The story of this unit's movement from Kant's philosophy to Nietzsche's is the story of a transition from the rationalistic culture of the Enlightenment to the modern confusion that led to Existentialism. Both focus on the Individual, but in different ways. Your test will therefore focus on the different frameworks for understanding the Individual subject's place in the objective universe developed by Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Your goal for this post is to compare and contrast how two of these thinkers explained that relationship. The chart below might help you get started: it details each philosophers core views in straightforward statements.
(This is what will be on the upcoming test; I highly suggest printing it out and adding to your notes!)
19 Comments
Gabriella Lopez
2/6/2017 03:19:05 pm
Existentialism is branch of philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. Nietzsche believes in the individuality of a person. He believes that corruption in the objective world, will allow beings to branch into their own subjective forms of uniqueness. The creativity a person holds will lead to the truths and bettering of our world. Although, these truths cannot be reached without some form of corruption, discrimination, etc. On the other hand, Kant believes in the dual nature of an individual. Every person should seen as an end, and somewhat valued. The amount of value a person has truly depends on the subjectively conscious beings of others and our objective existence. Hence, Nietzsche and Kant have different views of a subjective individual's' role in the world, but their roles do have some value in our "objective" reality.
Reply
Paige Whittle
2/6/2017 03:43:19 pm
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche had similar views on axiology. Both philosophers were existentialists, meaning they believed that one has to choose their own ways in which to live. Both believed that conformity was negative, and that each person should strive to achieve freedom of choice. Where Kierkegaard and Nietzsche differed was in their viewpoints about religion. Kierkegaard said one should take a "leap of faith" to make their own path and resist conformity. This leap of faith would be relying on religion. However, Nietzsche would argue that this does not give the individual full freedom because religion means they would have to submit to a higher power. Overall, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both existentialist in that they believed the individual has to make their own choices for their life in the world. Despite this common belief, they differed on ideas of religion.
Reply
Michael Deitz
2/7/2017 06:23:35 pm
How the world relates to the individual became a very hot topic amongst philosophers during the mid to late 19th century. Kickstarted by Kant, the individual subject quickly became the focus of philosophic discussion, with the usual stances of government, ethics, and knowledge being explained for the individual person rather than society as a whole. Georg Hegel focused heavily on the epistemology of subjects, declaring that everything in the world is connected and we all learn through what he called the Dialectical Process. One thought, or a thesis, would be contradicted by another presented idea, the antithesis, and out would come a new idea taking into account both previous ones, the synthesis. Hegel, like Locke before him, believe everything developed from experiencing the world over time. To that, Nietzsche would probably scream or declare wrong in his German accent and with his glorious mustache explain to Hegel where all of his (many) mistakes lie. The world, according to Nietzsche, is meaningless and can not be understood outside of our own comprehension, for it is our brains that allow us to understand the world. There is no dialectic, rather since the world is meaningless, we must put meaning into it ourselves. Nietzsche tried to fend of Schopenhauer's Nihilism and replace it with Existentialism, where rather than believing in history or God we must believe in ourselves and that is how we will become the best selves that we can be. We don't wait to understand the world, because there is simply nothing there to understand. We must give meaning to ourselves, our lives, and the worlds we perceive and do the best that we can there to live the most fulfilled lives. Hegel believed that the past can influence the present to help the future, and Nietzsche claims that self empowerment and true personal meaning can shield us from the vast uncaring emptiness of the universe and make every day a good one. We have no need to wait for what we can do ourselves.
Reply
Jennifer Spinelli
2/7/2017 07:27:04 pm
Kant says that each human is conscious, free-willed subject with the same built-in conceptual categories to organize their experience. Kant is saying that the individuals place in the universe is to really be themselves. He says we have free will, and we're born with the same potential but it's how we use it that makes the difference. Hegel said that each human is a product of history and culture at a certain stage of our evolving self-awareness and he said that we are primarily social beings. Our purpose is to learn and teach others through our experience.
