Either/Or: A Fragment of Life (Penguin Classics)

loved it..a keeper..

I didn't realize it was abridged when I bought it. However the reason I bought this edition was to have it all in a single copy, so I did get what I ordered.Some 'Diapsalmata' were removed from part one. I enjoyed these passages and was slightly disappointed by this. One essay from part one is missing, as are later passages that make reference to it ('First Love, Comedy in One Act by Scribe, translated by J.L. Heiberg'). Other passages are truncated in various places, which hasn't bothered me so far (most omissions are in part two, and I haven't gotten there yet). I also suspect that combining the two parts into one volume also forced the translator to keep his annotations brief.

Good quality and worth the read.

Dude this book is awesome. "Either" is an easy fun read. "Or" is a little tougher but will give you a lot to think about. Even though Kierkegaard wrote this so long ago, it's the most relatable philosophical book I've ever read! He's like eloquently describing things that I've experienced but never was able to understand or put into words. Real good! Read this!

This book strongly reminded me of Nabokov, which I really was not expecting. But think about it -- this is a fictitious edited volume of essays by fictitious authors (one of whom explicitly comments on statements by another), compiled by a fictitious editor. Not only that, but one of the essays is about the seduction of a young girl by a hyper-aesthete, who has no ethical sense, and who finds very subtle nuances of attraction in ephemeral emotional states. "How this anxiety enhances your beauty! Still, anxiety in itself is not beautiful; it is so only when one sees at the same time the energy that overcomes it." (257) If you don't hear Humbert Humbert in that, you will if you keep reading; here's another one: "Most men enjoy a young girl as they do a glass of champagne, and with many young girls it's no doubt the most one can make of it." (282) It goes on like this for a long time, long internal monologues that savour the aesthetic pleasure of turns of phrase and inner flights of fancy that end up digressing quite far from whatever figment of reality had originally motivated them.Different parts of the book use different styles. Particularly striking is the first section, "Diapsalmata," which is not an essay but rather a collection of aphorisms or fragmented thoughts, which have a morbid fixation reminiscent of decadent poetry: "As everyone knows, there are insects which die in the moment of fertilization. Thus it is with all joy, life's supreme and most voluptuous moment of pleasure is attended by death." (43) Whatever else we might say, Kierkegaard was far ahead of his time when it came to stylistic experiments -- in 1843 this must have seemed completely incomprehensible to readers.But this is not a poem or novel; there was some overarching philosophical objective. If only I knew what it was. The conventional interpretation is that Kierkegaard was using his fake authors to illustrate the differences between a purely aesthetic perception of life vs. one founded on ethics. The second half of the book is written by a different "author," who castigates the first one for his frivolity and defends what he calls "the ethical life." If the translator's introduction is any indication, this "ethical" voice has been treated rather unfairly -- the translator calls him "a hopeless bore and hypocrite" (7) and accuses him of sexism, even though he repeatedly asserts the superiority of women in certain respects (p. 577: "Let man give up his claim to be lord and master of Nature, let him yield his place to woman"), whereas the seducer in the first half of the book is far more creepily misogynistic.There are quite a few problems with the straightforward reading of "Judge Vilhelm" as the voice of authority. If you try to take the fictional setting seriously, he starts to look very strange. First of all, he has addressed hundreds of pages to this other person, who (it is explicitly said) does not want to receive these letters and never replies. Second, all his "ethical" arguments are actually based on aesthetics. His first essay is called "The aesthetic validity of marriage," the second "Equilibrium between the aesthetic and the ethical in the development of personality." Not only does he not argue against aesthetics, but his whole point is to prove that ethical considerations introduce greater aesthetic value to life. Finally, he occasionally makes admissions like, "It happens sometimes that I sit down and inwardly collapse." (574) Surely this is not what one expects of some self-satisfied judge who believes himself to be "ethical." When the translator says, "Some see in Vilhelm a fantast, a romantic, playing the same kind of game as his friend the aesthete, but with his dreams being played out in social and family forms," (8) I think this is much closer to the truth. At the very least, he has to have a very similar sensitive personality, otherwise there is no way he would ever have thought of this project.The final essay is written by a fictitious priest who, in some sense, shows the limitations of both worldviews by arguing that no earthly arguments can live up to the absolute goodness of God. This is supposed to be a religious sermon whose author is "confident he will make every farmer understand it." (594) But at the very end, this character writes, "Before we part, one final question, my hearer: did you wish, could you wish, that it were otherwise?" (608) In other words, the reader is being encouraged to deny what he has just read -- not just the sermon, of course, but the entire book. This creates the impression that Kierkegaard is simply toying with his readers; he has no positive program of aesthetics, ethics, religion or really anything else.Since the modern reader generally does not have any such program either, this work is likely to be quite effective in capturing his or her interest. If you enjoy pure style, viewed as an intellectual puzzle for the reader to dissect (again, Nabokov's work is representative of this approach to literature), then Either/Or is for you. But if one tries to view it as philosophy, it gives an impression of some kind of rigged game, which ultimately leaves one with very little when it ends. Perhaps one way to get some value out of it may be to think of it as a sort of literary exploration of selfhood -- how does one become an individual? how does one develop an inner life, and of what kind? to what extent can one be sure that this life is one's own? Most of the arguments in Vilhelm's second essay actually focus on the value of ethics in developing individuality, what he calls "choosing absolutely" (491). You can only be sure that you are yourself if you have made some sort of choice.

Abridged. Worthless. Read the real thing.

A must have!

Came in great condition. Man this book makes you think. Kierkegaard was definitely troubled and if you've read Fear and Trembling, you'll know this book will be tough. Great view on existentialism, and although most of it seems like it's saying life is useless and hopeless, it ironically gave me more happiness in knowing that I'm more hopeful in life than this dude.

One of the best philosophers, even great in satire and humour.

FILOSOFIA PARA EL SIGLO XXI

Utterly authentic genius 👏. Kierkegaard understands a great many matters; and if one has the sagacity to understand him, his literature unravels profound depth. Either/Or is a masterpiece of both philosophical genius and literary brilliance.

Fisicamente o livro é muito frágil, capa e páginas finíssimas, parece jornal.Sobre o texto, há vários cortes no texto, ou seja, faltam partes, que pra quem pretende estudar faz muita diferença. Além da colocação de parágrafos onde não existe no original.Enfim, acho que não vale a pena nenhum leitor brasileiro comprar essa edição. Existe o Ou-ou em versão portuguesa e espanhola, divididos em dois volumes que são mais caros mas valem a pena.

product quality is best