Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Either/Or' By Soren Kierkegaard

The writer Soren Kierkegaard’s presents us with “Either/ or” an intense argument between two very different ways of life, the aesthetic and the ethical. Part Two presents us with an ethical Judge William tries to persuade the writer of the first part A to surrender his empty aesthetic life in substitute it for a more meaningful life, the life of ethicist. The clear difference between living an aesthete and the ethicist life, according to the judge is the ability the one posse to make a choice. According to Kierkegaard the ability to choose is “decisive for a personality’s and when it does not choose it wastes consumptively away” (Kierkegaard 62). Kierkegaard continues by saying that it’s not about choosing between good and evil but rather it’s the choice of recognizing either good or evil or none (Kierkegaard 66).
A key point that the Judge uses to try and convert the aesthetic is through his topic of marriage. We see how Judge William happily married and living the life that in the view of an aesthetic caution with care. According to an aesthetic view there is nothing worse than marriage because once an entity enters into marriage phase both promise each other never-ending love. According to the aesthetic the concept of marriage is an act that joins both entities into one. According to the aesthetic eternal love a hard promise to make and truly commit to it. In addition, by entering into matrimony it takes away the chances of understanding first love, which according to an aesthetic it a fundamental feature of the life of the aesthete. An aesthetic entity who is afraid of making a final and important choice such as holy matrimony removes the beauty and pleasure from