Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
Nietzsche’s dramatis personae “…is different than the actor of this drama” (Science 241). The preparatory human being is one who sees the world as Nietzsche does, and so his characterization is Nietzsche, and people who he sees stick out from the rest of society. The preparatory human being is one that is fit for the transition that Nietzsche sees the world around him going through. This is the destruction of the belief in God. Nietzsche proposes that the belief has receded and questions how people will be able to cope with this (Science 181). Mentioned, also, by Nietzsche in The Gay Science is his view that monotheism stifles and directs the individual towards a normative sense of mora...
... middle of paper ...
...ly, that God was in danger, and wrote about human beings that would survive the impersonal world. It is in these writers that many Existentialists, either self labeled or otherwise, saw inspiration for a new kind of life. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both beings that can withstand the melting of ice idols, and are able to joyously dance in the warm breeze.
Works Cited
Guignon, Charles B., and Derk Pereboom. Existentialism: Basic Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001. Print.
Kierkegaard, Søren, Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong, and Søren Kierkegaard. Philosophical Fragments, Johannes Climacus. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1985. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich, and Walter Kaufmann. The Gay Science: With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs : Translated, with Commentary by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random, 1974. Print.
How to live one’s life is a question faced by any human being with relatively normal cognitive functioning. Some find beauty in every day life, reveling in something as simple as the gentle shaking of leaves dancing to the whispered song of the wind, or waking up to someone they have decided to spend the rest of their lives with. Others only see the mundane and the tedious, growing bitter and resentful as a relentless existential crisis latches on to the deepest parts of their psyche, casting a grim and ominous shadow over every thought and action. This probing question of how to live is at the forefront of Soren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or: A Fragment of Life.” The aforementioned views are, indeed, reflected in the fragmented perspectives provided by Kierkegaard’s fictional characters, “A” and “Judge Wilhelm,” who perhaps reflect Kierkegaard’s own divided views. Love and companionship are at the crux of how to live for both A and Wilhelm, despite the glaring contrast between A’s calls for a hedonistic,
Friedrich Nietzsche certainly serves as a model for the single best critic of religion. At the other end of this spectrum, Jonathan Edwards emerges as his archrival in terms of religious discourse. Nietzsche argues that Christianity’s stance toward all that is sensual is that grounded in hostility, out to tame all that rests on nature, or is natural, akin to Nietzsche’s position in the world and his views. Taking this into account, Edwards’s views on Christianity should be observed in context targeted at those who agree with his idea, that G-d is great and beyond the capacity of human reason.
“The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do; the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die” (Kierkegaard 95). Søren Kierkegaard was a clear supporter of expressing our own personality. He wanted us to take the time to find our true selves. Even though he acknowledged there were social systems in our society, he still believed we were our own individual human being. The only way to make sense of our life and find our individuality is to embrace our faith in God. Kierkegaard wanted human beings to be able to exercise their freedom. Human beings should not postpone their choices simply because they do not know the universal truth. As humans we cannot postpone our choices because we will never
...d of a Buddhist koan, which is intended to break the hold of logic on the mind. However, rather than breaking the hold of logic on the mind, Nietzsche, with his jibing remarks, swashbuckling writing style, self-contradictions, and secrecy, is intending to break the hold of socially determined "masks," or Isms, from the perceptions of the new philosopher who will arise the day after tomorrow. Nietzsche shows us how to philosophize without Isms. The only question remaining is whether we are strong enough to take his advice.
Fridreich Nietzsche writes in The Gay Science "God is dead....And we have killed him," (99, Existentialist Philosophy) referr...
“Has he got lost? Did he lose his way like a child? Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Emigrated?” No the madman says; “we have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers” This exchange encapsulates the aphorism that underpins much of Nietzsche’s thought; that “God is dead”. But what does this mean - What is Nietzsche telling us by claiming that we have murdered God? This essay is going to attempt to try and understand what Nietzsche argues has changed and what hasn’t with the death of God and to examine his critique of 19th century morality in the context of the 21st century politics and see if he offers a constructive alternative to the way we engage in political discourse.
Leiter, Brian. “Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 26 August 2004.
In the unit “The Spirit of Individualism” there are two parts, “Celebrations of the self” and “The Dark side of Individualism” with pieces that present very different perspectives on human nature. “The Dark side of Individualism” portrays human nature as greedy, confused, easily caught up in fame, and addicted to wealth and possessions. In “Celebrations of the Self”, human nature is viewed in a more positive light. The characteristics shown are self reliance, independence, wisdom and selflessness. “The Dark side of Individualism” pieces are written in a more macabre tone, whereas “Celebrations of the Self” pieces have a more positive and uplifting tone to them. The generalizations of human nature are different because of the pieces in “The Dark side of Individualism” and “Celebrations of the Self” have entirely different views on life and human nature.
In his work, Who is Man, Abraham J. Heschel embarks on a philosophical and theological inquiry into the nature and role of man. Through analysis of the meaning of being human, Heschel determines eight essential traits of man. Heschel believes that the eight qualities of preciousness, uniqueness, nonfinality, process and events, solitude and solidarity, reciprocity, and sanctity constitute the image of man that defines a human being. Yet Heschel’s eight qualities do not reflect the essential human quality of the realization of mortality. The modes of uniqueness and opportunity, with the additional singular human quality of the realization of mortality, are the most constitutive of human life as uniqueness reflects the fundamental nature of humanity,
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
Existentialism, which spread rapidly over continental Europe after the First World War, is essentially the analysis of the condition of man, of the particular state of being free, and of man's having constantly to use his freedom in order top answer the ever- changing and unexpected challenges of the day. According to the Existentialists, the starting point of every philosophical investigation is concrete human existence. That means that human personality in itself should point the way to the absolute value of reality. A single definition of existentialism is impossible. Definitions, provided by dictionaries are only part of what existentialism is about. …central to each definition is the assertion that existentialism is a theory or statement about the nature of man's existence. (1) The term is so difficult to define because, unlike other terms, existentialism is not universal. In other words, there are no two existentialists, which share exactly the same values or beliefs. Although, here is one major theme: a stress on individual existence, subjectivity, individual freedom, and choice.
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher in the mid 1800s. He is known to be the father of existentialism and was at least 70 years ahead of his time. Kierkegaard set out to attack Kant’s rational ethics and make attacks on the Christianity of our day. He poses the question, how do we understand faith? He states that faith equals the absurd. In “Fear and Trembling”, he uses the story of Abraham and his son Isaac to show an example of faith as the absurd. The story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac signifies a break in the theory that ethics and religion go hand in hand. He shows how the ethical and the religious can be completely different. “I by no means conclude that faith is something inferior but rather that it is the highest, also that it is dishonest of philosophy to give something else in its place and to disparage faith” (Fear and Trembling, 12).
Although virtually unknown today outside of Danish philosophical circles, Moller (1794-1838) was, during his lifetime, esteemed as one of Denmark’s most loved poets, and beginning in 1831 he held the position of professor of philosophy at the University of Denmark. While at the university Moller taught Moral and Greek Philosophy, and his early philosophical position has been regarded as Hegelian. Kierkegaard began his university studies in 1830, and the young professor made a deep impression upon him.
Philosophy, a construct of rich, educated, and, frankly, intoxicated navel-gazers has been a persistent companion of humanity throughout the ages. The most eccentric school of thought, popularized by figures such as Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus, became known as Existentialism. Holding that all of reality itself was absurd, existentialists sought meaning in their own chaotic lives as part of the shared “human condition”, which Franz Kafka demonstrates in “The Metamorphosis”, which eventually became the staple diet for grumpy literature majors and angsty college freshmen alike. “The Metamorphosis”, together with Nikolai Gogol’s “The Overcoat”, reveals the ephemeral and absurd nature of mankind, and also demonstrates the power in discovering meaning in one’s life.