Kierkegaard or Nietzsche?

[HexHammer]

You have said, literally nothing, to refute the facts which have been laid out regarding not only their influence, but how they continue to be the focus of extensive commentary in postmodernism, post-structuralism, psychotherapy, sociology, the psychology of religion, as well as literature and the arts.

Kirkegaard used such nonsense terms like "objective truth" have you ever heard any define "objective truth" is? ..no? ...because it's a nonsense term only very simple minded people believe in!

K. was actually a proponent of radical subjective truth. He agreed with you that objective truth was nonsense, and that it couldn't be defined.... You're not helping yourself out.

You don't understand the burden of proof, you make an absurd claim.

No one can disprove absurd claims, I can't disprove that you was abducted by aliens and analproped, nor can I disprove if you claimed to have visions of the future and all such stuff.

This is only adding to your lack of understanding life.

Subjective Truth

What is at stake here is Kierkegaard's theoretical distinction between objective and subjective truth, worked out in the Afsluttende Uvidenskabelig Efterskrift (Concluding Unscientific Postscript) (1846) to the Philosophical Fragments. Considered objectively, truth merely seeks attachment to the right object, correspondence with an independent reality. Considered subjectively, however, truth seeks achievement of the right attitude, an appropriate relation between object and knower. Thus, for example, although Christianity is objectively merely one of many available religions in the world, it subjectively demands our complete devotion.

See, he certainly deals in "objective truths" just proving you don't have a fucking clue.

You are a total failure in every way possible!

[Bernard]

Both had syphilis - whatever syphilis did to their thinking is no longer relevant to our thinking - we have antibiotics.

Our thinking these days is, how shall we say it, less syphilitic and more antibiotic.

Breath

http://www.leonardsax.com/Nietzsche.pdf

[DesolationRow]

No one can disprove absurd claims, I can't disprove that you was abducted by aliens and analproped, nor can I disprove if you claimed to have visions of the future and all such stuff.

You don't type proper sentences. If English is your second language, that's fine. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously in an argument when your writing is altogether unintelligible.

See, he certainly deals in "objective truths" just proving you don't have a fucking clue.

This is only adding to your lack of understanding life.

You are a total failure in every way possible!

He talks about objective truths having little to no value for an individual. He "deals" with them in the sense that he discards them. It isn't possible to grasp them, which is what you were saying before... unknowingly aligning yourself with K. while criticizing him.

Swearing and insulting people that you don't know on the internet is a sure-fire way to show that you are childish and lack the integrity and maturity for an actual conversation.

[HexHammer]

No one can disprove absurd claims, I can't disprove that you was abducted by aliens and analproped, nor can I disprove if you claimed to have visions of the future and all such stuff.

You don't type proper sentences. If English is your second language, that's fine. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously in an argument when your writing is altogether unintelligible.

See, he certainly deals in "objective truths" just proving you don't have a fucking clue.

This is only adding to your lack of understanding life.

You are a total failure in every way possible!

He talks about objective truths having little to no value for an individual. He "deals" with them in the sense that he discards them. It isn't possible to grasp them, which is what you were saying before... unknowingly aligning yourself with K. while criticizing him.

Swearing and insulting people that you don't know on the internet is a sure-fire way to show that you are childish and lack the integrity and maturity for an actual conversation.

My anology about absurd claims should be perfectly understandable, if you can't comprehend it, then you are haples retard.

If you note, there's a difference between "having little to no value" and being totally irrelevant, because no one can in the first place defince what objective truth is, even scientists doesn't deal in such terms these days, because they know that their findings may be rewritten the day after as new proof can make their current proof, obsolete.

Philosophers has problems enough to define what truth is, so "objective" truth is even more of a delusion. Therefore K shouldn't bring up such term.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/kierkegaard.html

In all those works I've written by K there are no refuding of objetive truths, it's either something you have misunderstood or you are making blatant lies.

Please show me where he refudes "objective truths".

[DesolationRow]

I'm not discussing it anymore with someone who lacks the character and respectability to avoid rhetoric like..

you don't have a fucking clue.

u'r not very bright, and doesn't understand a fucking thing of anything.

you are haples retard.

Unprovoked spite like this is generally indicative of someone who hates himself, and so bitterly projects and attacks others.

[HexHammer]

I'm not discussing it anymore with someone who lacks the character and respectability to avoid rhetoric like..

you don't have a fucking clue.

u'r not very bright, and doesn't understand a fucking thing of anything.

you are haples retard.

Unprovoked spite like this is generally indicative of someone who hates himself, and so bitterly projects and attacks others.

You provoked it, now you just play the victim card.
..spare me!

[hopesl]

I think both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche had good points, but I like Nietzche more. I like Kierkegaard's idea of the angst that occurs because of the abandonment of God. I think many people can relate to that because they feel as if they need their life to have a purpose, but don't know how to create themselves- if they're doing it right. However, I like Nietzche when he says "God is dead." The idea of that is still true today. The scientific advances are constantly growing, which makes it easier for people to discredit religion. As people (even today) feel insignificant, they become lonely and selfish. This turns into greed. "God is dead" because instead, we're praising and believing in money. People think that if they just had more money, their problems would be solved and be happier, and this is what Nietzche predicted. I also like Nietzsche for the reason that because he believed there is no God, this allows people to create our own values and ideas.

