Kierkegaard vs. Nietzsche

Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche are known to be two of the greatest nineteenth century existentialists of all time. Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe. It regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.
Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche both felt that life is irrational. They were problem thinkers who chose not to follow the systematic approach to philosophy as their predecessors did. In this regard, they stood on common ground. Both realized that no system of philosophy operates in isolation of its creators inherent prejudices. Any subjective viewpoint is biased; therefore, objectivity is impossible in any moral example.
They both recognized that God no longer exists in religion in present-day expression. Men and women go about their daily lives in a manner irreverent of the possibility that there is an all-powerful God governing their affairs. Surprisingly, they proclaim their devotion to God when questioned about it. However, in their attempts to resolve this moral affliction Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are different in their quest for a cure. The very foundations of their moral constitutions were built upon conflicting ideologies: Kierkegaard put his in Christianity, while Nietzsche’s in individualism and self-determination.
Kierkegaard saw the problem of religious downfall as an opportunity for renewal in
Christian beliefs. Kierkegaard was born May 5, 1813 in Kopenhagen Denmark and died November 11, 1885. Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher, religious author, and considered the first existentialist philosopher of all time. Soren Kierkegaard was a Christian man who believed in the Will of God. Nietzsche was born October 15, 1844 in the Kingdom of Prussia. He was a German philosopher who’s key ideas include “the death of God”, Ubermensch, and the “will to power”. Nietzsche died on August 25, 1900 in the German Empire.
Both men, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are philosophers that accomplished great things; they relayed their knowledge and ideas of the world. However, some of the ideas that were portrayed by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche took time for acceptance from their critics. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche each convey different concepts in their existential ideas. I will be comparing Kierkegaard’s Christian conception of existentialism with Nietzsche’s atheist version of existentialism.
Kierkegaard uses subjective truth as one of his concepts in his writing. Subjective truth seeks the achievement of the right attitude, and is a fitting relation between the object and knower involved. Objective truth comprises historical truth and philosophical truth, while subjective truth contains religious truth. Kierkegaard states that the objective thinker is indifferent to the truth of subjectivity, while the subjective thinker finds an eternal happiness in subjectivity. Eternal happiness for the subjective thinker is absolute good, which is achieved from faith. Faith is something that upholds the truth of subjectivity and is a passionate practice. An example of subjective thinking would be a person that practices Christianity. Here the religion is objectively one of the many religions that someone can practice in the world, but it subjectively demands one’s complete devotion to it. Kierkegaard believes that it is clearly subjective truth that counts in one’s life. He states that how we believe matters more than what we believe, since the "passionate inwardness" of subjective adherence is the only way to deal with our anxiety. Truth as subjectivity is Kierkegaard’s definition of faith. Kierkegaard's defines truth as an objective of uncertainty held fast in an appropriation. The process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for the individual. Truth is not so much as what is believed as it is how it is believed. It is an idea paradoxical for fixed reason, requiring both risk from a person to believe in it and a so called leap of faith. Truth comes about through the suspension of the ethical. The ethical codes do not represent the truth of religious faith. Ethical obligations are sometimes superseded by truths of subjective existence. The difference between objective (or Socratic) truth and subjective truth is the appropriation process of making the paradox one's own. Thinking about it doesn't get in the way of seizing it. Three main characteristics of subjective truth include that it is paradoxical, concrete, and not universal.
Kierkegaard's inwardness is not equivalent to just an emotional state. It is the involvement of the whole of one's person, a commitment or dedication as a matter of consciousness in thought. Passionate inwardness is a complete devotion to a certain thing, because that person is putting everything into what they believe. For example, a Christian devotes their life to God and what they can do to please God. This devotion to a certain faith or truth is the inwardness that is being talked. Everything that a person believes to be right and true outside of someone, such as a religion, is now shoved inward into the sole and spirit of that individual. At one point Kierkegaard stated; “that eternity is a radical thought, and thus is a matter of inwardness.” Inwardness is the way in which some people deal with anxiety. Just like eternity which is a radical thought, anxiety can be taken away by thinking of a different radical thought that may sooth one’s anxiety.
Ethics are used by Kierkegaard to denote a limited existential sphere, or stage, in which it is superseded by the higher stage of the religious life. They represent the universal, or more accurately the prevailing social norms. Kierkegaard's religious perspectives show that the social norms do not support the conceptual distinction between good and evil, instead it is God that does. Public reason cannot decide the issue every individual. People must decide for themselves as a matter of what faith they will believe in.
