Kiekergaard and Nietzche questions

Unfortunately, I don't have a terrible depth of understanding for either character. When I study philosophy, I'm more concerned with the composition of the proposed ideas rather than the supposed characters projecting those ideas.

However, I am interested to hear the answer to the question and intend to follow this thread.

Some simple notions: both had great appreciation of the historical Jesus, but Kiekergaard rejected The Church and Nietzsche rejected the notion of the Christ, another creation of the Church, particularly Saul. Faith was important for Kiekergaard and instinctual drives and intuition were central for Nietzsche. Nietzsche was at different times a positivist (analytical philosopher, cf. Arthur Danto , phenomenologist , cf. Husserl, and existentialist--a very open-minded and "experimental" thinker. So open that he is sometimes designated the father post-modernism.

Some simple notions: both had great appreciation of the historical Jesus, but Kiekergaard rejected The Church and Nietzsche rejected the notion of the Christ, another creation of the Church, particularly Saul. Faith for important on for Kiekergaard and instinctual drives (and intuition) was central for Nietzsche. Nietzsche was at different times a positivist (analytical philosopher, cf. Arthur Danto , phenomenologist , cf. Husserl, and existentialist--a very open-minded and "experimental" thinker.

I think that the central similarity between Kiekergaard and Nietzche is their rejection of the idea of meaning as being solely the content of concepts arrived at like the ideas of geometry. I think they rejected a certain notion of God as a kind of supreme Idea in all of its implications. They instead believed that through living itself only did meaning come. I think that that is why they are labeled "existential".

BTW I don't think that level of reasoning is very useful ultimately. I think the distinction is artificial.

It has some utility however. Everyone has met (or is aware of) the kind of person for whom religion is reduced to theology and whose life shrinks down while his intellect grows. Someone for whom there is no engagement and for whom the truth of God or religion is a kind of knowledge that is general, and even universal purely with no specific application in their lives. Both rejected that kind of intellectualizing. Both men believed in having boots on the ground spiritually - or at least railed against not having them. (You can argue that the mere fact of their writing philosophy disqualified them from the purest of existential credentials.)

Kierkegaard did it without rejecting religion completely. Nietzche rejected not only religion but any system of absolute meaning (including perhaps - shades of Wittgenstein - his own). In its place both substitute a kind of living in which meaning is the meaning of the life lived. One way of seeing it is to see how the particulars of one's life become then very relevant. Kierkegaard referred to this as "finitude" sometimes.

BTW if you are interested in this you might check out "The Jargon of Authenticity" by Theodor Adorno. I don't really agree much with him but he lands some very stinging blows on those who carry out philosophy from the bleachers and make authenticity - a kind of cultural result of existentialism - mere jargon. Its sort of the same argument once removed.

Nietzsche is not an existentialist philosopher first point.
Nietzsche is a paradox philosopher, in hyperbola, labyrynth.
Nietzsche does not suppose anything exists, but Her, I guess Fate-he does not believe in her though, like a religion, he just supposes.
He doesn't support existentialism, his first thoughts on other philosophers like kierkergaard but not limited to, nothing personal.

On Existentialism: Oh well I'm sort of teaching here but, his philosophy was in question with a series of strong retorts by a man named Kant, who practically deified himself, who supposes reason only quite like Nietzsche while being an "existential philosopher". First faith is Jesus obviously. Faith above others is Law not Reason. Is first faith a law, then it is above reason. It seems to be already set, interogative, my best guess, of the theism of existential reasoning who first supports: there says, laws, and above reason are laws, like faith, which is a law and not the man's personal teaching. There seems to be a set of reasoning involved, where he states it; first law above reason, first law Christ or Jesus, in their opinion, so there is nothing to say about it but that it is exactly existential reasoning, and not a retort, the classics. His statement is fact not reason.

Is first faith a law, then it is above reason. In existentialism, questions are ideas.

However, existentialism whos first faith is reason seems to support a beyond time theme: Kant, is a beyond man. Or Nietzschean sort of, why Nietzsche picked on him a lot.

Meanwhile Nietzsche supposed that all existential philosophers, not merely Kant, were only moralisms and nothing else, nothing wise.

Existential philosophers: Kant, Gande

Nietzsche hates Kant. Kant died.

i'm not sure n relly commited on k, but it is attrubited to him that he said that faith is wanting to belive what is not true, i'm parahazeing.

and spelling poor.

etc etc..

their common ground might just be that both are some what existentialist.
Separate their religious beliefs and consider their philosophical tenets. You might line up your teams of non-religious existentialist: Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Woody Allen, Kafka etc vs your religious existentialist: Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky., Pasquale etc. A basic tenet of existentialism is that life sucks, that the cosmos is cruel and indifferent. That we are alienated etc. Both camps posit these tenets

Camus according to Pope Paul VI (with whom C. sought an audience) was considering conversion. Revelations since his death support that.

The person you didn't name is the one who started his life as a philosopher pondering your question.

Gabriel Marcel Quotes (Author of The Philosophy of Existentialism)

“The atheist relies not on an experience but on an idea, or pseudo idea, of God: if God existed, He would have such and such characteristics; but if he had such characteristics, He could not allow etc...His judgment of incompability, in fact, is based on a judgment of implications.”
― Gabriel Marcel

And this unbelievable saying from him ( a convert to Catholicism )
The striking thing about the Precious Blood is the bond it establishes between love and suffering in our experience, a bond that has become so close that we have come to think of suffering accepted with joy as the most authentic sign of love with any depth at all. Gabriel Marcel

Hi Oz,

I think Neech's leap of faith was away from Christianity, as far as we can get, and then to have faith in ourselves. This is my reading of the 'superman', just someone who can live and act without the crutch of religion to hang on to.

S.