[XENA3001]

Yes. I agree with the distinction. However, taking a different approach in philosophical discourse doesn't make one 'not a philosopher.' Whatever your definition of "real philosopher," it likely emerges from a specific paradigm.

so, who is a philosopher in your opinion? when you could have been called "philosopher"? what makes it?

Apparently someone with a lot of hype and someone scrubs like to quote to make themself sound smarter. Real philosophers may quote them too and agree with some ideals, but the difference is scrubs just parrots never actually put forth anything original on their own, they treat their heroes like the gospel guidelines, the standard that they think everyone should live by

In the future books will be dead, there will be no more famous philosophers. Everyone will be a conglomerate of 2 cent opinions. Even the famous ones like PewdiePie's voices will not be heard, PewdiePie will say "FlappyBirds is the worst game ever, don't play it" and the sheep will say "Did you watch PewdiePie last night? He said Flappybirds is a game we must play! Let's play it!"

There is no hope, in a couple of decades Oprah, AmazingAtheist and Dr. Oz will be hailed as the greatest philosophers of their time

Great and Wise Trixie - right or wrong, you're awesome !!

[Spirit]

If Ewa Cybulska was an Nietzsche expert, she would know that the Eternal Return is NOT a Nietzsche's product.

I cannot credit an article written only to debase the work of one of the greatest thinkers of all times, by suggesting he was mentally insane!

Ms Cybulska's article proves nothing but the fact that she thinks she can call insane whom she cannot understand or appreciate, which scares me of a psychiatrist more then of a "Nietzsche expert".

And actually, two articles posted on Philosophynow promote the same speculative idea, which I find more idiotic than hypocritical. I suggest we use caution and care in selecting our readings.

Nietzsche has proved enough for such people to shut up.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If Ewa Cybulska was an Nietzsche expert, she would know that the Eternal Return is NOT a Nietzsche's product.

I cannot credit an article written only to debase the work of one of the greatest thinkers of all times, by suggesting he was mentally insane!

Ms Cybulska's article proves nothing but the fact that she thinks she can call insane whom she cannot understand or appreciate, which scares me of a psychiatrist more then of a "Nietzsche expert".

And actually, two articles posted on Philosophynow promote the same speculative idea, which I find more idiotic than hypocritical. I suggest we use caution and care in selecting our readings.

Nietzsche has proved enough for such people to shut up.

Nietzsche proved nothing, that was not his game. His game was to rant on to make people unpack their cosy certainties and to challenge the orthodox position of the Christian dominant ideology of his time.

The suggestion that his later work was touched by madness is not contentious - he is thought to have advanced syphilis and as any doctor will tell you affects the brain.

[MusicalSpirit]

While his last years of sanity show signs of an over-inflated ego, it doesn't diminish Nietzsche's genius. His writings, so profoundly incisive and acutely critical, with beautiful prose, were the product of severe intelligence and suffering, not madness. Now, should his philosophy be adopted and integrated into society? No. Definitely not. His rejection of compassion isn't going to get us very far. This was a departure from Schopenhauer who understood the moral implications of such a value better than Nietzsche did. N's whole philosophy was an attempt to overcome Schopenhauer's pessimism, which was his starting point.

Kierkegaard was also a genius. A unique mind with profound insights into our subjective nature. His championing of the individual in the face of uncertainty and suffering echoes Nietzsche. But his religious attitude ultimately transcends this life, something N would have rejected. But K would have thought N to be, sort of reveling in despair... It's a shame that these two writers weren't able to respond to each other's work.

[Arising_uk]

If Ewa Cybulska was an Nietzsche expert, she would know that the Eternal Return is NOT a Nietzsche's product. ...

Really? What do you mean by this as I have a strong memory of a real belly-laugh when I read about this in one of Nietzsche's book as I thought it a very funny response or counter-example to Kant's categorical imperative.

[s. martin fritz]

If philosophical observations have an objective reality, than each of these men are doing their best to describe aspects of the world which are independently verifiable to each of us. So to ask "which philosopher did a better job" is a little like asking which scientist was more significant, Lavoisier or Pasteur. Both added to a more complete understanding of the objective universe.

One fact is as valuable as another fact.

But philosophical conversation also has a subjective component. Each of us are more interested in science this year, or religion next year, then later maybe proper governance, or ethics, or even how to rear a healthy child. Subjectively one or the other may speak to us more precisely in areas which suit our interests and subjective-needs at the moment.

One truth may not be as pertinent as another truth in this situation.

Due to the broad scope of human mental and emotional capabilities some of us can find a place for both Einstein and the Dali Lama; others prefer one and condemn the other. Objectively the ideas of Einstein find more use ... when our focus is on the subjective the points brought out by the Dali Lama are called upon by more people.

So I think the first step in address this question has to be to determine if we are grading the contributions of these men in an OBJECTIVE way visible to all, or in a SUBJECTIVE way where some of us might appreciate some preferences and prejudices over others.

[Jaded Sage]

Plato for life!

[Dalek Prime]

That's an interesting, but still unphilosophical*, recasting. May I suggest a third version of your question?

3. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, can they both be right? If not, ...
3a. Which one is wrong?


*Unphilosophical, because philosophers do not concern themselves with mere preferences.

"Mere preferences"? Philosophy begins and ends with the conscious mind, and preference is a factor in most everything the conscious mind does, so I'm not buying that for a second. It matters immensely, directing most everything the conscious mind does, including philosophy, and the biases found within the individual philosopher, that end up in the philosophy itself.