The name for this blog was taken from the teachings of Søren Kierkegaard and his so-called three stages of life: the Aesthetic, the Ethical, and the Religious. He was a hard-line Christian and believed that after we've done all the fun and happy stuff in life, we’d find a void so big that only God can fill it. Now, to be completely transparent—as a religious skeptic—even I found this kind of convincing. However, I feel like this reflects more of a day-to-day human thought pattern rather than one's entire life trajectory.
For example, we as humans naturally chase what we believe is pleasurable. Our decision to have breakfast isn’t one of necessity—we could very easily go a week without eating—but we do it purely for the pleasurable feeling of not going about on an "empty stomach." That begins the aesthetic part of one's day, yet it's something we return to repeatedly in both morning and evening. I doubt that even the most devout ethicist will take into account the utilitarian principle when offered a cookie in the office. The power of our innate desire for pleasure can override any self-taught or (potentially) innate knowledge.
 |
| Christian existentialist Søren Kierkegaard |
The ethical stage in one’s existence can simply be framed as adherence to social norms, rules, and principles—set by the state, society, or oneself. Acting according to a certain code of conduct is essential for society. It’s the reason we have laws in place. Society, in my opinion, wouldn’t be able to function without these laws due to the aforementioned short-term pleasure desires we all harbor. Hence, the ethical stage isn't a chunk of one’s life, but a constant part of our existence. Where I differ from Kierkegaard is in saying that these three stages aren't mutually exclusive phases of human existence but rather intertwine within our everyday lives, shaping the civilization we live in today.
The impact of Christian dogma
The last part is the religious phase, which is the most difficult to fit in—but still important. Kierkegaard suggests that living purely in the aesthetic leads to an unruly, poor-quality life, while a life confined to the ethical leads to a rigid, equally unsatisfying one. The religious, in his view, balances this out while putting our eyes on God, the true creator, and something far greater than our own pleasures or society’s expectations.
In daily life, adherence to the religious is either active (for those who believe) or passive (for those who don’t). Here’s where my argument stretches a bit. The active form can be accessed through prayer—this is a moment when pleasure or public opinion aren’t in the equation. It's a time for direct interaction with the supernatural. Now, putting my personal opinions aside, it's clear that for some, this moment is deeply profound, physically and psychologically—something uniquely distinctive from their average daily experience.
So, the question is: is this the high point of human existence? Do we simply live for divine moments with our creator?
To be completely honest, I would like to think that if I was put on this earth by a divine creator, he wouldn’t do it for his own sake. A quick thought experiment: let’s say you bring a child into this world and you know full well the value of life—you know the beauty and pleasure that can be attained—yet you ensure that the best feeling they’ll ever have is hearing your voice. To me, that sounds horrifically cruel and narcissistic. But that’s just my opinion.
Living in The Aesthetic
The passive part of the religious stage applies to unbelievers—those who reject the notion of prayer or active participation in the religious experience. Kierkegaard would say that an essential piece of their life is missing and that they will forever operate in a void of despair because of it. However, I’d like to ask: is that really the case?
Maybe a person can just have two needs: to benefit themselves through living in the aesthetic, and to benefit society through living in the ethical. Kierkegaard, being an existentialist, would argue that the missing religious piece manifests itself in a life of sin and despair. This is the hedonistic life of sin we’re told to desperately avoid. But if someone truly doesn’t accept the religious part of existence, would they even know they were “sinning”? Rejecting a worldview based on unprovable premises would naturally include rejecting that worldview’s moral categories.
Take abortion, for example. Life in the religious (according to traditional Abrahamic teachings) would often mean that the option is outlawed—potentially consigning both mother and child to a genuine life of despair. This decision would ignore what might be best for the individual or society, all because of a 2000-year-old text that can’t adapt to personal situations or the evolving realities of the modern world. Can Kierkegaard really claim that humanity’s despair ends by accepting the religious, when so many examples point to the opposite? I would even argue that life in the religious could worsen this sense of despair.
Religion often teaches that humanity is imperfect and worthless compared to the glory of the creator. It says our successes come through God, while our failures stem from our own lack of faith. In my opinion, this promotes a sense of guilt and inadequacy that an unbeliever might never encounter—perhaps deepening, rather than alleviating, despair.
The inspiration
The main reason I started this essay was to suggest that perhaps living in the aesthetic is the best—and maybe only—way we should lead our lives. However, it appears I’ve spent the entirety of it saying why Kierkegaard is wrong. So, to conclude: if the climax of our lives were simply to enter the religious stage, it would have to offer a state of perfection and happiness unmatched in any other walk of life. Rejecting it would have to lead to deep suffering that a religious person would avoid.
But since that doesn’t appear to be the case in the real world, I don’t buy into Kierkegaard’s claim that religion is essential for personal well-being.