Contrastes Entre Nietszche y Kierkegaard

Kant and the 19

th

C entury Philosophers

KIERKEGAARD AND NIETZSCHE : CONTRASTS AND COMPARISONS
Christopher T Altman ∗
Pi er r e Lacl ede H onor s C oll ege

Introduction
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, theystood on common ground. Both realized that no system of philosophy operates in isolation of its creator’s inherent prejudices. Any subjective viewpoint is biased; hence, objectivity is impossible in any moral paradigm. Further, both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were obsessed with the current state of affairs in the world. They both recognized that God no longer exists in religion’s present-dayincarnations. In contemporary western society 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, yet surprisingly, they proclaim their devotion to God when questioned. Both philosophers found great fault in this lapse of moral authenticity and saw it as an affront upon the soul of man—something that holds us backfrom our true spiritual potential. However, in their attempts to resolve this moral illness Nietzsche and Kierkegaard could hardly be more divergent in their quest for a cure. The very foundations of their moral constitutions were built upon conflicting ideologies: Kierkegaard’s in Christianity and Nietzsche’s in individualism and autonomy.

∗

Home: http://www.umsl.edu/~altmanc/ Contact:christaltman@artilect.org

1

Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard saw the problem of religious downfall as an opportunity for renewal in Christian beliefs, a chance to embrace the New Testament’s original teachings and return to a to dynamic and living faith. In his critique of modern-day religious expansion, he claimed the very dominance of Christianity over his country showed that it is not “the way ofthe few.” In his Attack Upon “Christendom,” Kierkegaard writes,
In the New Testament the Saviour of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ, represents the situation thus: The way that leadeth unto life is straightened, the gate narrow—few be they that find it! Now, on the contrary, to speak only of Denmark, we are all Christians, the way is as broad as it can possibly be, the broadest in Denmark, sinceit is the way in which we are all walking, besides being in all respects as convenient, as comfortable as possible; and the gate is as wide as it possibly can be, wider surely a gate cannot be than that through which we are all going en masse. Kierkegaard 442

Kierkegaard’s country and religion were morally bankrupt. When societal forces pressure the proclamation of belief in a dominant ethic,it is no longer a religious affirmation, but is transformed into mere adherence to a social norm. As a direct consequence of this widespread moral decline, Kierkegaard stressed the subjective truth over the objective truth. While he did believe in the objective truth of Christian theism, he emphasized its personal power—to existentially transform the individual through devotion to a singlecommitment. This became the panacea for restoring human salvation—individual self-fulfillment through absolute faith in conviction. Kierkegaard called for a leap of faith: to strive for the attainment of a purely Christian life. Reason has no place in faith, as God is beyond reason. Kierkegaard rejected both the rationalist tradition and systematic philosophies because they used abstract concepts that hadnothing to do with everyday experience. Devotion to a single external principle allows one’s self-identity to remain firm and unwavering in a fluid and unstable environment. Without this external pillar of strength Kierkegaard believed man would be trapped in a state of despair, with no firm basis for the construction of self-identity.

Nietzsche
Nietzsche’s solution was an antithesis to...