Reading: Nietzsche vs. Kierkegaard: A Philosophical Contrast

Nietzsche vs. Kierkegaard: A Philosophical Contrast

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) and Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) are two of the most influential and distinct thinkers of modern philosophy. Although both philosophers critiqued the foundations of modernity and emphasized the importance of subjectivity and individualism, their perspectives diverge sharply when it comes to the role of Christianity, the nature of truth, and the path to human flourishing. Nietzsche rejected Christianity and the moral structures it imposed, seeing it as a barrier to human potential. Kierkegaard, in contrast, remained committed to Christianity, believing that faith was essential to overcoming despair and achieving authentic selfhood.

Using the religious ground motive framework of Roy Clouser and the philosophical ideas of Herman Dooyeweerd, we can further explore the differences between these two thinkers and their respective ground motives, as well as the deeper philosophical implications of their critiques of modernity.

1. Views on Christianity: Slave Morality vs. Faith in God

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both grappled with the question of Christianity, but their conclusions could not be more opposed.

Kierkegaard: Faith as the Solution to Despair

Kierkegaard believed that faith in God was the key to overcoming the existential despair that characterizes human existence. For Kierkegaard, true selfhood could only be realized through a personal relationship with God, and faith involved a "leap" beyond the limits of reason. In works like Fear and Trembling and The Sickness Unto Death, Kierkegaard explored the tension between reason and faith, describing how individuals must confront anxiety and despair to authentically engage with the infinite, which only faith can reconcile.

Kierkegaard wrote:

"The greatest hazard of all, losing oneself, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all."

This reflects his belief that human beings are in danger of losing their true selves when they conform to societal norms or embrace secular rationality without confronting their dependence on God.

Nietzsche: Christianity as Slave Morality

In contrast, Nietzsche saw Christianity as a life-denying force that restricted human potential. He famously described Christianity as a form of slave morality, which he argued was developed by the weak to constrain the strong. For Nietzsche, Christian virtues like humility, meekness, and self-sacrifice represented a rejection of the will to power—the natural drive for strength, creativity, and vitality. Nietzsche believed that Christianity encouraged passivity and submission, denying the full expression of human life and creativity.

Nietzsche wrote:

"Christianity is the religion of pity. Pity stands opposed to the tonic passions which heighten our sense of power."

Where Kierkegaard saw Christianity as the path to selfhood and salvation, Nietzsche viewed it as a force that stifled human excellence. Nietzsche’s call for the Übermensch—a figure who transcends traditional values and creates new ones—represented his alternative to Christianity. The Übermensch rejects the constraints of religious morality and embraces the full power of life, acting out of strength rather than weakness.

2. Truth and Subjectivity: Faith vs. Perspectivism

Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche emphasized the role of subjectivity in human existence, but they developed this idea in very different ways.

Kierkegaard: Truth as Subjectivity in Faith

For Kierkegaard, truth is ultimately subjective, particularly when it comes to religious faith. In his view, objective knowledge—such as scientific or rational knowledge—cannot capture the profound truths of existence. Kierkegaard famously declared that "truth is subjectivity," arguing that the deepest truths are those that are personally and existentially lived. This is especially true in matters of faith, where Kierkegaard argued that an individual must make a "leap" beyond objective reason and embrace the paradoxes of Christian belief.

Kierkegaard’s notion of subjective truth is not relativism; rather, it is an existential commitment to what is most personally meaningful, which for him was the relationship with God. In works like Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he argued that the subjective experience of faith, though irrational and paradoxical, was more profound than any objective knowledge could offer.

Nietzsche: Perspectivism and the Rejection of Universal Truth

Nietzsche also rejected universal, objective truths, but his approach was far more radical. He developed the concept of perspectivism, the idea that all knowledge and truth are shaped by the individual’s perspective. For Nietzsche, there are no absolute truths, only interpretations shaped by one’s position, power, and experience.

Nietzsche wrote:

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

This radical perspectivism extends to all realms of human existence. Nietzsche believed that what people call "truth" is often a reflection of the power structures that shape society. The rejection of universal truth also fueled Nietzsche’s critique of morality, which he saw as nothing more than a social construct designed to maintain the status quo. While Kierkegaard saw subjective truth as essential to religious faith, Nietzsche saw all truth as contingent and fluid, subject to change based on perspective and context.

3. The Role of the Individual: Redemption vs. Self-Overcoming

Despite their differences, both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were concerned with the role of the individual in overcoming despair and achieving selfhood. However, their visions of this process diverged significantly.

Kierkegaard: The Individual Seeks Redemption through God

Kierkegaard believed that the individual’s path to authentic selfhood was a journey toward God. In his view, humans are fundamentally incomplete and can only find true meaning through a personal relationship with the divine. This journey is fraught with anxiety, despair, and paradoxes that challenge human reason, but it is ultimately necessary for the individual to transcend the finite and connect with the infinite.

For Kierkegaard, the individual must navigate the stages of life—beginning with the aesthetic (focused on pleasure), moving to the ethical (focused on duty), and culminating in the religious (focused on faith in God). True selfhood, according to Kierkegaard, can only be achieved in the religious stage, where the individual surrenders their will to God and embraces the uncertainty of faith.

