Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
There are a cardinal of misconceptions abounding accept apropos the aesthetics of existentialism. Probably the best accepted delusion is the angle that it is a nihilistic, aphotic aesthetics with a afflicted outlook. This is a angrily inaccurate appraisal as existentialism is absolutely a aesthetics of attractive at activity through a astute lens. Of course, altered bodies see things abnormally and this is why alike famous, arch existentialist philosophers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche accept assorted teaching methodologies for presenting existentialism. In adjustment to acutely accept existentialism, one charge attending at some of these differences amid these two existentialist philosophers.
Both of these two philosophers accept that it is about acumen that gets in the way of reality. That is, bodies will attending at activity their own biases and perspectives as against to attractive at reality. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche accept that this inherent blemish is accepted amid all bodies and they accent that advance of the alone can affected this problem. Their approaches to the problem, however, abridgement abundant in agreement of similarity.
Probably the capital aberration amid the two would be the angle of entering compassionate vs. apparent expression. For Kierkegaard, there is abundant internalization. That is, the alone needs to attending at his or her own flaws and appear to an anagnoris of that is somewhat affiliated to broad-mindedness and claimed spirituality. For Nietzsche, the access is far added humanist as the action for cocky advance is begin in how the actuality acts. That is to say, broad-mindedness does not appear from a apparent faculty of adherence as abundant as it comes in claimed accomplishment in accomplished goals. In a way, Nietzsche's "superman" displays who he is through his actions. For Kierkegaard, there is centralized apperception that creates a altered perspective. This, too, can change the actuality but after the alien displays.
Individualism is a actual important point for both of these philosophers. Often, existentialism is the aesthetics of the cocky and is not anxious with collectivism. (This is one of the affidavit why the aesthetics is afield referred to as actuality authentic narcissism) Kierkegaard, while actual abrogating appear the angle of accumulation anticipate and groups, stresses that there are assertive assets that can be fabricated from aural the group.
This is provided, of course, that the man does not acquiesce the accumulation to booty over his thinking. For Nietzsche it would accept there is added acrimony and acerbity appear the group. He has little use for aggregate pursuits of any affectionate and would adopt to abstain it as against to Kierkegaard plays the aggregate for alone benefit. That is, use the flaws of the accumulation as a allegorical assumption for cocky enlightenment.
If there was any abashing present it would centermost on the angle that one could be cocky aware or a superman aural a vacuum. That is, if you are the beatnik who feels "above it all" what amount can that be account if the accumulation aggregate does not account you achievements. Conceivably Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would accompaniment that whatever the accumulation believes is abandoned but best bodies do achievement to accretion amount from the collective's envy. Afresh again, conceivably this abashing derives from abnegation some of the bourgeois tendencies of existentialism. If you are not accommodating to absolutely adios "the group" afresh abundant of existentialism will prove unappealing.
Once again, while the article of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in commendations to announcement existentialism seek the aforementioned goal, their approaches accept a cardinal of differences. Some are apparent and some are subtle. Then, some are alone a amount of perception.
But what absolutely is the animal being? While there are physical, biological and alike airy aspects that comprise the animal actuality best bodies can not put the sums calm and accommodate a finite, absolute acknowledgment to that actual important question. Yet, it has been a catechism airish by abounding existential philosophers for abounding years. One existentialist who approved to accommodate a actual different and absolute acumen to what is a animal actuality was Heidegger/ The attempts to do so are apparent in his assay of Dasein. Dasein is about a way of attractive at the individual's abode in the world. As such, if you accept the person's abode in the apple afresh you will accept the person. In a way, this is because a actuality and a being's ambiance are inseparable. After all, does not ambiance appearance the being?
The absorbing point that Heidegger puts alternating is that throughout animal history there is an adverse addiction by association to abstain the catechism of being. This is because the actuality is taken for granted. That is, appearance is somewhat alone due to amiable neglect. This is the aftereffect of putting far too abundant accent on association appear attractive at the actuality on ever psychoanalytical of not ever abstract means. In alternative words, the aggregate has too abundant of a complicated analogue for the being. This is about because association does not attending at the actuality from the angle of acute simplicity: a animal is a cerebration animal decumbent to emotion. When a academy of anticipation or an academy ignores this actuality the adeptness to absolutely accept the actuality is lost.
In a way, it would accept that Heidegger would achievement that the actuality – the alone – would abstain association as it about ignores him. That does not beggarly one should be dismissive or contrary to the aphorism of law. It artlessly agency one should seek his or her own alone aisle and try to abstain the aggregate mentality and the influences it pedals.
In a agnate vein, there are a cardinal of able opinions surrounding Heidegger's aesthetics vs. Wittgenstein's Logical Positivism. On a baseline level, Logical Positivism is a admonishment of mysticism and seeks to authorize a added secular, argumentation based angle on life. In a way, it is abundant like acceptable existentialism although its access can be somewhat added biting. What makes the allegory amid Heidegger's theories and Logical Positivism is the actuality that followers of Logical Positivism about allege Heidegger's theories of actuality ever based in mysticism!
This is a camp angle because it would infer that Heidegger's angle on the abstraction of the actuality was not based on humanism, Instead, it would be accepted that the actuality centered on mysticism. Conceivably this is because those who appoint to Logical Positivism see concepts of "the being" as actuality psychoanalytical variants of mysticism and spirituality. Obviously, this was not Heidegger's ambition and such an inference would infer confusion.
Perhaps this is because the Logical Positives followers would accept that there is far too abundant belief inherent to answering questions apropos who or what is the being. Again, this brings us to the afraid attitudes assertive realists may accept apropos annihilation psychoanalytical. Conceivably to these individuals attractive entering to acknowledgment questions of actuality ability airing to abutting of a band appear spirituality. (Again, this is not Heidegger's absorbed but this is how some critics may accept authentic it.) Angle of adherence airing too carefully to mysticism for followers of Logical Positivism and that is why they may actual able-bodied adios Heidegger.
On a basal level, however, Heidegger's theories of the actuality are sound. Of course, there will be critics and that is expected, but to absolute abolish the allowances of Heidegger's assignment aloft brief assay would not be the wisest aisle to take.
Order a unique copy of this paper