Comparing Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, And Sartre

Essay 2 “Existentialism” can be defined as an approach or a theory that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as free and responsible agents determining their own development through acts of the will. (Google)

This essay aims to discuss the major similarities and differences in philosophical positions of different philosophers, including Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre. This paper further puts light on their respective accounts of the meaning and value of human existence; discusses which account is most preferred by me and certain problems with it.

The three philosophers all subscribe to the existentialism philosophical position that demanded the recognition of the fabric of life and then considering it in both thinking and
practice (Cotkin 52). The philosophical position attempts to undermine the reductionist understanding of life together with its meaning for human beings. Their stances focuses on individual peoples’ lives and the heartbreaking inevitability of an individual are suffering and choice for every individual. These philosophers are essentially divided roughly between atheists and religious practitioners.

Kierkegaard is the definitive anti-Christianity (Carlisle 144). Kierkegaard’s work took place in an academia which was dominated by Hegelian dialectics and he was a part of a society which had progressed and communicated with the divine through the everyday observance of Christianity and it’s institutionalized practices. Kierkegaard considered Hegel his archenemy for his writings and his beliefs. Kierkegaard out rightly rejected what Hegel used to stand for. Hegel considers and believes “God” to be a “Begriff” (a concept), whereas for Kierkegaard the truth of Christianity signifies the very paradoxicality of faith: that is one can go beyond the ‘ethical’ and nevertheless or rather because of this very act of disobedience to be loved by ‘God’. For Kierkegaard the idea of rationality is the very secret of Christianity. Against the cold logic of the Hegelian system Kierkegaard seeks “a truth which is truth for me” (Kierkegaard 1996:32) In his work he also mentions “anxiety” as a positive trait, which drives us. And he characteristically puts it: “Because he is a synthesis, he can be in anxiety; and the more profoundly he is in anxiety, the greater is the man” (Kierkegaard 1980:154).

Friedrich Nietzsche is also the definitive anti-Christ philosopher who provided the foundation for atheistic existentialism. “I know my lot. Some day my name will be linked to the memory of something monstrous, of a crisis as yet unprecedented on earth...” (Nietzsche 2007:88).
He believed that men in society are segregated and ordered according to their willingness and capacity to participate in a life of spiritual and cultural transformation. Based on my opinion, I believe not everyone wishes this participation and the way he condemns everyone who don’t want to challenge their fundamental beliefs is harsh; however it is incorrect to conclude that Nietzsche thought their presence was unimportant and dispensable. Further support for this comes when in his works he focuses on the importance of the ‘common’ as a necessary prerequisite for both differentiating it from “exceptional” and growth.

Jean-Paul Satre was an atheist obsessed with being and nothingness. He was the first philosopher to bring together all the work that had been done in trying to go after “meaning and value of life” and he was the philosopher who ended up coining the term “Existentialism”

The next section discusses religion as one of the existing themes, identifying the similarities and differences in the point of view of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Satre. Although, religion is a deeply contested perspective and practice within existentialism some philosophers have agreed on some of its aspects. All these philosophers agree on the issue of religion with respect to suspicions of religious organizations and religious systems. The philosophers had different views regarding religion.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche had fundamental disagreements regarding their approach to religion. Their disagreement was mainly about Christianity. Kierkegaard was a religious individual while Nietzsche was a sacrilegious nonbeliever. Nietzsche rejected the reality of God, and he believed that God is dead, and God’s concept is obsolete. He offered a solution to the space left by the lack of religion, urging people to be themselves. He advised "be yourself," to be factual to oneself, to be unrestrained, to live life to the full (Magnus 219). He also advised that one should have the strength of mind to carry out projects, in spite of the obstacles or concerns for other
humans. Kierkegaard normally asked the question "What ought I do?" and in answering this question in different stages, which distinguishes stages of life’s way (Cullity and Gaut 1). In the third stage of his answers, he talks about religion, which he says has to be free for a teleological suspension particularly of the ethical. He suggests that in the spiritual life, heavenly power is supreme, and the true love for God is shown in the readiness to reject moral habits and take action to the divine command. Kierkegaard provided with an analysis of ethical and religious choices. He illustrated three stages of life: the esthetic, the ethical, and the religious. Satre as an atheist did not believe in religion. His argument was that if God exists, then human beings were not free. He also proclaimed that if humankind was free, then God was not in existence. The philosopher also takes atheism for granted, suggesting that humanity should not mourn the loss of God. He believed that in a Godless world, life would not have meaning beyond the objectives every man has set. The three existentialists concur that human existence starts from the non-human authenticity through the note of transcendence.
Satre and Nietzsche also affirm man's prospective transcendence of self (Solomon 115). Kierkegaard emphasizes non-believers’ potential for fulfillment of human capabilities. He believes that humankind has the potential of transcending oneself and experience the process. Transcendence implies setting aside the world and its values (Stewart 28). The re-affirmation of human life through transcendence leads to incarnation in history. God's incarnation in Jesus Christ proclaims that God is concerned about human existence (Solomon
115). Based on my analysis the most preferred account is that there is a force namely God behind the functioning world, and those who seek him truly will eventually find him. One of the reasons for my point of view is being a Hindu and they way I have been raised. I have always believed in God’s existence ever since I could remember. Thus, it’s hard to think and believe like an atheist. And even if there is no God, I believe it provides everyone a way of life and acts as a driving force towards whatever we want to achieve. The problem with this account is still facing has to do with the fact that there are atheists that are still within society. It is very difficult to make atheists believe in God’s existence as today’s world has progressed a lot and requires a scientific proof; therefore, this account still faces problems in today’s life.