Reply
Kelly Farley
2/7/2017 09:57:58 pm
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have differing relationships between their views on an individuals place in the objective universe. Schopenhauer believes each individual is part of the Universal Energy that falsely thinks they have free will, idenity and purpose, however he does not think they have any of these, they only have pain. Schopenhauer wanted to come up with a solution to suffering even though he thought it was inevitable in every person's life. He had a western interpretation and response to the enlightened pessimism found in buddist thought. Nietzsche says that each person is a unique "expression" of nature's will-to-power, but we tend to gather in herds instead of living creatively or passionately. He sees the world as not being perfect or beautiful but it does not wish to be. He thinks that people need to have chaos within themselves to produce something good and he believes morality makes us stupid.
Reply
Henry Ehlers
2/8/2017 03:02:35 am
Both Kant and Nietzsche believed in the importance of the individual, although they had different ideas of what individuals are constituted of. Kant said that everyone has the same built in categories that they group experiences into. Nietzsche however said that each individual is completely unique with the the way they operate, but they still tend to follow the populus in a herd mentality. Both have fair points, but I've got to side with Nietzsche on this one.
Reply
Kyle Eber
2/8/2017 03:34:25 am
Kant vs Neitzsche is very interesting, going from what people that was the tie up to an even better tie up. Kant says that each person operates the same and the individual is subjective. Neitzsche agrees, though:
Reply
Emma Vollmuth
2/8/2017 04:12:25 am
Kant and Schopenhauer have contrasting ideas, but their ideas do have some parts that intertwine with each other. Kant said that We were trapped inside our own bubble seeing the world through our limited perception, while Schopenhauer said that we are able to see the entire world, but limited by ourselves. This is where their similarities show, they both claim that we are limited in a way and can never truly understand everything in this world. For Kant, it is the bubble that gets in the way and for Schopenhauer it is us being such a small individual in nature.
Reply
Edith Torres
2/8/2017 04:32:26 am
Schopenhauer believed that all of life was meaningless and that we are all limited by our own thoughts and what is around us. He saw everything as a bunch of forces subjective inside of you and objective around you. Kierkegaard agrees with the lack of meaning of the world around us, but instead believes that we must make a religious "leap of faith." You must use faith as a way to live your life. Also, the as an individual you make your own decisions according to Kierkegaard, meanwhile Schopenhauer believes that you have no control over your decisions at all!
Reply
Parizaad Mohammadi
2/9/2017 08:18:06 am
Kant believed that we only see the world as we perseverance it and nothing else. Legal believed we grow and learn through experiences in life and our view on the world changes. Schopenhauer simply believed our world is limited and life is meaningless. Kierkegaard simply believed in religion. And finally Niche believed in the will to power.
Reply
Izzy Halloran
2/11/2017 05:17:59 pm
Existentialism stresses the existence of a person as a free individual who determines their fate by the choices they freely make. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche share similar philosophies when it comes to what they believe an individual subject's place is in the objective universe. Both philosophers essentially shared the same school of thought on the basic nature of humans. Kierkegaard believed that subjectivity is truth, and that the individual should be able to choose which path they would like to bring their life down. Nietzsche agreed with Kierkegaard and added the "will to power"; each person has a main driving force in them to reach their highest potential, to be the best version of themselves. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche opposed conformity, stating that we cannot become a sheep in the herd. If we are carbon copies of each other, there would be no individualism, and no freedom to choose your own life. Even though both philosophers agreed that conformity kills individualism, they disagreed when it came to religion. Kierkegaard believed in a "leap of faith" and the blind following of God. In some ways, Kierkegaard contradicts himself because he conforms to a higher power. On the other hand, Nietzsche would emphasize the fact that succumbing to a higher power is conformity, and it should not be allowed. Although Nietzsche and Kierkegaard's philosophies on religion differed, they were both firm believers in existentialism.
