One of the numerous episodes in my life revolved around the fact that I wanted very expensive and prestigious things, and there would be nothing strange about that if it were not for the fact that I started questioning my desire and whether I actually seriously wanted these things, and although at that time I was quite separated from philosophy, I started searching and wondering whether my desires were really my own. The answer turned out to be trivial, but one very important philosopher to me and his works illustrated a very dark human dilemma that, unfortunately, we cannot deny. In order for us to understand what I found and what was illustrated to me, I have to introduce this philosopher to you.

I admit that Kierkegaard has had a greater influence on me than Dostoevsky himself, and I came across him when I was still a minor, already considering him incredible. He was a Danish philosopher and writer, born in Copenhagen in 1813. He dealt mainly with philosophy and theology, eventually criticizing the Danish churches for their approach to Christianity. And Søren's biography itself is very complicated, because the material is unclear,

We can take it as a fact that he grew up in a fairly normal Christian home for those times, headed by a father whose wealth was enough to live in a truly dignified way, especially since Søren had six siblings. There is, however, an interesting story about the family that will certainly interest you. It comes from the diary of the protagonist of our essay.

This story would have no significance if this boy had not been Søren Kierkegaard's own father. We know that it was the story of his father, after the death of our main protagonist, when his older brother came across the notes, crying and saying, “but this is the story of our father.” His father himself, and forgive me for not giving his name earlier, Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard, had a great influence on his sons' religiosity. And his childhood story would have a tragic ending, to which Søren attributed a “curse” and a true curse that caused the deaths of both parents, siblings, and Søren himself, at a very young age.

To understand what this is about, let us delve into the education and what the main character gave us. Søren begins his serious educational life at the University of Copenhagen, studying mainly theology and philosophy there, writing and dealing with Socrates' irony, as well as Socrates himself. At some point, Socrates becomes an important intellectual model for him, because he forces the individual to take their own position instead of following systemic choices.

After an unsuccessful attempt at love, for which he himself is to blame and because of which he will suffer for the rest of his life (perhaps I will talk about his love with Regine Olsen another time), around the age of 20, Søren goes to Berlin, which, as we know, was at that time, around 1841, a major center of German philosophy. Our young protagonist experiences an epiphany there, discovering Hegelian ideas and concepts, strongly believing in Hegel's absolute philosophy, but he would not enjoy this for long. Quite the opposite, he would become, to put it mildly, an anti-fan of Hegelian philosophy.

The main reason why Hegel did not suit him is rooted in Kierkegaard from his youth, when, having been raised as a Christian, he sees the individual as a miracle and something much higher and more complicated, with a great purpose in the universe, whereas Hegel shows us man as someone insignificant, as a drop in the ocean. So automatically, this vision could not pass.

His problem is that he does not move from possibility to a lasting choice. This gives us the first model of borrowed desire. If a person does not have a stable internal point of reference, it becomes easier for them to accept as important whatever the environment simply provides, and their desire becomes a reaction to stimuli.

Then, in 1946, Kierkegaard analyzes the modern age as more reflective, but less passionate and less capable of decisive action. And (I would ask you to remember this) the press, gossip, public opinion, and the last of the important concepts, “leveling,” which means the social process of equalizing differences, play an important role. Information itself can be spread without a person directly meeting another specific person. The public (as we know) can judge, mock, and comment while remaining abstract itself.

And this is surprisingly important for our essay and my dilemma, because leveling can also operate on the level of desire. If everyone looks at the same things and treats them as important, the individual may begin to experience them as natural objects of desire. And this is exactly why Kierkegaard helped me most with my life dilemma (I literally call it a life dilemma), and although you now know, at least, the basics of his biography, I think I can ask you one question, How much of what you want actually comes from you?

I know that the answer is not simple. The truth is that it is very difficult, and I know this from experience. First, most of us do not know exactly who we are. Second, years pass before we could answer that. Because paradoxically, even a person who has renounced everything in the world cannot say that they desire to be a monk.

The monk is useful here, because as you will notice, monks isolate themselves from everything. For what reason? Desires. Monks know that what we see, what is within our field of vision, may possibly become our desire. This makes complete sense to me, because if you did not know that something existed in your life, then obviously you would not want it, but that is obvious.

Another thing is with what you know exists, but you do not see it, so you do not desire it, right? You tell yourself that you will not smoke, and you really do not smoke, then you see cigarettes and suddenly you actually start thinking about them, until eventually you smoke. It is an eternal vicious circle, and I am almost sad to admit that I myself cannot deal with my desires, and that I admire monks a hundred times over.

Of course, we observe the very idea of visibility in marketing and advertising as well. What is invisible does not sell, because what good is it that your product can be mysterious if nobody knows about it, then nobody will buy it. And if nobody sees it, why would anyone buy it? We experience a similar phenomenon when someone possesses something that another person then possesses, someone whom we consider at least interesting.

That there are probably many psychological factors involved, and we should be more suspicious. You yourself do not know whether you need another month of Netflix, but its benefits still show you that you need it. Of course, take this as a certain kind of idea and concept, do not turn it into my advice or anything of that sort. I have not even halfway solved my problems with desire myself, and I would be lying if I said that I am probably better than you.

