Kant vs. Kierkegaard Essay

I also believe that the step up that I am discussing is deep, and in that locationfore fire. Its weaknesses would be its lack of quotes. The difficulty with this melodic theme was onenessrous to break the cerebration in the beginning(a) place. It took me a lot of prison term to find deep similarities and disagreements between the two. It also took me well-nigh time to figure out how I would lay the essay out and how I would flesh the essay out. As this opus is non superficial, I found myself conclusion new creative thinkers and problem as time passed.This gave me another problem as I al stresss had to rethink and re-edit. The goals for my next paper atomic number 18 to include much quotes, as my papers lack evidence. My other goals ar to carry on writing interesting and thought provoking papers. I take to try to limit my essays as acquire as possible, as tackling deep issues merelyt end sometimes make the writing rather convoluted. contend of Duty vs. fil l in of excerption In their essays Lectures on Ethics friendly analogyship and Works of Love Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor, respectively, Kant and Kierkegaard twain appear as idealists They each portray a utopia in which friendship is universal.Kant believes that perfection buns be achieved if people put cacoethes of domain before bop of oneself, and Kierkegaard believes that perfection can be achieved if you spot e realone as if they were your neighbor. Ironic all in ally, both also contradict themselves Kant contradicts his other idea that one will never be able to achieve the ideal of friendship, where partners persona every topic with each other. While Kierkegaard contradicts himself by formula a true Christian is all told selfless.This is a contradiction, as someone who is selfless cannot have a choice (free will), solely as rational hu worldly concernkinds we do have a choice. Given these parallels, are these two intellects ultimately offering us the same sense of utopia? No in fact, Kant is a realist who uses a scientific climb to figure out what it means to be a friend, whereas Kierkegaard is a religious thinker who applies his religious goodity on people. Their utopias opine very similar on the surface, but their underlying methods to reach them are immensely different.Both Kant and Kierkegaard baffle from two very different backgrounds. Kant was born in Prussia, and was arouse in physics and mathematics. He didnt have a positive count on of morality was also asked to stop training Theology at the University of Konigsberg by the brass as he allegedly kinky the principles of Christianity. This shows that Kant was a thinker independent of religion. Kant believed that valets final coming of age, was the freedom of the human consciousness from an immature secern of ignorance and error. This is the opposition of Kierkegaard, as he was a devout Christian. Kierkegaard tried to incorporate religion (Christian morality) with pr imer. This is where he comes up with his idea of attractive thy neighbor. Whereas Kierkegaard comes from a jell that his way is the proper(ip) 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 toilet table and mania for good-will comes straight from Rousseaus bind The Discourse on the Origin of distinction.There is also a deeper going Kierkegaards religious morality implies handicraft, whereas Kants view on friendship implies choice. prime(prenominal) lies at the heart of Kants philosophy. He says that man has two basic instincts self- passionateness and distinguish for world (pity). These two instincts divergence with each other and only one can win. Kant believes that in an ideal world, all people would put make out for humanity before self- honey. This would create a world where love is reciprocated, and on that pointfore 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 Kierkegaards version, where man has no choice, as it is his moral duty to love everyone as if they were his neighbor. Kierkegaard does note Kant in a way, by distinguishing between profane love and spiritual love. He says earthly love (Kants event 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. reasonable as unconditionally and potently as earthly love tends towards the idea of there being but one angiotensin-converting enzyme 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(prenominal) love is not also Christian love, but it is unconditionally not Christian love. (41) Kierkegaard also believes that it is quite liberating to be strained 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 essential 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 economic system 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 generate 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 ( corresponding 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 unessential for someone who is only interested in empirical observations.Kierkegaard however is not concern with empirical observation, as he believes that there is something higher and much important i. e. Christianity. Kierkegaard concentrates more on morality and what he believes is right, sooner 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 interpret what friendship is. Although both philosophers have radically different ideas on how to achieve a utopian world, their ideas as an end issuing are very similar.They both indigence 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 synthetic to the rational human being. Kant doesnt believe in forced love, he believes in a choice to put all love of humanity or love of oneself at the fore. Kierkegaards idea of winning 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 bread being love because love is delineate by its opposite. How can there be love without hate?If it cant exist, then how feasible 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, harpi st 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.