Kant vs. Kierkegaard Essay Example for Free

Kant vs. Kierkegaard EssayI also believe that the issue that I am discussing is deep, and on that pointfore interesting. Its weaknesses would be its neediness of quotes. The difficulty with this paper was hard to find the idea in the first place. It took me a agglomerate of time to find deep correspondentities and differences amidst the ii. It also took me some time to figure out how I would lay the essay out and how I would flesh the essay out. As this paper is non superficial, I found myself finding new ideas and problem as time passed. This gave me a nonher problem as I always had to rethink and re-edit. The goals for my next paper are to include more quotes, as my papers lack evidence. My other goals are to carry on writing interesting and thought provoking papers. I calculate to try to build my essays as clear as possible, as tackling deep issues can sometimes make the writing quite convoluted. Love of Duty vs. Love of Choice In their essays Lectures on Ethics fel lowship and Works of Love Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor, respectively, Kant and Kierkegaard both appear as idealists They each stage a utopia in which acquaintance is universal.Kant believes that perfection can be achieved if people put have a go at it of macrocosm before honor of unmatchableself, and Kierkegaard believes that perfection can be achieved if you bed e actu completelyyone as if they were your neighbor. Ironically, both also diverge themselves Kant contradicts his other idea that one will never be able to achieve the ideal of friendship, where partners get by everything with each other. While Kierkegaard contradicts himself by saying a true Christian is completely selfless.This is a contradiction, as someone who is selfless cannot have a prime(prenominal) (free will), but as rational humans we do have a choice. Given these parallels, are these two thinkers ultimately offering us the same sensory faculty of utopia? No in fact, Kant is a realist who uses a sci entific approach to figure out what it means to be a friend, whereas Kierkegaard is a religious thinker who applies his religious faith on people. Their utopias look very similar on the surface, but their underlying methods to reach them are vastly different.Both Kant and Kierkegaard come from two very different backgrounds. Kant was born in Prussia, and was interested in physics and mathematics. He didnt have a positive view of devotion was also asked to stop teaching Theology at the University of Konigsberg by the disposal as he allegedly misrepresented the principles of Christianity. This shows that Kant was a thinker independent of religion. Kant believed that mankinds closing coming of age, was the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error. This is the adversary of Kierkegaard, as he was a devout Christian. Kierkegaard tried to incorporate religion (Christian morality) with reason. This is where he comes up with his idea of wins ome thy neighbor. Whereas Kierkegaard comes from a position that his way is the right way, as it was mandated from God, Kant comes from a position which is influenced by Rousseau and Aristotle, in fact Kants idea of man having self-love and love for human being comes straight from Rousseaus book The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.There is also a deeper difference Kierkegaards religious morality implies duty, whereas Kants view on friendship implies choice. Choice lies at the heart of Kants philosophy. He says that man has two basic instincts self-love and love for humanity (pity). These two instincts conflict with each other and only one can win. Kant believes that in an ideal serviceman, all people would put love for humanity before self-love. This would crap a world where love is reciprocated, and therefore man does not have to worry about losing his happiness.In essence, Kants version of a utopia is where man chooses to love humanity. This is vastly different to Kierkeg aards version, where man has no choice, as it is his moral duty to love everyone as if they were his neighbor. Kierkegaard does acknowledge Kant in a way, by distinguishing between earthly love and spiritual love. He says earthly love (Kants type of love) is the exact opposite of spiritual love. He argues that a poet (Kant) is absolutely right in saying that earthly love cannot be commanded. Kierkegaard believes that Christian love is better as it is completely selfless.For Kierkegaard, Christian love teaches love to all men, unconditionally all. Just as unconditionally and strongly as earthly love tends towards the idea of there being but one single object of love, equally unconditionally and strongly Christian love tends in the opposite direction. If a man with respect to Christian love wishes to make an exception in the case of one man whom he does not wish to love, then such love is not also Christian love, but it is unconditionally not Christian love. (41) Kierkegaard also bel ieves that it is quite liberating to be agonistic to love.As if the absence of choice creates peace. He believes that it is encouraging in your relation to a distinguished man, that in him you must love your neighbor it is humbling in relation to the inferior, that you do not have to love the inferior on him, but must love your neighbor it is a saving grace if you do it, for you must do it (50). Thus the difference between earthly and spiritual love is that earthly love is a choice and spiritual love is a command from God. Both Kierkegaard and Kant come to different conclusions because in their writing, their focus is on separate ideas.Kant, being a man of reason primarily, approaches his philosophy in a scientific manner. To explain, he breaks one thing into smaller things. Kant makes observations based on what he sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels (like his three types of friendships). However, he does also make some conceptual assumptions (discussed earlier) such as his idea of putting love of humanity before self-love will cause reciprocation of friendship. Unlike Kierkegaard, Kant does not focus on religion as it is unnecessary for someone who is only interested in empirical observations.Kierkegaard however is not relate with empirical observation, as he believes that there is something higher and more important i. e. Christianity. Kierkegaard concentrates more on morality and what he believes is right, instead of focusing on what is actually there. Kierkegaard doesnt even talk about friendship in his writing. This shows that he places much more importance on what his religion says is right instead of trying to observe and deconstruct what friendship is. Although both philosophers have radically different ideas on how to achieve a utopian world, their ideas as an end result are very similar.They both want a world in which everyone loves everyone. The difference is that Kants love comes from reason, whereas Kierkegaards is spiritual. For this reason Kants idea seems more arranged to the rational human being. Kant doesnt believe in forced love, he believes in a choice to put either love of humanity or love of oneself at the fore. Kierkegaards idea of loving as a moral duty is contradictory at its heart, because how can you love if you dont have a choice who to love? If you love everyone it stops being love because love is outlined by its opposite. How can there be love without hate?If it cant exist, then how possible is Kierkegaards idea? This is the main problem with Kierkegaard, because his observations come from his faith. In the real world, love should come from understanding, not dogma. If there is no understanding, its like a slavery of the mind. Works Cited Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics, Ethics. Trans. Louis Infield, harpist Torchbooks, The Cloister Library, Harper Row Publishers, New York and Evanston. Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor. Trans. David F. Swenson Lillian Marvin Swenson, Princeton New Jersey, Princeton University Press.