While other contemporaries of Nietzsche were optimistic about the nineteenth century, Nietzsche saw human kind facing a crisis in values. With the rise of science, Christianity was beginning to be exposed, and called fake. Nietzsche once stated that “God is dead.” Because Nietzsche saw this change in belief, he wanted to give people a new source of meaning and value in their lives. He turned his focus to the affirmation of life.
Nietzsche demanded a renunciation of all established values. As its replacement, he proposed a new paradigm of 3 thought with human creativity at its center. Nietzsche realized that our society is becoming increasingly self-centered. He noted that moral conceptions of good and evil were inseparably linked to our social origins, containing inherent prejudice against certain character traits that encourage independent thought. Nietzsche saw two morality types: the master and the slave. These types were based on early class differences and worked to perpetuate the existence of those classes. From this insight, Nietzsche conceived the Obermensch, or Overman, a man whose values are independent from societal conceptions of good and evil. Nietzsche introduced the Overman in The Will to Power as follows: The genius who can embrace becoming, who acknowledges the death of all external values, could become an Obermensch (ëovermaní or ësupermaní). Such an overman would be contrary to God and would affirm life without any resentment. The overman would be to humans as humans are to apes. But, most important, the overman would be the one who acknowledges and celebrates the will to power. (Baird and Kaufmann)
Will to power is a psychological insight: our fundamental drive is for power as realized in independence and dominance. The will to power can manifest itself through violence and physical dominance. Nietzsche is more interested in the sublimated will to power. This is where people turn their will to power inward and pursue self-mastery rather than mastery over others. The will to power explains the changing aspect of reality. According to Nietzsche, everything is in flux, and there is no such thing as fixed being. A truly life-affirming philosophy embraces change. It recognizes in the will to power that change is the only constant in the world.
Nietzsche argued that there were two types of morality: one being master morality and the other being slave morality. Master morality has values of nobility, strength, and pride. In contrast, slave morality values consist of sympathy, humility, and kindness. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences. That is to say, a completion of a task will end in either good or bad. Slave morality is much different in that it weighs actions on a scale of good and evil intentions. The essence of master morality is nobility, because with people of less importance it is easier to become a master of a lower less important class. Master morality begins with the noble man having a spontaneous idea of the good. The master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of everything. Master morality is sentiment. Slave morality is re-sentiment or basing one’s own values on the values of the master. Master morality originates in the strong, whereas slave morality originates in the weak. Slave morality is the opposite of master morality. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as good. Slave morality does not aim at using one's will by strength but by careful resistance. It does not seek to exceed or transform the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is the utility of that slave to endure what the master is asking from them. The good is what is most useful for the whole community, not just the strong. Nietzsche saw this correspondence as a contradiction of one another. Since the powerful are few in numbers compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery are evil. They also are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. Slave morality avoids the admittance of voluntary humility that was forced upon them by the master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind. Thus, the masters become slaves as well. Nietzsche makes sure to point this out because he is an atheist and believes that those who follow and obey a religion are of slave morality. This is because they are told to be humble and sympathetic, but Nietzsche states that this type of behavior is one of slave morality. Knowledge and strength are greater virtues than humility and submission. Humility and submission should be rejected. He believes that if people are weak and submit easily they deserve to be strongly dominated.
Both philosophers wrote in the second half of the century. They were both of the same era. Both were unable to accept the norms of society and both took issue with what was happening in the Christianity at that time. They both sought something “greater and truer.” Kierkegaard believed a truly authentic Christian faith was the only true means for a fulfilling life. Kierkegaard wanted to restore the Truth of Christianity. In contrast, Nietzsche held that Christianity was life-negating and should be abolished altogether. Kierkegaard felt that Christianity provided it's believer's with an ultimate goal that could be life-enhancing. The believer's could work for these ideals with an ultimate being. Nietzche counters this view by suggesting that Christianity manifests itself in a slave-like existence. He was does not see the life-enhancing qualities of Christianity that Kierkegaard embraced. For Kierkegaard, Christianity involves all the excitement and passion that Nietzsche sees it as lacking. Although the two were looking for the same things in their existential quests, Nietzsche was unable to uncover the true essence of faith to experience the passion that Kierkegaard found in his faith. Kierkegaard sought and professed God's presence. Nietzsche pronounced God dead and found a god in himself. It is unusual that two such comparable philosophers on such similar quests could end up with two such divergent outcomes.