One of the most interesting concepts of Søren's thought for me was “borrowed self,” which I interpreted in a rather depressing way for the reader, so please forgive me. But the situation looks like this: in this concept, other people's values can be experienced as one's own. And if you really, really think about it, it makes sense again, because we often take other people's values for granted, envy them, without having any idea whether they are true, and want to be like them, with their great values.

Then, when we come to the point that we ourselves need such a value, we ourselves have to be, let's say, “rich” like the person we praise, so we automatically begin to absorb this value, “productivity,” “the same taste,” “a similar routine.” All of this is fictional. You never really wanted this. Your desire needs to feed the ego, to create a fictional image of a person who will also be rich, because of course they are productive, just like their idol.

The problem begins later, when we ourselves notice burnout, and surprisingly, this often does not happen after a few days, but if a person has created a really strong image of that person and their traits and adapted it into themselves, they can live like this for months or even years, believing that they are someone they really are not, and depression, burnout, and health problems make them realize it. The body lets them know that the character they created was never real and no longer wants to wear it.

Of course, the way I describe it may be unclear, or perhaps quite the opposite. Maybe you have encountered depression yourself and noticed that you are actually doing nothing that you would want to do (which I do not wish upon you). And I hope none of you has to experience this. The situation is difficult and complicated because it touches again upon the meaning of existence and determinism. But is that a reason to give up and live on autopilot? Not quite.

Kierkegaard gives us a certain solution on a silver platter, which in a certain sense is strongly inspired by Socratic concepts, namely the “Single individual.” Someone who becomes a person who consciously chooses and responds. In fact, this is the ultimate form of Kierkegaard's existential concept, at least according to me. Because this is where you have to move from theory to action in order to better understand a given philosophy and really “feel” it.

Because a person who chooses consciously is a person who stops being an anonymous participant in some group and stops allowing society, authority, or some opinion to make decisions concerning their life for them, and realizes that in order to convey this to you as well as possible, I will give you the question that, in my opinion, works best: Who am I when nobody tells me what I want?

It helps, because along with it you begin to become aware of your own choices. We can present an example using a profession. You choose a profession, you see people who practice that profession, information reaches your consciousness that this profession is good, they make money, it is easy and prestigious, all reasonable people do it. In this way, you can choose for years and in reality, none of the choices will be yours.

People unfamiliar with existentialism often claim that existentialism itself says that we have to “find our true desires and always follow them.” However, for the most part, this is never perfect advice, because paradoxically your desires may also come from other people. That is why “What do I want?” personally makes no sense to me. I would rather always ask why I want a given thing at all and whether I am ready to take responsibility for that action, desire, etc.

There is also beauty in this entire terrifying concept, and what I mean is that there is no way to end badly here. You have to stand before your own existence and take responsibility for the way you live it. Because you see, you can even choose something that everyone else chooses, and your mistake will not be that you choose like the “crowd.” The mistake would be that you chose, but did not really know why you chose.

So yes, we can lead an absolutely ordinary life and remain unaffected by society's influence. And on the other hand, you can lead the most original and incredible life imaginable to everyone else, while at the same time being subordinate to public opinion. If I ended it this way, someone familiar with Kierkegaard's philosophy might be offended that I did not mention the higher, almost “divine” level.

Some of you probably know that I am a believer myself, so this concept is completely natural to me, but for those outside of faith it may be uncomfortable? I don't know, but you are reading me, so I realize that you yourselves know that I do not want to impose any religion on anyone through my texts. Especially since my publication has been going on for a long time and I mainly write here about what I myself come up with.

There is still a higher level of “fulfillment.” More or less, Kierkegaard ultimately tells us that in order to become an individual absolutely conscious of their choices, they cannot remain “alone.” Such an individual has to stand before their choices, no longer alone, but with God, not making decisions before their family, society, or the crowd, etc. And why does he present it to us this way?

Because his situation is absolutely personal. You cannot hide behind the crowd. Probably this is also why, toward the end of his life, Søren often engaged in disputes with the Danish Church, questioning its religiosity, because in his view the Church itself had begun to become more “influential” over human decisions than God himself. At least that is how I interpret it.

So in the end, you, the reader, might ask me: “So how should one practically live?” To which I will not answer you, because again, it is not my role, and generally I do not know how to live very well myself. But based on studies of Kierkegaard's concepts, ideas, books, and biography, I managed to put together a few important questions that I decided to share with you.

Whatever we do with these questions and the entire concept, in my opinion, the main thing we should not do is make the mistake of using other people as an excuse for our own lives, which is ironic, because I consider myself a fan of biographies and I often want to absorb the values, traits, and, in a way, the lives of great people.

The Present Age by Søren Kierkegaard. If this essay made you question where your own desires come from, this is probably the next place I would go. Kierkegaard wrote it in the 1840s, but his observations about public opinion, the press, and the crowd still feel strangely familiar. It is also short enough to read in one sitting.

In conclusion, I would certainly like to thank you very much, because the concept itself is not an easy one, so if you made it this far, believe me, I am very grateful. Besides, I have much more of this subject in my journals, and in the future I intend to write more about Kierkegaard's concepts of thought, which I hope is something that works for you.

I am also planning, although I am actually in the middle of writing and creating it, a reading list that a large group of people have been asking for, as well as asking for individual book recommendations, so finally next Sunday you will receive the finished material with 100 books, completely free,

Until Sunday.