The Three Versions of Determinism in Kierkegaard's "Either/Or"

The three versions of determinism that Kierkegaard refutes in Either/Or are Aesthetic, Ethical, and Religious lifestyles. Kierkegaard refutes the Aesthetic lifestyle by accusing it of being insignificant and artificial. The decisions made purely for an aesthetic lifestyle do not hold any significant meaning and thus are not as truly aesthetic as one where decisions are limited and ethics are considered.

While it makes sense logically that an aesthetic life is not as truly aesthetic as a life with a deeper meaning, each individual has their own concepts of what makes a life worth living. His refutation of the aesthetic lifestyle was not very convincing because it removes the element of human variation. There are many people who value pleasure over ethics. To claim that their lifestyle is not valuable seems preposterous, as they are claiming that they get the highest satisfaction out of the life that they are leading. One who lives life for pleasure is surely getting the maximum pleasure out of their life. The meaning of life is variable between individuals. If someone believes that enjoying aesthetics is the purpose of life than they are going to choose and fully enjoy their aesthetic lifestyle.

Another flaw in the refutation of the aesthetic lifestyle is that using ethics to limit the decision making process does not make that process more valuable. If the decisions must be made with ethics in mind, than there is generally only one appropriate solution to every problem. The individual living the aesthetic lifestyle has unlimited potential when solving a problem because they are not held back by their ethics. They will also not fall into traps of guilt when deciding in favor of themselves and ultimately live a life where they make decisions in a way that will allow them to have a life that is the most rewarding and valuable.

Kierkegaard also refutes the Ethical lifestyle. He states that it is necessary, at times, to teleologically suspend ethics in order to make a decision that is best for oneself and/or society as a whole. He warns against the dangers of blindly following ethics and losing the intimate relationship with God.

His refutation is not successful, because instead of freeing people from being ethically pigeon holed, he is simply shuffling the ethics from what is good for society to what is good for God. It is just as dangerous to blindly follow God's word as it is to follow ethics. This does not increase the satisfaction of life, but actually farther limits the possibilities in decision making. Falling back on what God approves of can lead to very little variation in decision making and a very unoriginal and unfulfilling lifestyle.

The final lifestyle that is explained is the religious and this is the one Kierkegaard is arguing in favor of. He is not in favor of the church, but rather in favor of listening to God and acting according to his requests and desires. He believes that the only people who can live without despair are those who live as close to God as possible, with the smallest amount of sin.

The reasoning of his religious viewpoint is not sound because of the rigid morals and because there are many interpretations of God's words. Despite his dislike of the Christian church, he must subscribe to one view or another of God's meanings or else he must create his own. If he creates his own view than what is stopping him from creating a view that is in accordance to how he wants to live his life? If everyone lived from the religious viewpoint than wouldn't society as a whole be thoroughly disjointed? Having a personal, intimate relationship with God is almost impossible if society is to remain a unit. If everyone were to follow their own understanding of God than society would be dangerous and unethical.

Also, if God ends up absent in the world, than aren't the ethics based solely on individuals' desires? Kierkegaard wants to be religious without the religion, which is nearly an impossible lifestyle. Personally interpreting God's laws does not place you closer to God, but simply closer to your own interpretation, and possibly deliberate misinterpretation, of God's words. Instead of everyone being closer to God, everyone will be farther away from each other and frequently in direct opposition.