Two Opposing Perspectives on Egoism of Nietsche and Kierkegaard - Essay Example

?Two Opposing Perspectives on Egoism Friedrich Nietzsche’ Gay Science No. 304 and Soren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling are two written works that bear essential disagreements on the aspect of egoism. The points of contention are relevant because these are actually the very same issues that continue to shape man’s perspectives on ethics and moralities. In fact, the respective concepts of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are reflective of the continuing struggle for significance between atheism and religion. Both, however, focus on the issue of the individual’s relationship to ethical and moral principles. Kierkegaard argues that man’s obligation to comply with ethical and moral standards is closely associated to his the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. Nietzsche, on the other hand, might not have explicitly mentioned the atheistic foundation of his argument in his statement in Gay Science No. 304 but it is clear that he insisted that man should not be controlled by any rule or principle that restrains him from doing what he wants. Apparently, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard also differed in their views when it comes to their treatment of the ego or the individual. For Nietzsche, the individual is supreme and it is only by being so that he frees himself from the clutches of any entity that could hinder his struggle to achieve happiness. Rules that are imposed on him that tend to impede his freedom of movements must, therefore, be removed or repudiated. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, insisted that man should always consider the existence of a higher entity, God. Kierkegaard argued that man is governed by the rules of the Supreme Being and because of this there are limits to his freedom. However, it is necessary to discuss each of the key statements made by both modern philosophers in a more profound manner. The result of such discussion should clarify the opposing perspectives regarding egoism. No. 304 of Nietzsche’s Gay Science is a very explicit statement that describes the author’s personal conviction regarding the primacy of the individual. The last part of the section actually sums up in the most profound manner what he believed in. Nietzsche wrote: “I do not mean to strive with open eyes for my impoverishment; I do not like any of the negative virtues whose very essence is negation and self-renunciation.” (244) The previous sentences that led to this conclusion are highly critical of the set-up wherein man is ruled by laws that mostly pertain to activities or actions that should not be done. This results into an environment or a society in which people are restrained from undertaking efforts that they may deem as beneficial to them individually. Consequently, individuals are also deprived of the chance to live happily according to their respective definitions of it. In the statement, Nietzsche asserts that he does not wish to live under such conditions and that he opposes all rules that results in these. Apparently, Nietzsche does not see the necessity of discussing the bases of the laws or rules which he points out as restrictive and violating of individual freedom. It is also clear that it does not matter whether such rules are secular or borne out of religious beliefs. As long as these explicitly tell man what not to do, then these deserve to be opposed. For Nietzsche, the argument against such restrictions should not be anchored on the cost-benefits analysis for society. It is in the actual effects that these produce on the individual. If such laws impede or hinder the individual, then these are not justified. It does not matter whether these are supposedly important for social order or whether these are for the common good. For Nietzsche, if it is restrictive in essence then it is deplorable. It is quite obvious that he has made the individual as the center for all his arguments, which runs contrary to the perspectives adhered by governments and other power structures in society, whether religious or secular. If his statements are analyzed further, it would definitely appear that for him, there is no other interest that the individual must be concerned with but his. In essence, the individual is his own government and religion. It is only in realizing this that the individual actually lives life to the fullest and attain happiness. With such principles, it is indeed not surprising to see Nietzsche as a thinker that favors anarchy. Anarchy puts the individual at the pedestal. It dissolves governments or any other form of hierarchy meant to promote order in society because it puts emphasis on the freedom of the individual more than anything else. It cannot be denied though that there may be some degree of validity in the points raised by Nietzsche. True, a great majority of the laws being formulated and enforced by governments are regulative and restrictive in nature. These tell people what not to do instead of encouraging them on what should be done. This goes the same with religious beliefs. The Ten Commandments, which Christians and Jews adhere to, has eight rules that the prevent man from committing certain actions. Again, it must be clarified that Nietzsche did not dwell on the context of why secular or religious laws were made to govern individuals. He takes the perspective of the individual that is burdened by the restrictions and not one who also takes into consideration the common good. Moralists would be quick to denounce Nietzsche as selfish and egotistical due to his very radical individualist views. However, it is also necessary to point out that Nietzsche also made the statement not just in reference to his ideas but to the very basic instinct of man. Deep within every individual is the desire to oppose those rules that violated his freedoms in the first place. However, the cultural upbringing and the social environment and not just laws established by power structures in society have the deterred the individual from doing so. Nietzsche was just honest enough to admit having such instincts and brave enough to face the criticisms for explaining his views on individualism. Kierkegaard does not necessarily debunk Nietzsche’s appreciation of the existence and essence of the individual. He also recognizes its immediate needs and its more lasting and inherent desires based on humanness. However, what sets him apart from Nietzsche is his appreciation of the relationship of the individual to a higher being, which in the case of the statement taken from Trembling and Fear refers to God. It is based on this perspective that he encourages the individual to overcome the tendency to focus on the self and to consider also the existence of other beings, especially those which he refers to as the ‘absolute.’ Kierkegaard writes that “in the ethical view of life, it is the task of the individual to strip himself of the qualification interiority and to express this in something external.” (69) This line clearly refers to Kierkegaard’s belief that man’s mission in life is basically to transcend his basic instinct or humanness and to grasp the existence of God and to be subjected to the laws of the faith. However, there are two tiers of interiority discussed by Kierkegaard here. The first tier is that part in which man must first recognize his existence and his essence as a unique entity that is relatively free from the control of other human beings. It is at this stage that one develops an egoist perspective, one that focuses more on what serves him best rather than the needs or wants of others. It is also at this point that one is liable to resisting the ethical and moral rules or principles. Man at this point, therefore, has tendency to rebel as he begins to realize that there are laws that tend to restrain him from developing his full potential, which for him is the key towards realizing his desires. Apparently, this occurs at the stage of life when one has just learned to appreciate his individuality, the moment when he has just discovered his difference from the others which then triggers prioritization of his interests. This naturally results to his tendency to oppose all social structures or arrangements that, for him, seek stop him from pursuing what he thinks is good for him. Kierkegaard regards the first level as problematic as it could prompt man to commit acts that may no longer be within the bounds of ethical and moral principles. When man begins to think only of himself and for himself, he would most likely consider overcoming all obstacles, including those which are meant to preserve order in society and to protect the rights and interests of others. Kierkegaard, however, did not go to the extent of expounding on the possible implications of egoism over others or of individual interest over that of society. What he did instead was explain the effect of such attitude towards man’s relation with God. In explaining about religious faith, Kierkegaard points out that “that the single individual is higher than the universal...that the single individual determines his relation to the universal by his relation to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute by his relation to the individual...” (69-70) This clarifies further his perspective that the existence of a Supreme Being and the belief or faith of man on such entity should be basis of his treatment of all other objects in his surroundings, human or not. If this is the case, it is faith that governs man and not just any secular law that may have been established to make sure that individuals comply to the orders imposed by power structures in society. There are ethical and moral standards that have been established by convention. These are made by people to ensure that there is mutual respect and understanding between fellow human beings. Unlike Nietzsche, Kierkegaard believes that these should be followed by man instead of being consumed by egoism. However, Kierkegaard insists that the motivation for doing so should not be on the level of humane principles of mutual respect and understanding among fellow men. It should be because of man’s effort to break free from his ‘interiority’ and to grasp further his ‘exteriority.’ This basically means that the motivation should be based on his belief that laws must be obeyed because these are willed by God. Both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard have presented contradicting views on the issue of egoism. Of the two though, it is clear that Nietzsche is careful enough not to use egoism directly. Apparently, the term ‘egoism’ does have a negative connotation as it can be conveniently associated with selfishness which is highly unacceptable in the context of a culture that condemns it. Nietzsche, nevertheless, uses the term ‘I’ which is more effective and, of course, acceptable. By making his views personal, the audience or the reader does not immediately go to the point of analyzing and criticizing Nietzsche. Instead, the reader is encouraged to become introspective in approaching the ideas presented by Nietzsche, which is most likely to elicit an outlook that may see the logic and rightfulness of egoism. In fact, after reading the statement, it is very possible that one would tend that Nietzsche, although still governed by laws, has at least liberated his mindset. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, presents views that are actually at the core of religious moralists and defenders of the status quo where rules and laws dictate the movements of man. His arguments may be used as a response against the extremist characteristics of Nietzsche’s egoism. Kierkegaard’s statements put emphasis on the harmonious relationship of the individual to the universe, an invitation to overcome egoism. However, he does not promote such ideas just because he wishes to see people get over the pitfalls of egoism. He does so because he insists that man should accept that God is the ruler of both mankind and the universe. This very religious perspective may have provided a staunch counter-argument against that of Nietzsche. However, the alternative it presents is just as extreme. Both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard failed to consider that modern man is inherently social and because of this, he is bound to consider always the common good and not of himself. Egoism is certainly unacceptable but not according to Kierkegaard’s perspective but to that of the social human being’s. Works Cited Kierkegaard, Soren. Fear and Trembling. Ed. by Evans, C. Stephen and Sylvia Walsh. Radford, VA: A & D Publishing, 2008. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Trans. by Kaufmann, Walter. New York, NY: Random House, 1974. Read More