Reply
Tyhler Harty
2/13/2017 04:32:22 am
the common relationship between the philosopher Hegel and Schopenhauer is that both stress that each human is apart of a greater plan. Whether it be history or the universe, and that is where the similarities between these two philosophers begin and end. Now the differences between them are that Schopenhauer believes humans have no free will at all, while Hegel believes that each human has self-awareness. In addition to this Hegel believes that their is purpose to humans through things like history and culture, while Schopenhauer believes their is nothing but pain.
Reply
Young Chen
3/1/2017 05:58:27 am
Schopenhauer believed that everyone was put here by an Universal Energy and that everyone is falsely thinking they have free will. Nietzsche on the other hand believes that every person has their own free will land have their won problems. These problems increase their will and difference from others.
Reply
Michelle Mazzucca
3/23/2017 07:34:46 pm
Kant says that people are conscious and free will with built in categories. These categories organizes the persons experiences. Kant also believes that people turn towards religion for faith considering that reason is limited. Schopenhauer on the other hand believes that humans do not have free will. He thinks that people turn to religion for comfort, but simply because life and the world around us sucks.
Reply
Holly Braverman
3/26/2017 08:54:02 am
Two philosophers who tried to explain the individual’s place in the objective universe are Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Arthur Schopenhauer. Both philosophers asserted that humanity strives to search for ultimate self-awareness and/or knowledge of some sort. In other words, Hegel and Schopenhauer claimed that the individual’s place in the subjective world is to search for answers in hopes of achieving completion, and therefore achieving contentment. However, the degree to which this is possible is not agreed upon by Hegel and Schopenhauer. Hegel maintained that theoretically, humanity could reach a state of ultimate freedom, whereas the collective consciousness (or “world spirit”) becomes entirely self-conscious, thus becoming more rational, and consequently more free. On the other hand, Schopenhauer maintained that the idea that humanity would actually reach a state of ultimate freedom is simply absurd. In fact, Schopenhauer argued that free will is nothing more than an illusion, and life itself is devoid of identity, purpose, and meaning. According to Schopenhauer, the universe just “is”; there is no rhyme or reason in regards to WHY things work, and thus knowledge is merely HOW things work. He contended that the individual subject’s place in the objective universe is to just exist in a meaningless world and endure a painful existence.
Reply
Emily Fitzgerald
4/2/2017 05:47:24 pm
I think that Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard have a fair amount of similarities and differences. Schopenhauer had the main belief of "Nihilism", aka life has zero meaning to it and were all just particles being recycled over and over again. Kierkegaard on the other hand was a huge existentialist. He based his philosophy on standing out from society. He thought everyone did have a purpose, and that purpose was to stand out and voice the ideas from within (take the leap of faith). They were similar in the sense that they both link back to religion and God, which a fair amount of philosophers do not do. Otherwise, I don't see much of a connection between them.
Reply
Julia maier
4/3/2017 05:09:47 am
Schopenhauer and kants points of views were very different on there views of religion. Schopenhauer believed people believe in religon and god to comfort themselves because we live in reality thats to hard to handle, they live a fairtytail life because reality is to brutal for them. Kant thinks our ability to see reality is hard and we have room so we should focus on god!
Reply
Nora Fraser
4/3/2017 05:52:31 am
Schopenhauer says that no one has free will, identity, or purpose. Nietzsche says that most people just follow the crowd and never find individuality and free will, and that the ultimate purpose in life is to defy nihilism and create a purpose for oneself. Both see religion as a crutch which people turn to to avoid fear and believe that life inherently has meaning, but Nietzsche's Will-to-Power gives religion more credit.
Reply
Dahlia Mozino
4/3/2017 05:55:34 am
Schopenhauer believes the individual is an insignificant, foolish being. It fools itself into believing in free will so it can avoid the crippling reality of being forced into one bad situation after the next. Kierkegaard is a firm believer in forced free will. Choice is a burden, but it can lead to good things. He believes one should make choices true to oneself. Also make choices based on God. These two are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Sadboi Schopey is all about the doom and gloom we are forced to, while Kierky Baby sees choice can lead to good things, as long as you are true to yourself and God.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |