Similarities Between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard (My first post)

Hi Steemit Community,

This is my first Steemit post. What an exciting time in the world. What an exciting time to be a part of something new like blockchain technology.

For anyone interested in philosophy, this post will be for you.

Enjoy!

---


Similarities Between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard

One major theme explored in the philosophy of existentialism is authenticity and it’s relevance in the modern western world. Both Soren Kierkegaard and Fredrick Nietzsche dedicated much of their time analyzing this concept. While both philosophers agreed on the human potential to pursue inauthentic, as well as authentic modes of living, the context in which this dilemma was exposed differed between the two.  Kierkegaard, being a Christian existentialist, explored ideas with teleological impressions in order to rationalize his theories of authentic modes of living. In contrast, Nietzsche, famous for the adage, “God is dead”, found relevance in an objective nihilistic truth that rejected religious deity as an ultimate mode of authentic living. These two different investigations of the ultimate search for an authentic meaning in one’s life are fundamental to the concept. And while they contrast significantly, in the end, their thematic similarities bound two of the world’s greatest thinkers – who lived almost a century apart. Ultimately, the atheistic approach of Nietzsche and the faith oriented approach of Kierkegaard both conclude that the authentic life is pursued through a subjective lens. Eventually, it’s concluded that Nietzsche’s belief that an aesthetic life can be found through the development of an internal value system, triumphs over Kierkegaard’s Christian examination of the same dilemma.        
In Soren Kierkegaard book, “Fear and Trembling”, Kierkegaard develops the premise that humans have an absolute duty to God. In the text, Kierkegaard outlines the biblical story of Abraham. In this story, Abraham is instructed by God to sacrifice his only son as a demonstration of his unyielding faith. This act by Abraham is what Kierkegaard goes onto define as an ultimate sign of conviction – a leap of faith. Insofar as this act validates an authentic existence through a faith oriented demonstration. Kiekegaard writes, 

The ethical expression for what Abraham did is, that he would murder Isaac; the religious expression is, that he would sacrifice Isaac; but precisely in this contradiction consists the dread which can well make a man sleepless, and yet Abraham is not what he is without dread (Guigon 37)
Here, Abraham is defined as human with a divine obligation. His religious obligation, according to Kierkegaard, is the only valid standard that any person pursuant of an authentic life should hold himself or herself too. He goes onto say,
I think myself into the hero, but into Abraham I cannot think myself; when I reach the height I fall down, for what I encounter there is a paradox. I do not however mean in any sense to say that faith is something lowly, but on the contrary that it is the highest thing, and that it is dishonest of philosophy to give something else instead of it and to make light of faith (Guigon 40)
Kierkegaard clearly feels a faith-based conviction is necessary in order for a person to live a truly authentic life. Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac if God required it. To Kierkegaard, this is an example of an action deemed worthy of a faith-based authentic gesture – an action inspired out of an obligation to God.
In Fredrick Nietzsche’s, “The Gay Science”, he describes the motives that drive human instincts. His analysis of what he refers to as herd instinct, describes the essence of the human being’s purpose. Nietzsche writes:
Wherever we run across a morality, we find an assessment and ranking of human drives and actions. These assessments and rankings always express the needs of a community and herd: whatever profits it in the first place – and in the second or third – is also the supreme measure of the value of all individuals (Guigon 138)
Nietzsche’s analysis states that a human being’s ultimate goal in life is to become a conformed member of a community. Once this objective is achieved, according to Nietzsche, a type of self-fulfilling satisfaction is likely. Yet Nietzsche goes onto pose the metaphoric question, “is it virtuous when a cell transforms itself into the function of a stronger cell?” (139) Nietzsche is not convinced that conformity of a weaker cell to a stronger predetermined assembly is a virtuous path to having an authentic existence. Nietzsche see’s the path of conformity corruptible by false morality and ill-intentioned motives.
The Gay Science begins to contrast with Kierkegaardian ideals when Nietzsche analysis moral skepticism within Christianity. Nietzsche saw a type of conformity with-in Christian values that detoured anyone from pursuing other types of moral enlightenments. Moreover, the Christian faith to Nietzsche predetermined a value system absolute to any who conformed to it. What would be sacrificed through Christian conformity would be an examination of potentially ontological value systems. Nietzsche writes,
Even Christianity has made a great contribution to enlightenment: it taught moral skepticism – in a very impressive and effective way, accusing, embittering, but with tireless patience and subtlety. It destroyed in every individual human being the belief in one’s “virtues” (Guigon 140)
Nietzsche rejects the moral superiority of the Church and offers an alternative value in the personal unbounded search of an individual’s subjective examination. He goes on,
In the end; however, we have applied this same skepticism to all religious conditions and processes, such as sin, repentance, grace, sanctification, and have let the worm dig in so well that now we also have the same feeling of subtle superiority and insight when we read all Christian books (Guigon 141)
Nietzsche’s beliefs put an emphasis on a metaphysical value search. He feels the church’s doctrines impede on this imperative pursuit – one that is at the core of a human’s quest for authenticity.
Now the main contradiction between Soren Kierkegaard and Fredrick Nietzsche’s philosophies in regards to authenticity with in an individual’s life has been exposed. While Kierkegaard sees authenticity achieved through obedience to divine obligations, Nietzsche rejects this premise, presupposing that Christian morality is indoctrinated with uncertain foundations. Nietzsche often promoted that individuals develop their own value system. However, an important caveat that Nietzsche discusses is the potential harmful effects of an individual accepting a nihilistic approach in life. He writes,
A defect in personality takes it’s revenge everywhere; a weakened, thin, washed-out, self-denying, and self-disowning personality is no longer fit for any good thing – least of all for philosophy. (Guignon 151)
Nietzsche describes the nihilistic personality as a person who rejects all premises and philosophies. To Nietzsche, an authentic life is not discovered through the lethargic attitude of total denial.
“Selflessness” has no value in heaven or on earth; the great problems all require great love, and only strong, well-rounded, secure spirits are capable of such love, spirits solidly grounded in themselves. (Guignon 151)
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard would be in agreement on the importance the search for authenticity within ones life. However, Christian morality, to Nietzsche incorrectly attempts to triumph over the individuals ability to differ between good and evil by themselves. The pursuit of an authentic mode of living can be reached if a person has a conviction to seek it, while remaining unhindered from any external dogmas.
Both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard comment on the inability for most individuals to seek authenticity. Kierkegaard, being a devout Christian, saw that most Christians were only Christian by name, and not by practice. Kierkegaard writes,
The knight of faith knows that to give up oneself for the universal inspires enthusiasm, and that it requires courage, but he also knows that security is to be found in this, precisely because it is for the universal. (Guignon 73)
Kierkegaard explains how only a strong Christian has the ability to achieve a perspective worthy of authenticity. Again, Nietzsche clarifies, “only strong, well-rounded, secure spirits are capable of such love” (Guignon 151). In this analysis, there is a distinct similarity between both philosophers. Going through the motions of an authentic examination will fall the individual short of satisfaction.
The contrast between the two philosophers is clear. Both philosophies rely on the individual to examine their mode of living internally. Only through a genuine pursuit of an authentic mode of living will an individual be capable of achieving an authentic enlightenment. But, while Kierkegaard assumes that the forced intervention of a dogmatic value system is essential to this enlightenment, Nietzsche allows a more organic emphasis on inherent abilities within an individual to reach this illumination. When Nietzsche wrote, “God is dead,” he composed an important message that humans have lost the ability to believe in a subject as comprehensive as God. “Aren’t we falling constantly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in every direction?” writes Nietzsche. “Is there still an above and a below? Aren’t we wandering as if through an endless nothing?” (Guigon 141). What Nietzsche’s transcendental passage highlights is the burden forced upon our society as a whole; God will remain dead as long as we as a society determine him to be. Our nihilistic approaches to most of lives quandaries hold us in a shadow illuminated only through genuine efforts to seek new approaches – authentic approaches. And, through this proposition, an individual can gain an authentic interpretation of their life and it’s meaning.