Kierkegaard And Nietzsche

Nietzsche was a revolutionary author and philosopher who has had a tremendous impact on German culture up through the twentieth century and even today. Nietzsche's views were very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of his time and nearly all of his published works were, and still are, rather controversial, especially in On the Genealogy of Morals. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme and dangerous if taken out of context or misinterpreted. After Nietzsche's death it took very little for his sister to make some slight alterations to his works to go along with Nazi ideology.

Admittedly, the philosophy of the late nineteenth century German Friederich Nietzsche had a profound impact on my world view. I concur with his belief that humans should occupy themselves with living in the reality that is, and not to be preoccupied with fantastic illusions of working towards a great afterlife. Granted, I am still very young, but from what I can see, humans have no universal nature nor do any set of underlying human morals dictate what is right and wrong. And as much as people would like to believe, unfortunately, we do not have free will. Every action carries the weight of a punishment or reward, so in essence, people do things either in fear or in

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

Christianity had become the enemy of life and nature and the church has stifled its followers by turning them into closed minded and weak humans. Nietzsche ultimately believed that religion creates a concept of anti-natural morality which damages our development as humans quite

However, as Kierkegaard has embraced subjectivity and some of the problems of language, he cannot attempt to prove God's existence as Descartes had done previously. Instead, Kierkegaard embraces the subjectivity and individualism of his day and, as an existentialist, "seeks to recover the practice of New Testament Christianity" within individuals instead of an established church (45). This approach to Christianity originates in the Reformation, and, like Luther, Kierkegaard is a strong supporter of reading the Bible for itself "without a commentary as a love letter from God" (46). By placing emphasis on the individual, Kierkegaard avoids needing to prove God outside of his own faith. In some ways, modernity has made it more possible to believe in God, as the focus is on individual reality instead of a single provable truth. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard addresses God by writing, "I am convinced that God is love; this thought has for me a pristine lyrical validity" (Kierkegaard 63). Here Kierkegaard qualifies his understanding of God as uniquely personal, emphasized by his use of phrases such as "I am convinced" and "for me". He makes no sweeping generalization; he simply uses the questions of modernity against those who would advocate for understanding the universe as

As stated previously, Nietzsche’s work was both great and highly influential. The Nazis even used his writings as a basis for their beliefs. Nietzsche believed that the greatest societies were always built upon the aristocratic system. Since he believed there

Both, Soren Kierkegaard and Leo Tolstoy, believed that an unreasonable concept may still exist. Kierkegaard believed that the notion of God is beyond human intellectual capacity and so there is need for clarification with evidence. Tolstoy was on the search for the meaning of life and concluded that there is more to life than rational belief. If the notion of God is beyond human comprehension, then it is possible that He indeed exists although we are not able to understand. An explanation is not needed to verify existence. It is just like love; might be impossible to explain, nobody can show how it happens, but it’s there – it

While Nietzsche’s standpoint of the master morality can be viewed in the lifestyle of people today, it is not a morality that need be accepted or strived for as a sense of power or accomplishment in life. The Bible teaches that as we lose our live for Jesus we will find it (Matthew 10:39). Submitting to God is not an act of weakness, rather an honor and gain as we lose ourselves in Him and find our true selves. The Bible says that we were made in God’s image and likeness, and we were given dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). Nietzsche’s master morality appears to be just that, an attempt to gain dominion. Since Nietzsche did not believe in God, which is the way to salvation and eternal life (Romans 10:9), it is safe to assume that he was serving the god of this world and his ways, which have always been to try to copy or be like God (Isaiah 14:13-14). Nietzsche had knowledge about God but decided to turn away from him. Because of this, Romans 1:28 -29 shows that he, among other things would be arrogant, boastful heartless, and invent ways of doing evil, which to me is exactly what his whole master-slave morality portrays. Had Nietzsche just turned from his wicked ways and submitted to the One and only true God, he would have found the peace, love, and true authority with out death.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Nietzsche are both prominent figures of Modern Political thought even though they lived more than a hundred years apart from each other. Rousseau and Nietzsche tend to differ from each other in terms of their views on what we now call “globalization”.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are both considered to be the top existentialists for solely different reasons, as well as being very different from each other. They have different philosophies when it comes to their thoughts on religion and it is important to see exactly how they line up in this regard. The best way to do this is to start from the beginning of each’s work, their history and how they grew into their respective roles in their fields. It is also important to note exactly what existentialism is. It is the theory of exercising the idea that the individual has the freedom and free will to develop their own path and existence in a responsible manner. It is a very interesting subject that is debated on the concepts of thinking in absolutes. The need to compare and contrast these two is a volatile understanding of this particular philosophical theory. It is also important to review their thoughts and critique them in the sense of saying what makes sense, and what does not make sense.

Another philosopher who also a pioneer of existentialism was Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s faith, like Kierkegaard’s, was at one time rooted in Christianity. However, Kierkegaard remained embedded in his faith and Nietzsche abandoned his. Nietzsche’s existentialism had many of the same beliefs as Kierkegaard’s such as – both believed that philosophy should be based on the value of people’s beliefs and that people had to find their own way in life and decide for themselves what the meanings of life and existence are (Cline, 2011). Nietzsche was concerned

Humans need the appearance of some sort of structure to live. They need rules to live by to tell them whether or not they are living “right”, in a good way or a bad way. We humans have come up with many different ways to tell whether we are living right “right” or not. We have come up with all of the different types of religions and the different sets of morals , all of which change throughout history and time depending on and reflecting it’s episteme. How can any religion or set of morals be considered the “right one” when there has been no consistency with either? Both Feuerbach and Nietzsche have the same belief, that religions and morals are only a crutch that humans grab on to in order to give some meaning to the random assortment of life on earth. Both think that religion was a crutch for humans because of our inability to be perfect. Religions especially Christianity (Jesus) have their own destruction built in to them because of the humanity aspect. Though Feuerbach and Nietzsche agreed upon this they had very different opinions on how it would come about.

In this essay, I will try to summarize, analyze and discuss several pages of Søren Kierkegaard’s Training in Christianity. I will try to focus on his approach to sacred history, a general Christian history and Christianity, which he discusses in this work in relation to faith in God. In other parts of this essay I will attempt also to relate these pages of his work to some key ideas of Kierkegaard’s theology and philosophy and support this with some concrete quotations from the text. In the end I will very briefly compare different philosophies of Hegel and Kierkegaard and try to relate Kierkegaard’s work to a few topics, which

Nietzsche shares a similar view of man. The important thing in man is his potential; man is striving but for something different, Ubermensch or superman. It represents man constantly striving to overcome himself and become a man whose values are independent from societal conceptions of good and evil. Ubermensch must be willing and able to reject what he is now to become something different and never become content with present values. Similar to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche sees life as a series of stages that take man from the herd to Ubermensch. The first step for man to achieve Ubermensch is to overcome a collective herd view of values because they are not bridges to Ubermensch. Once this herd is overcome, man can begin to concentrate on overcoming himself.

Kierkegaard's works are not straightforward proclamations of his philosophy: he wrote under pseudonyms and assumed the persona of these fictional characters in his writing. Thus, one must be careful when attributing a particular position to Kierkegaard -- often the view is advanced by a pseudonym, so various inferential processes must be applied in order to substantiate a claim that Kierkegaard really meant any statement.