Kierkegaard and Nietzsche

There argon a number of misconceptions many have regarding the philosophy of existentialism. Probably the just about common misconception is the notion that it is a nihilistic, iniquity philosophy with a miserable outlook. This is a horribly inaccurate assessment as existentialism is really a philosophy of looking at purport through a realistic lens. Of course, different people see things differently and this is wherefore even famous, leading existentialist philosophers such(prenominal) as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have assorted teaching methodologies for presenting existentialism. In order to clearly find existentialism, one must look at some of these differences between these two existentialist philosophers. two of these two philosophers understand 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 humans and they stress that profit of the individual dirty dog overcome this problem. Their approaches to the problem, however, lack much in wrong 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 somewhat akin to enlightenment and personalized spirituality. For Nietzsche, the approach is far more humanist as the process for self improvement is found in how the person 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, too, can limiting the person but without the external displays.Indiv idualism is a very important point for both of these philosophers. Often, existentialism is the philosophy of the self and is not concerned with collectivism. (This is one of the reasons wherefore the philosophy is erroneously referred to as universe pure narcissism) Kierkegaard, time very negative towards the notion of group think and groups, stresses that there are certain gains that can be made from within the group.This is provided, of course, that the man does not allow the group to take over his sentiment. For Nietzsche it would seem there is more anger and bitterness towards the group. He has little use for collective pursuits of any kind 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 confusion present it would center on the notion that one could be self enlightened or a superman within a vacuum. That is, if you are the lon er who feels above it all what value can that be worth if the group collective does not honor you achievements. Perhaps Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would state that whatever the group believes is worthless but most people do expect to gain value from the collectives envy. Then again, maybe this confusion derives from rejecting 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 save a matter of perception.HeideggerBut what really is the human macrocosm? While there are physical, biological and even spiritual aspects that comprise the human being most people can not put the sums together and provide a finite, conclusive answer to that very important incertitude . Yet, it has been a question posed by many existential philosophers for many years. One existentialist who sought to provide a very unique and definitive 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 indue in the world. 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 environs are inseparable. After all, does not environment shape the being?The interesting point that Heidegger puts forth is that throughout human history there is an unfortunate tendency by beau monde to ignore the question of being. This is because the being is taken for granted. That is, individualism is somewhat discarded due to benign neglect. This is the result of putting far too much emphasis on society towards looking at the being on overly psychoanalytical of not overly metaphysical means. In oth er 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 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 dismissive or insubordinate to the rule of law. It exclusively means one should seek his or her own individual path and try to avoid the collective mentality and the influences it pedals.In a similar vein, there are a number of strong opinions surrounding Heideggers philosophy vs. Wittgensteins Logical Positivism. On a baseline level, Logical Positivism is a rebuke of mysticism and seeks to usher a more secular, logic found outlook on life. In a way, it is much like traditional exist entialism 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 prescribe to Logical Positivism see concepts of the being as being psychoanalytical variants of mysticism and spirituality. Obviously, this was not Heideggers cloakedion and such an inference would infer confusion.Perhaps this is because the Logical Positives followers would assume that there is far too much speculation inherent to answering questions regarding who or what is the being. Again, this brings us to the out or keeping(p) attitudes certain realists may have regarding anything psychoanalytical. Pe rhaps to these individuals looking inward to answer questions of being might walk 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 trifle upon cursory examination would not be the wisest path to take.