The Seducer’s Diary Analysis
The Seducer’s Diary is a book written by Kierkegaard that discusses the idea of individuality versus the greater good of society, the difference between what is selfish and what is ethical. Kierkegaard wrote discusses the difference between the artistic or self-persona and the person who thinks of the greater community under the segment Either/Or. Either/Or seems to be the question that the author would like the reader to know about, and Kierkegaard illustrates this though the two main characters that have an ongoing argument and ethical debate about this, and they are A and the Judge. The argument carries a lot of meaning for both parties, each with their own point of view and valid points to convince the reader
…show more content…
The community that surrounds an individual is a major source of happiness, there are many attributes that make this claim a valid one in the eyes of the Judge. In response to A’s seductive way of reaching the reader, the Judge seems like a more logical and mature person, using common sense and ethical reasoning in his efforts to make his point. The Judge explains that the benefit of the community is far more important than the individuals and is a more stable and rational way of living. Moreover, individuals live in the community to start with, and the safety and wellbeing of the general public as whole helps make society safe and sound, which in the end will benefit the individual greatly. The Judge seems like a well-balanced person using common sense and a more mature way in convincing people that the ethical route is the right one to take. The Judge uses reason and a clear goal to make his argument about the benefits of society before the individual, unlike A that tries his best to persuade the reader into agreeing with his point of view. For example if a country is safe then the states are safe, and if the state is safe then the community is safe which translates to the individual living in this area to also being safe in the
... “inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice”? (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 105) With an end reminding us of the tough qualifications judicial offices must have met to get into office. “Hence it is that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the station of judges.” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 106)
In individual searches to find themselves, Frank and April Wheeler take on the roles of the people they want to be, but their acting grows out of control when they lose sense of who they are behind the curtains. Their separate quests for identity converge in their wish for a thriving marriage. Initially, they both play roles in their marriage to please the other, so that when their true identities emerge, their marriage crumbles, lacking communication and sentimentality. Modelled after golden people or manly figures, the roles Frank and April take on create friction with who they actually are. Ultimately, to “do something absolutely honest” and “true,” it must be “a thing … done alone” (Yates 327). One need only look inside his or her self to discover his or her genuine identity.
How to live one’s life is a question faced by any human being with relatively normal cognitive functioning. Some find beauty in every day life, reveling in something as simple as the gentle shaking of leaves dancing to the whispered song of the wind, or waking up to someone they have decided to spend the rest of their lives with. Others only see the mundane and the tedious, growing bitter and resentful as a relentless existential crisis latches on to the deepest parts of their psyche, casting a grim and ominous shadow over every thought and action. This probing question of how to live is at the forefront of Soren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or: A Fragment of Life.” The aforementioned views are, indeed, reflected in the fragmented perspectives provided by Kierkegaard’s fictional characters, “A” and “Judge Wilhelm,” who perhaps reflect Kierkegaard’s own divided views. Love and companionship are at the crux of how to live for both A and Wilhelm, despite the glaring contrast between A’s calls for a hedonistic,
Imagine what it would have been like to be cooped up in an attic during the Holocaust,with only very little space eight people in one little attic. For the Franks and the Van Danns it was eight people and a cat for most the time. With no one to talk to they have to keep everything in, unless they write it. In “The Diary of Anne Frank” the two families live this way. Anne and Peter were two of the characters who experienced this. Anne is a teenage girl who has a sister and lives during the Holocaust. Anne also had a lot of friends so she was popular; she loved to read and write in her journal. She was very loud and obnoxious. In Act one Scene two ,Peter says “I was always by myself, while you were in a big crowd of people.” This shows that Anne was very popular and is used to people; while Peter was not used to as much attention and people. Then in Act one Scene three, Mr.Van Dann says, “ Why can’t you be more like your sister Margot?” This proves that the Van Danns like Margot more than they like Anne ; it also proves they think Anne is obnoxious.
...ndicates a level of justification each felt in their actions. These actions, immortalized in two of the most widely read classics of all time, even today call into question the values each society held so dear, and led the modern reader to explore what honor and traditional gendered values mean both in these societies and our own.
