In this paper I will examine two concepts which I have termed as the philosophical law of extremes and the death of the age of objectivity.  I will begin by discussing Kierkegaard, as he is the thinker that most directly led to my formulation of this theory.  Then, I will transition into the philosophical idea of existentialism that was built on top of the foundation which Kierkegaard initially laid.  From here, I will focus on the complicated nature of reality by examining morality and then looking at seemingly fundamental questions that the human race has been asking for the entirety of written history, as well as different possible answers that thinkers have put forth.  Next, I will examine that beyond these fundamental questions that are unanswerable, there are always two sides to every coin; very few people actually view themselves as evil.  From here we will gain a better understanding as to why theories that portray people as good and evil are so intoxicating to the masses.  After this, I will turn towards the differences between objectivism and relativism by first examining different historical thinkers’ opinions on the matter.  After the historical, I will focus on the modernity of each theory and define the age of objective truth.  Afterwards, I will explain why I believe this age to be coming to an end, and put forth a few different potentialities that I see arising from this end.  Finally, I will examine different ideologies that I define as extreme and explain why I believe that they are naturally intoxicating for most people.  To conclude, I will look towards the future as to what I believe may protect us from becoming infatuated by extremes. 

When one reads the works of Søren Kierkegaard the question of why he made the conscious decision to often write under pseudonyms rather than attaching his name to the works that he took great pride in arises.  However, the answer to this question is intrinsically tied with another question:  Why did Kierkegaard often write in parables, rather than speaking directly to the point which he was trying to make?  To understand the answer to both of these questions, one must first understand the historical context in which he wrote.  Within Kierkegaard’s lifetime, much of philosophy was dominated by the theories of Georg Hegel.  Hegel believed that all questions within existence could be answered by the process of the study of history through the lens of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis [1, 2].  Kierkegaard’s criticism was often formed in the way of parables under the guise of pseudonyms because he wanted to avoid the fatal flaw that he saw within Hegel’s writing.

  Kierkegaard believed that Hegel’s system was attempting to create simplicity where there was none to be found.  Hegel attempted to answer all questions generally without focusing on the subjectivity and nuance that each question necessarily begged.  Therefore, Kierkegaard’s writings were an attempt to demonstrate to his readers the complicated nature of reality which we, as finite beings, cannot possibly ever fully understand.  He attempted to accomplish this by making his writings seem like they were coming from numerous different minds and by never directly giving his own answer to questions, but answering them in ways that forced the reader to interpret his writings for themselves.

Kierkegaard did not believe himself to have a higher understanding of the universe that allowed him to speak in terms that others could not grasp without his aid, but this is not to say that Kierkegaard did not have ideas that he believed to be more correct than others.  He saw that every individual question that could be asked was so complicated by the nuance of individuality that it was not conceivably possible to write a system of beliefs that could generally apply to all human beings.  This is most simply put when he wrote in his journals, 

If there be such a thing as a Danish philosophy it will differ from the German in not beginning with nothing.  Neither will it be presuppositionless, nor explain everything by mediation.  Let it rather begin with the sentence, ‘There are many things in heaven and earth which no philosopher has explained.’[3]

Ultimately, Kierkegaard not only respected Hegel, but he also found that there was much to learn from him [4].  However, he opposed the idea that everything was simplifiable into a single coherent general thesis.  Therefore, he used these techniques to bring to light the crisis that is created once one realizes that values are socially constructed and not inherent to our society.  This view on morality is what ultimately ended up causing many scholars to label Kierkegaard as the grandfather of existentialism.  

Understanding the theory of existentialism is paramount in order to fully comprehend the law of extremes.  A key principle which defines existentialism is that there is no inherent meaning within our world.  Jean-Paul Sarte explains this well when he wrote in his essay Existentialism is a Humanism, 

That means that man first exists, encounters himself and emerges in the world, to be defined afterwards. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. It is man who conceives himself, who propels himself towards existence. Man becomes nothing other than what is actually done, not what he will want to be [5].

Sartre is trying to help his readers understand that while many believe that there is value and meaning built into the essence of the world around us, this value and meaning is defined by humans after they exist, and not inherently.  Friedrich Nietzsche explored a very similar concept in a letter in which he wrote,