Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard are often grouped
together as some of the first thinkers in what would become
existential philosophy. However, Nietzsche (who outlived
Kierkegaard by decades) likely never encountered the other’s work
directly. The differences between them are therefore stark.
Kierkegaard does not have a strident ontology of anything but
the self. For him, the self is all-encompassing and the most
pressing issue. Therefore, he is not concerned with the
categorization of “being” in the tradition of Aristotelian thought.
Rather, he turns his focus to subjective experience.
Kierkegaard viewed the categorization of the self as a
perversion of subjectivity. Existence is not mirrored as a concept
in the mind, it is self-created and self-categorized through the
“Either/Or of choice” . No metaphysical abstractions will do the
self justice – only the subjective choices truly represent it.
Similar to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche’s conception of “being” is
difficult to pinpoint since he is mostly a political writer
interested in polemics. Yet, his ontology is the cornerstone of his
greater ideas and is therefore necessary to understanding his
positions fully.
Therefore, Nietzsche mostly rejected metaphysics as
institutionally illegitimate.
Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche value the subject and largely
reject metaphysics, which is where they intersect ontologically.
Kierkegaard’s position against universals bears resemblance to
Nietzsche’s position of perspectivism – that there are many
different interpretations, and different perspectives, of a
particular truth
When one person sees one thing and another sees something else
in the same thing, then the one discovers what the other conceals.
Therefore, it is through subjective perspectives and the
commonality between them that we find truth and fulfillment as
individuals, rather than through categorizations and
abstractions.
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard both place emphasis on the
individual, but apply these emphases differently. Nietzsche is
concerned with the will of the individual in social relations and
is thus concerned with questions of consciousness that Kierkegaard
neglects to mention.
They also understand Christianity very differently not merely
through the fact they believe or don't. For Kierkegaard, Christ is
the absurd paradox, that God became man and was entirely both and
gave his ministry before dying in a way very unbecoming of the King
of Kings.
That the God-man could appear to us abased and crucified is
beautiful and haunting in Kierkegaard and something that should
inspire revulsion if one truly tries to make sense of it.
For Nietzsche it's certainly revolting but because of Christ
valuing such horrible things as a belief in the meek and those who
would fetishize helping in a way he sees as harmful.
The difficulty in our understanding the event for him is not
that people can't understand God's death and abasement, though one
could argue he agrees that we cannot, but that this so-called God,
this Jewish carpenter and wannabe messiah, would value pitying
those who are beneath him, would mock us by becoming man.
Neither philosophers think humanity typically understands the
weight of this moment, or at least that it has been lost.