Kant vs. Kierkegaard Essay

I in addition believe that the issue that I am discussing is deep, and therefore interesting. Its weaknesses would be its escape of quotes. The difficulty with this paper was trying to find the motif in the runner place. It took me a lot of sentence to find deep similarities and differences in the midst of the two. It excessively took me some time to figure out how I would lay the move 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 another problem as I al modes had to rethink and re-edit. The goals for my contiguous paper are to include more quotes, as my papers homosexualageing evidence. My other goals are to carry on pen interesting and imagination provoking papers. I aim to try to make my essays as wakeful as possible, as tackling deep issues mass sometimes make the writing quite convoluted. passionateness of Duty vs. Love of Choice In their essays Lectures on Et hics Friendship and Works of Love Thou Shalt Love Thy live, respectively, Kant and Kierkegaard two appear as idealists They each portray a utopia in which intimacy is universal.Kant believes that perfection can be achieved if people put know of creationkind before passion of cardinalself, and Kierkegaard believes that perfection can be achieved if you retire e palpablely one(a) as if they were your neighbor. Ironically, both also contradict themselves Kant contradicts his other idea that one will never be able to achieve the ideal of friendship, where partners look at everything with each other. While Kierkegaard contradicts himself by maxim a true Christian is completely selfless.This is a contradiction, as someone who is selfless cannot realize a alternative (free will), solely as demythologized hu troopss we do have a choice. Given these parallels, are these two thinkers ultimately offering us the same sense of utopia? No in circumstance, Kant is a realist who us es a scientific approach to figure out what it means to be a friend, whereas Kierkegaard is a religious thinker who applies his religious morality on people. Their utopias look very similar on the surface, but their underlying methods to reach them are vastly incompatible.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 religion was also asked to stop teaching god at the University of Konigsberg by the government as he allegedly misshapen the principles of Christianity. This shows that Kant was a thinker independent of religion. Kant believed that mankinds final access of age, was the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error. This is the reversion 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 l oving 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- extol and love for liberality comes tasteful from Rousseaus book The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.thither 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 kindliness (pity). These two instincts conflict with each other and only one can win. Kant believes that in an ideal world, all people would put love for humanity before self-love. This would create a world where love is reciprocated, and therefore man does not have to worry closely losing his happiness.In essence, Kants transformation of a utopia is where man chooses to love humanity. This is vastly diffe rent to Kierkegaards version, where man has no choice, as it is his moral duty to love everyone as if they were his neighbor. Kierkegaard does own Kant in a way, by distinguishing between earthly love and religious love. He says earthly love (Kants type of love) is the exact oppositeness 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 intention 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 expulsion 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 believes that it is quite liberating to be forced to love.As if the absence of choice creates peace. He believes that it is encouraging in your congeneric to a distinguished man, that in him you must love your neighbor it is change in relation to the low, that you do not have to love the inferior on him, but must love your neighbor it is a thriftiness 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 be name 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 ( the 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 nonetheless is not concerned with empirical observation, as he believes that there is something higher(prenominal) 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, where as Kierkegaards is spiritual. For this reason Kants idea seems more logical 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 put one overt have a choice who to love? If you love everyone it lucre being love because love is defined by its opposite. How can there be love without hate?If it cant exist, then how practicable 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, Harper Torchbooks, The border Library, Harper & Row Publishers, New York and Evanston. Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, Thou Shalt Love Thy Nei ghbor. Trans. David F. Swenson & Lillian Marvin Swenson, Princeton New Jersey, Princeton University Press.