Kierkegaard and Nietzsche

There be a tote up of misconceptions many have regarding the philosophy of existentialism. Probably the most common misconception is the feel that it is a nihilistic, dark philosophy with a silly out think. This is a horribly inaccurate assessment as existentialism is really a philosophy of assureing at life through a realistic lens. Of course, different the great unwashed see things differently and this is wherefore correct famous, leading existentialist philosophers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have diverse article of belief methodologies for presenting existentialism. In order to clearly clear existentialism, 1 must look at some of these differences between these two existentialist philosophers.Both of these two philosophers fancy that it is often perception that gets in the way of reality. That is, people will look at life their own biases and perspectives as opposed to looking at reality. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche understand that this inherent flaw is common among all gentleman and they stress that improvement of the exclusive weed overcome this problem. Their approaches to the problem, however, lack truly much in terms of similarity.Probably the main difference between the two would be the notion of inward understanding vs. outward expression. For Kierkegaard, there is much internalization. That is, the individual needs to look at his or her own flaws and come to an anagnoris of that is sensibly akin to enlightenment and some one and only(a)al spiritism. For Nietzsche, the approach is far more compassionate-centered as the process for self improvement is found in how the somebody acts. That is to say, enlightenment does not come from a quasi sense of spirituality as much as it comes in personal achievement in realized goals. In a way, Nietzsches superman displays who he is through his actions. For Kierkegaard, there is internal philosophizing that creates a different perspective. This, to a fault, tooshie change the perso n solely without the external displays.Individualism is a very important point for both(prenominal) of these philosophers. Often, existentialism is the philosophy of the self and is not concerned with collectivism. (This is one of the reasons why the philosophy is erroneously referred to as cosmos pure narcissism) Kierkegaard, time very negative towards the notion of group think and groups, stresses that there atomic number 18 certain(p) gains that can be made from indoors the group.This is provided, of course, that the man does not tolerate the group to take over his thinking. For Nietzsche it would seem there is more impatience and bitterness towards the group. He has little usance for collective pursuits of any pleasing and would prefer to shun it as opposed to Kierkegaard plays the collective for individual benefit. That is, use the flaws of the group as a guiding principle for self enlightenment.If there was any discombobulation present it would center on the notion t hat one could be self enlightened or a superman within a vacuum. That is, if you argon the loner who feels above it all what value can that be worth if the group collective does not honor you achievements. perchance Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would state that whatever the group believes is worthless but most people do hope to gain value from the collectives envy. Then again, perhaps this confusion derives from annihilateing some of the isolationist tendencies of existentialism. If you are not willing to completely reject the group then much of existentialism will prove unappealing.Once again, while the teachings of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in regards to promoting existentialism seek the same goal, their approaches have a number of differences. Some are overt and some are subtle. Then, some are merely a matter of perception.HeideggerBut what really is the human world? part there are physical, biological and even spiritual aspects that comprise the human world most people can not put the sums in concert and provide a finite, conclusive answer to that very important uncertainty. Yet, it has been a question posed by many existential philosophers for many years. wizard existentialist who sought to provide a very unique and unequivocal insight to what is a human being was Heidegger/ The attempts to do so are seen in his examination of Dasein. Dasein is essentially a way of looking at the individuals place in the origination. As such, if you understand the persons place in the world then you will understand the person. In a way, this is because a being and a beings environment are inseparable. After all, does not environment radiation diagram the being?The interesting point that Heidegger puts forth is that throughout human narration there is an unfortunate tendency by society to edit out the question of being. This is because the being is taken for granted. That is, individualism is somewhat discarded due to kind neglect. This is the result of putting f ar too much emphasis on society towards looking at the being on overly psychoanalytic of not overly metaphysical means. In other words, the collective has too much of a complicated definition for the being. This is often because society does not look at the being from the perspective of extreme simplicity a human is a thinking organism prone to emotion. When a school day of thought or an institution ignores this fact the ability to truly understand the being is lost.In a way, it would seem that Heidegger would hope that the being the individual would ignore society as it generally ignores him. That does not mean one should be give noticeive or insubordinate to the rule of law. It simply means one should seek his or her own individual path and try to revoke the collective mentality and the influences it pedals.In a similar vein, there are a number of strong opinions surrounding Heideggers philosophy vs. Wittgensteins rational incontrovertibleness. On a baseline level, Logical Positivism is a rebuke of mysticism and seeks to give way a more secular, logic found outlook on life. In a way, it is much like traditional existentialism although its approach can be somewhat more biting. What makes the comparison between Heideggers theories and Logical Positivism is the fact that followers of Logical Positivism often accuse Heideggers theories of being overly based in mysticismThis is a bizarre notion because it would infer that Heideggers outlook on the concept of the being was not based on humanism, Instead, it would be inferred that the being centered on mysticism. Perhaps this is because those who rank to Logical Positivism see concepts of the being as being psychoanalytic variants of mysticism and spirituality. Obviously, this was not Heideggers intention and such an inference would infer confusion.Perhaps this is because the Logical Positives followers would assume that there is far too much system inherent to answering questions regarding who or what is the being. Again, this brings us to the antagonistic attitudes certain realists whitethorn have regarding anything psychoanalytical. Perhaps to these individuals looking inward to answer questions of being competency passing to close of a line towards spirituality. (Again, this is not Heideggers intent but this is how some critics may have defined it.) Notion of spirituality walk too closely to mysticism for followers of Logical Positivism and that is why they may very well reject Heidegger.On a basic level, however, Heideggers theories of the being are sound. Of course, there will be critics and that is expected, but to outright dismiss the benefits of Heideggers work upon cursory examination would not be the wisest path to take.