Either/Or, published in 1843, was Kierkegaard’s first publication.The book, written under the pseudonym of Victor Eremita (Latin for "victorious hermit"), has two parts: the first deals with the aesthetic, a word that Kierkegaard uses to denote personal, sensory experiences. The second part of Either/Or deals with ethics. Kierkegaard's work outlines a theory of human development in which consciousness progresses from an essentially self-indulgent, aesthetic mode to one characterized by ethical imperatives arising from the maturing of human conscience. (Kierkegaard) A common interpretation of Either/Or presents the reader with a choice between two approaches to life. There are no standards or guidelines which indicate how to choose. The reasons for choosing an ethical way of life over the aesthetic only make sense if one is already committed to an ethical way of life. Suggesting the aesthetic approach as evil implies one has already accepted the idea that there is a good/evil distinction to be made. Thus, existentialists see Kierkegaard as presenting a radical choice in which no pre-ordained value can be discerned. One must choose, and through one's choices, one creates what they
He talks about how we inherently acknowledge the laws and norms of society, even when we are not being judged by the members of society. I agree to a degree on this notion. I agree that trust is important, but I think it is a concept that see-saws on the fence of our sub-conscience against doubt. We start out trusting our society because of the laws in place. However, after someone has broken the law and has had consequences, we begin to slowly drop the trust in the society we sub-consciously believed in and the doubt rises a little. Let us take the example Anderson presents in his article. He explains that we all know the rules of the road. If we see a stop sign we stop we automatically know we must stop, regardless of whether there are other cars or not. However, let us presume that at a stop sign a driver does not stop because they know it is usually a quiet street, and actually speeds up. A pedestrian, knowing the same rule, assumes a driver will stop because it is a stop sign. However the driver, not having slowed down, accidently hits and kills the pedestrian. Following that accident, our trust in society falls, but our want to follow the rules rises. Even in our own laws. We buy insurance when driving, not because we believe we are bad drivers, but we believe others might be. As important as trust is, we take everything with caution,
Laws have an important role in maintaining order within society. Understandably, society comprises of different individuals with differing aspirations, beliefs, personalities, and merits – just to name a few. Allowing individuals to push their personal desires using resources available to them would not only lead to a disordered society, but also one that embraces injustice and prejudice. Laws are the common principles that guide the conduct of individuals in society while ensuring that society upholds the rights of everyone who is part of it. Such laws accrue as a resemblance of morality for entities in society to which all members are held accountable irrespective of their race, social class, or popularity. However,
The first component is the desire to reprimand a person who has done wrong upon them. Humans, like animals, have self-defense mechanism. However, unlike animals, humans are capable of sympathy. Humans have a wider range of emotions. Therefore the need they feel for punishment onto the person who did them wrong depends on the severity of the act according to the “victim.” This brings us to the second point that talks about how certain rights are protected by law therefore punishable by law enforcement. Society must defend itself against those who disobey their laws in the interest of general utility among its people. The conservation of justice and of just laws preserves harmony and well being among human beings. As a result there is a very big utility interest in preserving and enforcing justice 's commands. Each person’s happiness must be held to the same standard of importance in order for this system to work. A rich man’s rights in the justice system must be no more important than the rights of the poorest man. Justice is meant to provide the overall greatest happiness to human beings. It is looking at the greater picture rather than individual
(Jensen, 2005, p. 69) could be compared with the importance of desired moral reasoning. The
In the short story “The Cheater’s Guide to Love” by Junot Diaz, the author pinpoints on the Yunior’s life as a writer and college professor who is also struggling with his romantic relationships. The short story is filled with his experiences of using women for his beneficial needs and how it negatively affects him. It focuses on Yunior’s downfall through life after the destruction of his relationship with his fiance. The diction includes the narrator’s hateful consideration of women and a paradox of his own endeavors which prevent him from pursuing a meaningful relationship, but he grows to realize that he treats women awfully and his ex did the right thing by leaving him due to his untruthfulness.
Anne Frank's personal piece of writing, “Diary of A Young Girl” tells the story of a young girl transitioning to womanhood during the second world war. Along her journey, she uses her diary as a tool for getting rid of her emotional and mental stress. She faces the challenges of becoming a young adult with fellow residents at the Secret Annex, including her sister Margot. Like most girls, her relationship with her sister is bitter - full of conflict and eventually some understanding. Anne deals with her relationship with Margot by writing diary entries because she wants to vent her feelings of frustration, admiration, and jealousy.
She argues that this system allows juveniles to be viewed differently from society thus giving them more leeway. The criminal justice system was designed to serve justice to the victims, not to appeal to the emotions of others. A criminal is a criminal and should not be viewed any differently based on race, sex, religion, nor age. However, society is being impacted by these factors and are not creating fairness as we are not able to put aside these
It is no surprise as to why the case Riggs v Palmer is such a renowned case, for this case tests the importance of many of the philosophers’ theories, especially on the validity of certain laws and the conflict between law and morality. This hard case has been used as a reference for many court decisions over the years and will be most likely used in the future as well. An inference can be made based on this case and the legal conflicts and issues that the judges faced when reaching their verdict. Those who commit the crime should not be rewarded by attaining what motivated them in the first place as the fruit of their crime, and in the event that such a crime occurs, judges must interpret the law in the same manner that the law makers intended
Mill believes individual should be given liberty to do what they want unless they harm others. According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty. On the contrary, Devlin claimed that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He said that society does have a right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguarding social morals. Further Devlin said that the law is not looking for true belief but what is commonly believed by individuals in a civil society as a whole. He said that the judgment of the “right minded person” will prevail and immorality would be something which the those people will consider immoral. For example, murder and theft are prohibited because t...