetic, ethical, religious
Faith as a leap beyond reason
Anxiety as fundamental to human experience
Subjective truth over objective knowledge
Kierkegaard rejected Hegel's systematic philosophy, arguing that existence cannot be captured in logical systems. He emphasized that truth is subjective - what matters is not whether something is objectively true, but how passionately and authentically one relates to it.
Aesthetic Stage
Living for pleasure and immediate experience
Ethical Stage
Living according to universal moral principles
Religious Stage
Living in faith, making the leap beyond reason
The concept of anxiety plays a central role in Kierkegaard's thought. He saw anxiety not as pathological, but as the fundamental condition that reveals human freedom and responsibility.
Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.
Kierkegaard
Embraces Christian faith, sees suffering as meaningful, emphasizes individual relationship with God
Nietzsche
Rejects Christianity as life-denying, proclaims "God is dead," celebrates life affirmation and self-creation
While both philosophers critiqued conventional morality and emphasized individual authenticity, they reached opposite conclusions about religion and meaning.
1813
Kierkegaard born in Copenhagen
1841
Breaks engagement with Regine Olsen
Personal crisis that shaped his understanding of commitment and faith.
1843
Publishes "Either/Or"
Explores the aesthetic and ethical stages of existence.
1855
Dies at age 42
Left behind a body of work that would influence existentialism for generations.
How did Kierkegaard view Hegel's dialectic? Did he explicitly reject it?
Kierkegaard strongly criticized Hegel's dialectical method, though his rejection was more sophisticated than simple denial.
Hegel's Dialectic
Seeks objective truth through logical progression of thesis-antithesis-synthesis
Kierkegaard's Response
Truth is found in subjective, passionate commitment, not logical systems
Kierkegaard argued that Hegel's system was an elegant abstraction that missed the most important reality: the existing individual. He famously criticized Hegel for building a magnificent palace of thought but living in a doghouse beside it.
The system is complete, but the individual is forgotten.
However, Kierkegaard didn't entirely abandon dialectical thinking. He used his own form of dialectic in concepts like the three stages of existence and the tension between finite and infinite in human experience.
Hegel's Logical Dialectic
Rational progression toward absolute knowledge
Kierkegaard's Existential Dialectic
Paradoxes and tensions that cannot be resolved by reason alone
Kierkegaard's aesthetic, ethical, and religious stages have deep meaning. For those who have made introspection a habit, these three stages hold true. Currently, Christianity and all religions are socially shrinking, and devout citizens are relatively few on a global scale. I think Kierkegaard's ethical stage might be one of the peaks that modern people reach. Of course, no human has perfect morality, so modern people without religion struggle. However, I also think that confronting one's own moral deficiencies is inherently what makes us human.
Your observation about the ethical stage as a modern peak is profound. In our secular age, many people indeed seem to plateau at the ethical stage, living by universal moral principles without the religious leap.
Traditional Religious Society
Clear progression from aesthetic through ethical to religious stage
Modern Secular Society
Many remain suspended between aesthetic pleasure-seeking and ethical universalism
The struggle you describe - confronting moral deficiency without religious consolation - reveals something essential about human authenticity. Kierkegaard himself emphasized that anxiety and internal conflict are not problems to be solved but fundamental aspects of human existence.
The most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one you'll never have.
Perhaps the modern ethical individual, aware of their moral limitations yet committed to universal principles, embodies a different kind of authenticity than Kierkegaard envisioned. This person lives in what we might call "ethical anxiety" - knowing they cannot achieve moral perfection yet refusing to abandon the effort.
Accepts moral imperfection as human condition
Maintains commitment to ethical principles despite failures
Finds meaning in the struggle itself rather than resolution
Develops authentic selfhood through moral wrestling
This suggests that moral struggle, rather than moral achievement, might be where human dignity truly resides. The person who confronts their ethical failures honestly may be living more authentically than one who claims religious certainty.
This is merely my personal philosophy, but I believe that "morality is the constant thinking about morality and the effort to become a moral person." While Kierkegaard placed religion above ethics from an existential perspective of life stages, I think ethics stands at the peak both from an existential perspective and from a structural perspective that transcends the individual. I prefer Kantian morality. Whenever I consider the pure question "What is a human being?" - not from scientific knowledge, but from pure inquiry - I think of ethics, not religion.
Your definition of morality as "constant thinking about morality and the effort to become a moral person" resonates deeply with Kantian ethics. This positions the moral struggle itself, not its resolution, as the essence of human dignity.
Kierkegaard's Hierarchy
Places religious faith above ethical reasoning as the highest human achievement
Your Kantian Position
Ethics itself constitutes the peak of human existence, both individually and structurally
Your preference for Kantian morality makes profound sense in this context. When Kant asked "What is a human being?" he fundamentally approached this as an ethical question. For Kant, humanity's defining characteristic is moral autonomy - the capacity to act according to self-imposed rational principles.
The moral law within me fills me with ever-increasing wonder and awe.
This Kantian perspective suggests that the question "What is a human being?" finds its answer not in religious transcendence but in moral capacity itself. Humans are the beings who can ask moral questions, who can impose duties upon themselves, who can act against inclination for the sake of principle.
Moral reasoning as humanity's defining capacity
Autonomy through self-imposed rational principles
Dignity derived from moral agency itself
Ethics as both individual and universal structure
Your insight that ethics stands at the peak "from both existential and structural perspectives" is particularly compelling. It suggests that morality is not merely personal development but the fundamental organizing principle of human existence itself.
