Kierkegaard or Nietzsche?

[DesolationRow]

Which philosopher took a more profound view of the self? Which is more influential? And which is more important for the life of an individual in the 21st century?

[mickthinks]

<californian accent> Kierkegaard and Nitzsche—Who was the bigger loser? </californian accent>

I think it is a mistake to see philosophy in terms of a competition.

[DesolationRow]

It certainly is not an actual competition. Rather, an interesting comparison. Both are remarkable thinkers, and very similar in a great number of ways. And yet they drastically differ in their ideas about the value and importance of faith. Perhaps a simpler question would be, who do you prefer?

[mickthinks]

That's an interesting, but still unphilosophical*, recasting. May I suggest a third version of your question?

3. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, can they both be right? If not, ...
3a. Which one is wrong?


*Unphilosophical, because philosophers do not concern themselves with mere preferences.

[DesolationRow]

That's an interesting, but still unphilosophical*, recasting. May I suggest a third version of your question?

3. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, can they both be right? If not, ...
3a. Which one is wrong?


*Unphilosophical, because philosophers do not concern themselves with mere preferences.

I never intended that the question adhere to strict standards of philosophical inquiry. Nevertheless, I do appreciate you making the distinction.

For your question... I do not think that they can both be right. I think that you can follow along with both of them very far down a path toward self-actualization, passionate living, urgency in making choices, the revelation of beauty, and the disassociation with decadent society and conformity. But... I don't think both can be right because the purpose of all of this, for Kierkegaard, is to establish a deeper humility and relationship with the profound truth of God. Whereas for Nietzsche the purpose is to acquire a kind of personal greatness and love of life so magnificent that you would will that your life return to you forever in eternity i.e. we should become like gods.

I do not know who is right and who is wrong. But the answer obviously has enormous implications.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

It's not a competition. Both philosophers offer some trash, and some quality insights.

Take their good insights, weed out their trash. Learn from both. It's not a competition.

[Breath]

Which philosopher took a more profound view of the self? Which is more influential? And which is more important for the life of an individual in the 21st century?

Both had syphilis - whatever syphilis did to their thinking is no longer relevant to our thinking - we have antibiotics.

Our thinking these days is, how shall we say it, less syphilitic and more antibiotic.

Breath

[RickLewis]

Which philosopher took a more profound view of the self? Which is more influential? And which is more important for the life of an individual in the 21st century?

Both had syphilis - whatever syphilis did to their thinking is no longer relevant to our thinking - we have antibiotics.

Our thinking these days is, how shall we say it, less syphilitic and more antibiotic.

Breath

Lotsa folk think Nietzsche had syphilis but this is not certain. We published an article about this in Philosophy Now a few years back. The article was by Dr Ewa Cybulska, who is both a clinical psychiatrist and a Nietzsche expert, so she knows her stuff on this subject. She said:

At the age of 44, Nietzsche was admitted to a mental asylum and diagnosed as suffering from paralysis progressiva (tertiary syphilis of the brain). Despite there being no evidence for syphilis, other than Nietzsche’s own ‘confession’ and his very disturbed mental state, the diagnosis endured for more than a century. Throughout his creative life, Nietzsche had been subject to considerable mood swings. I suggest that from 1881, when he conceived the theory he called die Ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen (‘the eternal return of the same’), he had recurrent, if brief, episodes of hypomanic psychosis interlaced with longer periods of depression, studded with somatic complaints. In the current issue of Hospital Medicine, in a paper called ‘The Madness of Nietzsche: the Misdiagnosis of the Millennium?’, I argue it was not syphilis but a manicdepressive psychosis, followed by multi-infarct dementia.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/A_P ... A_Delusion

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

At the age of 44, Nietzsche was admitted to a mental asylum

I was admitted to a mental asylum too. Does that make me legit?

I don't see why everyone says Nietzsche is so dark and morbid. Most of his famous quotes are very positive and uppity. He was the one who made up the "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" phrase.

I think the Joker is more better of a philosopher, because "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stranger."

