Everywhere There is a Dancing Floor
or the Ethical and the Aesthetical in Kierkegaard
Writing helps us understand ourselves and the world around us. If my ideas resonate with you, let’s explore them together — schedule a call with me here.
Some time ago I wrote about the difference between being a maximiser and a satisficer.
In a nutshell:
1. happiness is a state only attainable in relation to the idealized version of ourselves. The closer I feel to that image of myself in the future — that self-projection — the happier I feel, and vice versa.
2. Maximizers conduct themselves thinking that only the perfect moment, only becoming his or her perfect self-projection, matters. A maximizer spends most of his or her time in the future, trying to attain that perfect self-projection.
Maximizers believe there is an end to their journey where everything will be aligned for the best, where their perfect self-projection will be aligned with reality.
3. Satisficers, on the other hand, only care about making the most of whatever comes to life, even if at times that might not coincide with their self-projection, the ideal self.
Satisficers seek contentment, the satisfying feeling that you’re currently taking the best crack you can at a good life path.
One of the most beautiful pieces of philosophical writing I have read in the recent months touches on the same topic, from a slightly different angle.
In his ‘Equilibrium between the ethical and the aesthetical in the composition of the personality’ (contained in volume 2 of Etiher/Or, published in 1843), Kierkegaard outlines a theory of human existence marked by the distinction between an essentially hedonistic, aesthetic mode of life and the ethical life, which is predicated upon commitment.
“He who lives aesthetically expects everything from without. Hence the morbid dread with which many people speak of the appalling experience of not having found one’s place in the world. Who will deny that it is a pleasant thing to have been fortunate in this respect? But such a dread always indicates that the individual expects everything from the place, nothing from himself. He, too, who lives ethically will try to choose his place rightly: however, if he notices that he has made a mistake, or that obstacles arise over which he has no control, he does not lose courage, for he never relinquishes the sovereignty over himself. He at once sees his task and knows that the art is not to wish but wo will.”
The maximizer vs the satisficer.
The aesthete vs the ethical.
But also…
The emotional vs the stoic.
The irrational vs the rational.
The bohemian vs the conformist.
More often than not, the second term in the pairs above is relegated to the ability to solve textbook-type logic problems, or is generally seen as antithetical to human fulfillment, an impairment to an enjoyable emotional life.
What follows is probably one of the most romantic yet concrete, simple yet profound, responses on this matter, and also one that couldn’t sound more modern:
“Many wish to be contemporary with great events, to be involved in important situations, but it is superstition to think that an event or a situation as such is capable of making a man something. He who lives ethically knows that it all depends upon what one sees in every situation, with what energy he regards it, and that he who thus cultivates himself in the unimportant situations may experience more than he who has been witness to the most notable events. He knows that everywhere there is a dancing floor, that even the lowliest man has his, that his dance, if he will, can be as beautiful, as graceful, as mimic, as brisk as that of those who were assigned a place in history.”
Everywhere there is a dancing floor…
Everywhere there is the chance to look at our lives as an unfolding set of possibilities that can be realized regardless of whether our idealized, perfect conditions have materialized or not.
Everywhere there is the chance to make the most of whatever happens to us and to turn every situation to our favor, to look at things as we were the protagonist and the primary agent of our unfolding stories, to turn reality into that self-projected self, to use our inner will and energy to create a beautiful plot in a ‘life script’ that is oftentimes written by others (be it social, social media, our parents etc.).
Nowadays, it requires courage to appreciate life, and will power to look at every event as a set of possibilities to make every stage a dancing floor.
Postscriptum
The aesthete, according to Kierkegaard’s model, will eventually find himself in “despair”, a psychological state (explored further in Kierkegaard’s The Concept of Anxiety and The Sickness Unto Death) that results from a recognition of the limits of the aesthetic approach to life. Kierkegaard’s “despair” is a somewhat analogous precursor of existential angst. The natural reaction is to make an eventual “leap” to the second phase, the “ethical,” which is characterized as a phase in which rational choice and commitment replace the capricious and inconsistent longings of the aesthetic mode. Ultimately, for Kierkegaard, the aesthetic and the ethical are both superseded by a final phase which he terms the “religious” mode (introduced later in Fear and Trembling).
“We need all three perspectives to live a full life, even if, humanly speaking, we must live with the permanent possibility of despair. This means living aesthetically, ethically and ‘spiritually’, taking ‘spirituality’ as far as philosophy can take it, without accepting religious beliefs as revealed truths.”
— Jeff Masons
I glance at a book open on my desk. It’s called ‘The Psychedelic Reader’, a collection of essays from the so-called magazine started by a bunch of Harvard researchers in the 1960s to shed light on the mind-expanding potential of both natural and synthesized psychedelics.
A new thought comes to mind…
Men look at the religious, the transcendental, as a way to rationalize and escape their finiteness, the limitations of the ethical and the aesthetical, the constraint on our emotions, the dead end of rationality.
Individuals tap into the religious because they perceive only part of the reality available to them. The contribution of the psychedelic drugs in enhancing the mind draws a parallel between the transcendental/religious and the drug induced psychosis which has been an increasing source of fascination for me.
The link between religion, psychedelic drugs and philosophy is a topic that has been on my list for quite some time now and that I shall explore further in another essay soon.
These reflections are just the beginning of a much larger conversation. If you’re interested in exploring these ideas further, I’d love to hear your thoughts — schedule a call with me here.
