The Existential Predicament of Modern Life: Kierkegaard on the Spheres of Existence and Modes of Despair

Kierkegaard was concerned with meaning and fulfillment in human life–what makes life worth living and the barriers we encounter in the search for a genuinely satisfying existence. In his view, meaning is not a pregiven or something that comes about merely by virtue of living; rather it is something we impart into our own lives through the choices we make. 

Central to Kierkegaard’s philosophy is the notion of the tension between the finite and eternal. As human beings, we find ourselves situated in time and its unstoppable flow; we experience life through distinct separate moments. In our temporality, we are no different than animals, trying to satisfy needs and desires. As touched upon in the last blog, what makes humans distinct from other animals, however, is our capacity to evaluate our lives in terms of overarching themes or visions: “Human beings are not content with simply satisfying their basic desires, for they care about what kind of beings they are, and they therefore reflect on the worth of the things they desire” (Guignon & Pereboom, 2001). The notion of the eternal refers to the kind of overarching significance that we imbue in these distinct moments that gives our lives an enduring meaning. Thus, the existential situation we find ourselves in is one where we are “confronted with the demand to impart meaning to our lives that goes beyond the transitory and local–the demand to achieve an eternal and infinite significance for our existence” (Guignon & Pereboom, 2001). 

Kierkegaard posited three modes of life through which humans attempt to achieve fulfillment, which he called “spheres of existence” (Kierkegaard, 1843/2004). We will digress momentarily here to explore the aesthetic sphere, as it has particular relevance for the modern man’s search for meaning in the age of technology and instant gratification. 

The Aesthetic Sphere

Derived from the Greek aisthesis, which means sensation or feeling, Kierkegaard described the aesthetic as one who lives for feelings. An example of this type is the thrill seeker, someone whose purpose is to satisfy desires for peak experiences and momentary pleasures. Kierkegaard believed that the aesthetic route of attaining fulfillment will always fail because the satisfaction of momentary pleasures is often outside an individual’s control. For example, you’ve  desired and worked for a promotion, but your boss hires someone else. Regardless of your strategies for attaining that satisfaction, your endeavor will always be dependent on some degree of fortune. Furthermore, even if you succeed in a given endeavor, there will always be the chance that some misfortune will thwart future endeavors. This results in an anxiety that “undermines the sense of well-being that is the aim of the aesthetic life, and hence robs the aesthetic life of genuine success” (Guignon & Pereboom, 2001). 

Kierkegaard saw the unification of different stages of life as the task set for human beings and believed that it is only through life-defining commitment that we can achieve meaning for our lives. He saw this as a striving that never ends so long as one lives, a project that is continuously taken up over the course of one’s life. It follows, therefore, that the problem with the aesthetic life is that it is heavily skewed towards the temporal aspect of existence; it is oriented towards the instant gratification of immediate desires. As such, it fails to express the eternal aspect of our nature. As soon as the desire is gratified, the fulfillment and the meaning it held ends, and we must once again start anew: “We remain unsatisfied in this type of life, because meaning and fulfillment require a commitment that pulls the various moments of our lives together, and that imparts a significance to our existence by giving these moments an overall coherence” (Guignon & Pereboom, 2001). In Sickness Unto Death, Kierkegaard outlined three forms of despair, which reflect the various unsuccessful ways we attempt to manage the existential need to express both our temporal and eternal nature (Kierkegaard, 1849/1980). 

Modes of Despair

The first form of despair results from being unaware of the tension between the temporal and eternal in one’s life. Someone with this stance does not even recognize that there is an eternal side to their nature that goes unexpressed. Despite the fact that this person does not recognize their despair and might in fact think they are living quite well–like, for example “an aesthetic devotee of the momentary pleasures of partying and revelry”--Kierkegaard maintains they are, in fact, in the worst kind of despair (Guignon & Pereboom, 2001). 

The second form of despair is one in which an individual recognizes both the eternal and temporal but attempts to mitigate this tension through denying or disavowing the eternal and embracing the temporal, for example through devoting one’s life to momentary pleasures. This, however, inevitably leads to psychological one-sidedness, and the psyche naturally compensates for one-sidedness through the formation of an equally strong counterposition in the unconscious (Jung, 1997). To restate Newton’s Third Law of Motion in psychological terms, for every conscious action there is an equal and opposite unconscious reaction. The result of this position is that in denying a part of the self, in driving the consciousness of one’s despair into the background, one may paradoxically become more deeply absorbed in the despair. 

The final form of despair, Kierkegaard held, results from the attempt to express the eternal through the power of one’s own will, exemplified by the stoic attitude. In this form of despair, “one attempts to control oneself, to detach oneself psychologically from any potential cause of distress, and to be content with the events of one’s life no matter how bad they may seem, all by one’s own power” (Guignon & Pereboom, 2001). Kierkegaard described this as the highest form of despair, albeit the most agonizing; yet this too, he claimed, is bound to fail. By trying to will itself into being more than it is, the self paradoxically becomes no self at all. It is perhaps important to note here that whereas Kierkegaard believed that the solution to this dilemma is to be found in religious life, other existentialists like Heidegger and Sartre believed that this stance of defiance is the highest level of authenticity we can hope to achieve. 

So where does that leave us? Kierkegaard’s solution for our existential predicament is far too complex and nuanced to be done justice in this singular blog post. Therefore, next month we will continue our exploration by diving more deeply into Kierkegaard’s notions of religious life, faith, and the ethical. 

References

Guignon, C. B., & Pereboom, D. (Eds.). (2001). Existentialism: Basic Writings (2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.

Jung, C. G. (1997). Jung on active imagination (J. Chodorow, Ed.). Princeton University Press.

Kierkegaard, S. (1980). The sickness unto death (H. V. Hong & E. H. Hong, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1849)

Kierkegaard, S. (2004). Either/or: A fragment of life (A. Hannay, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1843)