Nietzche presents lots of half truths, and catchy quotes that skimp on the truth and are a bit wimpy. Like motivational quotes you'd see in a therapist's office. Half-truths, untruths, and blanket statements.

Examples:

In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule

Actually no, most individuals are quite insane also.

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

...If you say so. Thought the true man just wanted titties and beer, and a companion to love, but what do I know about psychology.

Without music, life would be a mistake.

Music is just sound though. So are you saying deaf people are a mistake?

Some of his other quotes are alright but mostly are a hubbub about stupid human relationships (much ado about nothing).

As for whether or not he had syphilis, the answer is false.
Says so right here.
"Camus, the Myth of Sisyphus"

[Impenitent]

Hume beats them both

-Imp

[Breath]

Which philosopher took a more profound view of the self? Which is more influential? And which is more important for the life of an individual in the 21st century?

Both had syphilis - whatever syphilis did to their thinking is no longer relevant to our thinking - we have antibiotics.

Our thinking these days is, how shall we say it, less syphilitic and more antibiotic.

Breath

Lotsa folk think Nietzsche had syphilis but this is not certain. We published an article about this in Philosophy Now a few years back. The article was by Dr Ewa Cybulska, who is both a clinical psychiatrist and a Nietzsche expert, so she knows her stuff on this subject. She said:

At the age of 44, Nietzsche was admitted to a mental asylum and diagnosed as suffering from paralysis progressiva (tertiary syphilis of the brain). Despite there being no evidence for syphilis, other than Nietzsche’s own ‘confession’ and his very disturbed mental state, the diagnosis endured for more than a century. Throughout his creative life, Nietzsche had been subject to considerable mood swings. I suggest that from 1881, when he conceived the theory he called die Ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen (‘the eternal return of the same’), he had recurrent, if brief, episodes of hypomanic psychosis interlaced with longer periods of depression, studded with somatic complaints. In the current issue of Hospital Medicine, in a paper called ‘The Madness of Nietzsche: the Misdiagnosis of the Millennium?’, I argue it was not syphilis but a manicdepressive psychosis, followed by multi-infarct dementia.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/A_P ... A_Delusion

Thanks for the heads-up.

In a century from now, perhaps people will write papers on what really did Foucault in

Breath

[RickLewis]

Thanks for the heads-up.

In a century from now, perhaps people will write papers on what really did Foucault in

Breath

You are probably right. I'll leave a note in the files advising my successors in the early 22nd century to try to find somebody to write us an article about that.

[DesolationRow]

One of the better comparisons of the two thinkers.
https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/m ... d10701.pdf

[mickthinks]

... for Kierkegaard, is to establish a deeper humility and relationship with the profound truth of God. Whereas for Nietzsche the purpose is to acquire a kind of personal greatness and love of life so magnificent that you would will that your life return to you forever in eternity i.e. we should become like gods.
Thanks, DesolationRow!

I'm not sure Nietzsche proposed any purpose to our existence, but I haven't read that much. And I've not touched Kierkegaard at all except indirectly in other writer's commentaries. But, on the basis of the summaries you've provided here, I'd say K was right and N wrong.


I never intended that the question adhere to strict standards of philosophical inquiry.
Why ever not? What do you think this is—Wooley-Thinking Weekly?

[DesolationRow]

I'm not sure Nietzsche proposed any purpose to our existence, but I haven't read that much. And I've not touched Kierkegaard at all except indirectly in other writer's commentaries. But, on the basis of the summaries you've provided here, I'd say K was right and N wrong.

Yeah perhaps the word purpose doesn't work there. N. thought the best thing we could do was affirm life, regardless of purpose.

They think that Nietzsche was only vaguely aware of Kierkegaard. And definitely wasn't able to read his works (though he wrote to a friend that he planned to). But the interesting thing is that Nietzsche's assault on Christianity wouldn't apply to the kind of religious existence Kierkegaard was endorsing. It would have been fascinating to see his response to a Chrsitian thinker whose ideas, and depth, were so similar to his own.