\"Or — or\" of Kierkegaard: the art of choosing without knowing the result

Søren Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher of the 19th century, often referred to as the father of existentialism. His main work, \"Or — or\", written in 1843, remains one of the most provocative and profound texts in the history of thought. But what did he mean when he chose such a title? Is it really about the final choice and a definite decision? Or perhaps something more complex — about life where we can never be sure that we chose correctly? Let's figure it out without academic pomposity, but with respect for the Danish genius.

Two paths, or What does \"Or — or\" mean

For Kierkegaard, \"Or — or\" is not just a logical alternative. It is an existential challenge. He offers the reader a choice between two main ways of existence: the aesthetic and the ethical. The aesthetic path is life built on pleasure, the search for beauty, novelty, enjoyment. The ethical path is life based on duty, morality, responsibility, marriage, profession. But the philosopher does not say that one of them is better. He says that you need to choose. And this choice can only be made through a \"leap\" — an act of personal determination that cannot be justified rationally.

\"Or — or\" is not about weighing all the \"pros\" and \"cons\" and making an optimal decision. It is about the fact that rational weighing is impossible when it comes to choosing a life path. Because there is no objective scale that could compare pleasure and duty. Kierkegaard asserts that the choice is always subjective, always personal, always risky. And it is precisely in this risk that its authenticity lies.

Not just \"Or\", but \"Or\" — and no \"And\"

Unlike the modern world where we are accustomed to compromises and syntheses, Kierkegaard insists on the rigidity of the alternative. You cannot live both in the aesthetic and the ethical at the same time. You cannot be a hedonist and a moralist at the same time. Sooner or later, you will have to choose. This does not mean that an aesthetic life is devoid of morality, and an ethical life — of enjoyment. But their foundations are different. And trying to combine them leads to inner emptiness, to dishonesty towards oneself.

Kierkegaard writes that most people live in an \"intermediate\" zone, avoiding a final choice. They do not dare to take a radical \"Or\" because it requires sacrifice, it destroys the illusion of security. That is why \"Or — or\" is a book not so much about choice as about the courage to choose. It calls for resolve, not analysis. And here Kierkegaard radically differs from Hegel, who believed that truth is born from the synthesis of opposites. For Kierkegaard, synthesis is a retreat. Truth is born in the act of personal decision.

The aesthetic stage: life as enjoyment

The aesthetic path is a life where a person seeks diversity, experiences, avoids boredom. This can be art, love adventures, travels, intellectual pursuits. However, the aesthete inevitably encounters melancholy and disappointment, because enjoyment quickly fades away, and the new requires more. In this sense, the aesthetic life is a life in the grip of an endless search that never brings fullness. And here Kierkegaard is very precise: he does not condemn the aesthete, he shows his drama. The most vivid example of an aesthete in the book is the image of a seducer who enjoys the game of feelings, but in the end ends up alone with emptiness.

But the aesthetic stage is not just about entertainment. It is about trying to avoid a choice. The aesthete can be smart, creative, sensitive. But he avoids responsibility for his life. He does not say \"I choose\", he says \"I try\". And it is this lack of finality that makes him unhappy in his deepest soul, even if he appears successful on the outside.

The ethical stage: life as duty

The ethical stage is a choice in favor of responsibility. Here, a person takes on obligations: to the family, to society, to himself. He enters into marriage, builds a career, follows moral principles. This is no longer the search for enjoyment, but serving values. Kierkegaard does not say that an ethical life is easier or more pleasant. On the contrary, it requires constant efforts, self-discipline, readiness to make sacrifices. But it gives what the aesthete does not have: a sense of integrity and consistency.

However, the ethical stage is not the final point either. Kierkegaard acknowledges that an ethical person may fall into self-satisfaction, into the confidence that he is \"good\", that he fulfills his duty. And then a crisis arises that can lead to the third stage — the religious one. But this goes beyond \"Or — or\". Because for Kierkegaard, religion is not just belief in God, but a personal attitude to the absurd, to the paradox that does not obey ethics.

The choice that does not guarantee happiness

Kierkegaard's key idea: the choice does not guarantee success. Choosing, we do not know where our choice will lead. We can choose an ethical life and collapse. We can choose an aesthetic one and remain lonely. But what is important is another: the choice makes us ourselves. It is in the act of choosing that we create our essence. Kierkegaard does not believe in predestination, does not believe that someone else has already created us. He believes that we create ourselves through our decisions. And therefore the main thing is not the correctness of the choice, but its sincerity.

Here he resonates with later existentialists like Sartre, who would say that existence precedes essence. But Kierkegaard's choice is also colored with a religious dimension: it is a choice in the face of God, in the face of eternity. Therefore, it requires not just rational weighing, but a \"leap of faith\" — an act that cannot be fully understood by reason.

What does it mean to make a final choice?

The final choice in Kierkegaard's philosophy is not a decision taken once and for all. It is a decision that determines everything else, but which still needs constant confirmation. Choosing the ethical path means updating this choice every day. Choosing faith means staying tense before the absurd every minute. So, finality here is not a static, but a dynamic. It is readiness to be true to one's choice, even when it seems illogical or unsuccessful.

Thus, \"Or — or\" does not offer a simple answer. It offers a question that changes life. And this question sounds like this: \"Are you ready to take responsibility for your choice, even if it leads you to the unknown?\" And it is precisely this unknown that is the price of true existence. Kierkegaard does not give a map, he gives a compass. And offers everyone to find their own path.

Conclusion: choice as a calling

Kierkegaard's \"Or — or\" is a book about the impossibility of living without a choice. And it is impossible to avoid responsibility for it. Even if we refuse to choose, we still make a choice — we choose not to choose. But true life begins only when we make a decision with full awareness, in fear and trembling, without confidence in the future. In this sense, \"Or — or\" is an invitation to courage. Courage to be free, courage to make mistakes, and courage to continue moving forward, even when the road is not clear.

This is the main lesson of the Danish philosopher. To be yourself means to choose. And this choice is always final and always open at the same time.

Permanent link to this publication: