Western philosophy is a closet full of interesting characters. I have been drawn to both Kierkegaard, as the “Father” of existentialism; and Nietzsche, as an “out of pocket” thinker.
The Voice of Kierkegaard
As a student of existentialism, I am intrigued by the way Kierkegaard put together his thoughts; thoughts that were prevalent but unspoken. He was the voice of a movement, writing about questions that every individual relates to, in a way that had never been done before.
The Defiance of Nietzsche
Nietzsche opened many doors of thought to me, including the entry to narrow my focus to existentialism. “They” (people on the internet) say that Nietzsche was not an existentialist. I disagree. I believe his thoughts are as important to that line of study as Kierkegaard’s.
Nietzsche draws me in with his bold authenticity. Existentialism is all about authenticity and Nietzsche lived it. He was forward and daring, challenging common societal norms. Different style, same result. He makes people think.
Fundamental Differences
The doors that are offered by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are various. They ask the same questions, but go about answering them in different ways.
Here are some of the main areas you can see their different outlooks:
Religion and Faith
Religion and Faith: Kierkegaard was a deeply religious thinker. His work is based around the importance of faith. He urged his reader to take the “leap of faith” to achieve a profound religious experience.
He believed in cultivating an authentic, personal relationship with God.
Nietzsche, from another side, also focuses in on religion. Instead of encouraging, however, he criticizes religion and the role of it in society. He was a renowned critic of traditional Christianity and organized religion.
He believed that cultivating a relationship with a God, above self, hindered human creativity and self-actualization.
I find both of these thought processes valid. When we take in the childhood’s of each, their culture, the time period they lived…they had very different outlooks on life based on their experiences. While I tend to lean more toward Nietzsche on this topic, I have the benefit of hundreds of years of perception at the tip of my fingers.
Morality
Nietzsche had strong feelings about traditional Christian morality. He called it “slave morality.” To him, following a moral structure built on a religion made human beings weak. Instead, he advocated individual will to power and the affirmation of life’s inherent conflicts.
As mentioned above, Kierkegaard was a Christian existentialist. He believed in the teachings of the Bible, emphasizing love, forgiveness and obeying the commandments. To him, putting other humans above yourself, as well as God, was a moral imperative.
Another point for Nietzsche here, but I’m not sure that’s fair. Morality is really an extension of religion. Kierkegaard wanted everyone to follow the word of one authority–God. Nietzsche wanted everyone to follow their own authority.
Concept of Self
This is where Kierkegaard shines for me. He explored the concept of the individual self in depth. He was a strong proponent of authenticity. His thoughts on the significance of self discovery and the subjective experience shaped philosophy, psychology, and all the other sciences in innumerable ways.
Nietzsche also dug into this concept of the self, but differently. He focused on the “will to power” as the driving force behind individual actions and desires. He focuses on the “why” behind human action and experience.
Kierkegaard wins this one, for me, as he looks at consciousness or “self” from a macro level. Nietzsche narrows in on the meaning of power and instinct and drive.
Style of Writing
I am still exploring both of these philosophers. I have read more by Nietzsche, but am currently studying more of Kierkegaard’s work. Of course one of the things about reading philosophy is being able to engage in the narration.
Nietzsche is like the friend you meet, and six months later you still aren’t sure if you like him or not. His style takes a bit to get used to. He is direct and can be confrontational. He writes in a way that leads you to feel something. He uses shouty caps. But the passion in his words opens him up to many readers who can understand his works better than the higher level “science-y” writing.
Kierkegaard’s work is refreshing and vast. He seems to write purely for the love of writing and knowledge. He often used pseudonyms, to be able to publish and not be tied to his words. His writing is sometimes quite vague, but it allows me space for greater thought. His irony is a beautiful thing, as well.
I want to say “tie!” But that wasn’t the goal of me thinking this through. So based purely on style I chose Kierkegaard, he is easier to read for the purpose of reflection.
Not “better” but easier. Studying Nietzsche is sometimes an exhausting endeavor. He likes to go on rants. I do too, but I can see now that it is hard for the reader to follow along with all that spew sometimes.
Which to Read? Kierkegaard or Nietzsche?
Read both. 🙂
But in this experiment I awarded Nietzsche 2.5 points and Kierkegaard 2. So I recommend you read some Nietzsche today.
Would love to hear others opinions on this.