Stages of Life and Relationships

Kierkegaard is definitely one of the philosophers this semester I have fully grasped. His “Stages on Life’s Way” are very relatable and one can ponder upon which stage they fall into. Discovering which stage you are in is quite simple with the criteria Kierkegaard gives, this is where things get interesting. In thinking about our conversations about the stages of life, I thought, “What happens when people in different stages decide to date?” Not that I’m any Dr Phil or anything, but I think this may be an issue in relationships. In each stage in life, I would argue one’s thinking is different from those of different stages. For example, if a couple were made up of one aesthetic person and one ethical person, many everyday decisions might be disagreed upon. Examples might be going out a night before an important board meeting at the office, or maybe purchasing a vehicle above your means. An ethical person would obviously see an issue here, however, aesthetics, being the “free spirit” they are, would worry about the potential consequences of their actions at a later time. One may question why two people of such different stages might even be attracted to one another. Well, we can’t control whom we’re attracted to right? I think if everyone evaluated themselves to these life stage criteria, relationships might be better contemplated on things other than looks.

Can Duty be Tragedy?

Even if it broke Agamemnon's heart to sacrifice his daughter, can he really be called a tragic hero? He received solace and justification from society for doing his duty. Can a man whose grief has society to turn to for comfort really be viewed as a tragic hero? For me, "tragic hero" conjures up the image of Quasimodo from Notre Dame. Quasimodo had no support from society. He was hated and feared. He was scorned by Esmeralda, the only woman he ever loved. In death, he was remembered only as the demon who slew the cruel bishop and took his soul to hell. This is far more tragic than the story of Agamemnon, who was remembered as a noble king who sacrificed everything for his country. No matter how much it hurts to follow duty, the ethical person will still have the support and gratitude of society. Whether or not this eased Agamemnon's grief, it was still available to him. Quasimodo never even had this small comfort.

A hero who is beloved by those around them for their sacrifice to duty can never be truly tragic. A hero is only truly tragic if they are truly alone after their sacrifice. Any justification or gratitude from society lessens the pain and therefore the tragedy of the hero. However, if a hero is only tragic if they are truly alone wouldn't that put them in the religious realm rather than the ethical? How can a hero obey society's laws if society rejects them completely? It is in the religious realm that one is alone and isolated from society. The answer is yes. A hero's actions can still be governed by society's laws even if society forces the hero to follow these laws apart from it. Even if the hero is alone, they are not placing themselves above society, but are forced by society to be apart from it.

Kierkegaard Contradcitions?

Kierkegaard went through a lot of pain when he gave up his fiancée. He thought he was not suit to the life of a husband and a pastor. Although giving up the life of a pastor was easier than giving up his fiancée, it seems he really did not want to give up his fiancée at all. The readings say he was surprised when she became engaged to another man. It seems he believed God would give her back to him like Abraham was given back his son. It was as though despite what he wanted, he always though that she would be given back to him through divine means. I guess I'm not understanding what he really wanted. He did not think he was suit to the life of being a husband, but he was upset when she was engaged to another man and this contradiction confuses me. I suppose my question is what did he really want?