Nietzsche: The Übermensch and the Creation of New Values

In stark contrast, Nietzsche’s ideal individual—the Übermensch—rejects the idea of redemption through God and seeks instead to overcome their own limitations. For Nietzsche, the Übermensch creates their own values and meaning in a world where God is dead. This self-overcoming requires rejecting the traditional moral codes that have been imposed by religion and society and embracing the will to power—the drive to assert and enhance one’s strength, creativity, and vitality.

Nietzsche wrote:

"Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?"

While Kierkegaard’s individual finds fulfillment in a relationship with God, Nietzsche’s Übermensch transcends the need for divine authority and embraces the full potential of human existence. The Übermensch does not seek redemption but instead creates meaning through their actions and self-determination.

Religious Ground Motive Critique: Nietzsche and Kierkegaard through Roy Clouser’s Lens

Roy Clouser’s religious ground motive framework offers a valuable tool for understanding the fundamental differences between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. According to Clouser, every worldview is shaped by an underlying religious or spiritual commitment, or ground motive, whether explicitly religious or not.

Kierkegaard’s Christian Ground Motive

Kierkegaard’s philosophy is deeply rooted in the Christian religious ground motive of creation, fall, and redemption. His emphasis on the individual’s relationship with God reflects the belief that human beings are created by God, fallen from grace, and in need of redemption through faith. Kierkegaard’s critique of modernity is grounded in the conviction that human reason and secular philosophy cannot provide the answers to the deepest existential questions. Only through the leap of faith and a personal relationship with God can individuals find true meaning and overcome despair.

Clouser would likely argue that Kierkegaard’s philosophy exemplifies the Christian ground motive’s insistence on human dependence on the divine. Kierkegaard’s rejection of Enlightenment rationality and his focus on subjective truth in matters of faith are rooted in the belief that the human condition can only be fully understood in relation to God.

Nietzsche’s Anti-Christian Ground Motive

In contrast, Nietzsche’s philosophy is shaped by an anti-Christian ground motive. Nietzsche’s rejection of Christianity and his embrace of the will to power reflect a commitment to radical human autonomy and self-creation. For Nietzsche, there is no need for divine authority or external moral codes; instead, individuals must take responsibility for creating their own values and meaning in a godless universe.

Clouser would likely critique Nietzsche’s philosophy as an expression of the nature-autonomy ground motive, which elevates human reason and power above divine authority. Nietzsche’s emphasis on self-overcoming and the creation of new values reflects the belief that humans are not dependent on God but are capable of transcending their limitations through their own strength and will.

Dooyeweerd’s Perspective: Nietzsche and Kierkegaard through the Ground Motive Lens

Herman Dooyeweerd, another philosopher who developed the concept of ground motives, would also offer valuable insights into the contrast between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. Dooyeweerd’s philosophy emphasizes the role of ground motives in shaping the basic direction of thought, and he identified several key ground motives throughout history, including the Greek form-matter motive, the biblical creation-fall-redemption motive, and the modern nature-freedom motive.

Dooyeweerd on Kierkegaard

Dooyeweerd would likely see Kierkegaard’s thought as deeply aligned with the biblical ground motive of creation-fall-redemption. Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the individual’s relationship with God reflects the belief that human beings are created with a purpose, that they have fallen into sin and despair, and that redemption is possible through faith in Christ. Dooyeweerd would view Kierkegaard’s focus on subjectivity and faith as a necessary response to modernity’s overemphasis on reason and systematization, which fail to account for the fullness of human experience.

Dooyeweerd on Nietzsche

Nietzsche, in contrast, would be seen by Dooyeweerd as embodying the nature-freedom ground motive, which elevates human autonomy above divine authority. Nietzsche’s rejection of Christianity and his embrace of the will to power reflect the belief that humans are free to create their own values and meaning, without reference to any transcendent source. Dooyeweerd would likely critique Nietzsche’s philosophy as ultimately nihilistic, as it denies the possibility of any objective moral order and places the burden of value creation entirely on the individual.

Conclusion: Nietzsche vs. Kierkegaard—A Clash of Ground Motives

In the philosophical contrast between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, we see a profound clash of ground motives. Kierkegaard, rooted in the Christian tradition, emphasizes the individual’s dependence on God and the necessity of faith in overcoming despair and achieving true selfhood. Nietzsche, on the other hand, rejects Christianity and embraces radical autonomy, calling for individuals to transcend traditional values and create their own meaning in a world without God.

Through the lens of Roy Clouser’s religious ground motive framework and Herman Dooyeweerd’s philosophy, we can understand these two thinkers as representing opposing worldviews: Kierkegaard’s philosophy is grounded in the biblical creation-fall-redemption motive, while Nietzsche’s philosophy is shaped by the modern nature-autonomy motive. Both thinkers offer powerful critiques of modernity, but their visions for the individual’s path to meaning and selfhood could not be more different. Kierkegaard finds salvation in faith, while Nietzsche calls for self-overcoming in a world where God is dead.