Day 10

Today in class, “Clamence” was sᴓrenly mistaken about himself (See what I did there?).  He is in the aesthetic sphere, not the ethical or the religious. He lives possessing pure pride and cynicism which Kierkegaard claims is characteristic of the second stage in the aesthete.  Additionally, his actions are centered around himself. His position as judge-penitent is not to serve the people by giving his life to teaching them more about themselves, but to put him in a position that lets him feel superior to them.

The best way to distinguish between the lines of the spheres when deciding on the sphere is to look at role conflict.  Like the Abraham and Isaac example found in the assigned reading and class example.

I don’t know where I am though, so maybe it's nt.  It’s tempting, I’m tempted. The idea of spheres. I’m following the aesthetic. And the stages, I’ve been through them, but I don’t know if I’m in or have been in the ethical. I find the rationale behind transitioning from aesthetic to ethical lacking.

Kierkegaard claims that the third stage of the aesthetic sphere is characterized by despair. To rid oneself of that despair. The individual can either morph into the “crowd” and lose her sense of individuality or transition to the ethical sphere which has a universal moral code and put the group above herself. To me, that seems in a way to be losing identity as well(unless the group behaves unethically and she decides to deviate in order to live up to her moral code). I fail to see how it is any different (in relation to individuality) to melding with the group by remaining in the aesthetic.  The grounds seem shaky at the very least. 

I struggle ethically.

I don’t struggle to act ethically; I struggle to feel like I’m acting ethically, because I don’t aim for anything. It just kind of happens. Like, if I was one of those vending machines in pizza joints that you put quarters into to get different toys in return, then I would just be consistently popping out moral values. So when people compliment me on my character, I feel uncomfortable. 

Maybe that means I’m in the aesthetic sphere.

I know I'm not in the religious one. I’d like to believe that I’m not constantly sinning, adopting the religious sphere sounds so painful and god seems like a terribly cruel “subject”, but in my mind when I picture belief, god seems like a comforting/beautiful thing.  Living of love. It’s somewhere I’d like to be. I don’t know if I’ll ever get there.

That leap is pretty big.

Also, the sphere theory seems to rely heavily on Christianity. I don’t understand how it correlates with Kierkegaard’s stance on personal choice if the ethical and religious spheres already have set values.  Does that mean that one would always be in the aesthete in he chooses a different set of moral principles that don’t involve the group as the foremost concern? And Consequently never reach the religious sphere if Christianity is not the chosen religion?

Side Note:

I forget to mention it in a post, but during Friday’s discussion it made me wonder:  what if delusions were contagious? And each country/group of people saw the cup differently. Would it still be objectively a cup, even though nobody saw it as one? Or would there be no objective certainty about its identity? And if delusions were contagious, what would be the cure? Assuming there is one.

I bet there’s a book about it. There’s a book about everything.

I love Kierkegaard. He’s so crazy/cool. He seemed more (super)human than Camus because of the quotes from some of his journals. I’m inspired to read them in their entirety on my own time.  I love how he can take a stance like, “There’s no reason to believe this way, I just believe it. It’s completely irrational and that’s why I believe it.” And still be respected as a genius.