Ethics

This paper seeks to discuss the meaning of human existence based on the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard. Moreover, it seeks to enumerate the tenets of their philosophy that relate to how one is supposed to regard his existence in this world

The 19th century was the period of enlightenment and the time when man asked the more important questions of freedom, liberty and free will. It was also the time when man sought to know the meaning of his existence. This question had been answered by numerous philosophers through the ages since the Greek Sophists but was only given more significance and clarity by two philosophers  The German proponent of the Superman, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the Danish defender of faith, Soren Kierkegaard.

Nietzsches Naturalistic Definition of Existence
The Nietzschean concept of existence is one that is against the Judeo-Christian ethic of humility, compassion and equality. In short, it opposes the Christian idea of love and instead it is based on power. The concepts of love, equality and democracy are considered by Nietzsche to be against the grains of survival (Durant, 1965, p. 402) but those of power and genius are said to be the reason why the species continue to exist.

Will to Power and Superiority. Nietzsches philosophy teaches one that all living things basically exist because of their will to power, and this will to power subtly works even in the kindest and most compassionate of acts. According to Nietzsche, morality as well as theology must be based not on the betterment of the majority but on the creation of genius, or the development and elevation of superior personalities (Durant, 1961, p. 410). Existence therefore, based on the aforementioned words of Nietzsche, means favoring the superior and disregarding the mediocre.

Nietzsches concept somehow opposes two popular concepts. First, Nietzsches naturalistic concept of existence somehow opposes the idea that one has to conform with the majority in order to survive. In the present society, it seems that survival depends on conformity to the existing norms and laws. One sees people being arrested for doing crimes as well as teenagers starving themselves just to fit the standards of beauty. But, is this conformity the true reason behind existence Do people exist just to conform Nietzsches answer is NO for he believes people must be different in that they must rise above themselves and society in order to survive and perhaps to truly live. Morality must be reconstructed in terms of the evolution theory (Durant, 1965, p. 412). For in truth, according to Darwins evolution theory, those that truly survived were not those who adapted themselves to society but those who actually rose above the rigors and negative circumstances of their present environment.

Second, Nietzsches naturalistic philosophy opposes the concept of altruism, or selfless giving. Nietzsche perhaps remains cynical of altruistic people and dismisses their benevolent acts as merely either an expression of the will to power and superiority. Nietzsche is somehow justified in his cynicism as most people do not help without expecting anything in return. A number of Christians calling themselves concerned citizens may appear benevolent in giving to charity but somehow the philosopher is right in saying that the contemplation of their neighbors helplessness is a mere orgasm of their superiority (Durant, 1965, p. 421). With the exception of a handful of people, according to Nietzsche, nobody actually helps for the very sake of helping. Perhaps it is then true that, except for those who are almost insanely good and kind, the so-called, and usually self-declared, good people help others for two reasons Either because they want to show what they are capable of, or that they rejoice in the smug feeling of self-satisfaction that they experience after helping someone. This I-feel-so-good-I-have-done-something feeling, or the feeling of being a good boy or good girl, definitely contradicts the Biblical concept that pure giving does not expect anything  absolutely anything  in return. Therefore, Nietzsche is wrong only when everyone in the world becomes like Christ. It is impossible for Christ has long been dead. Nietzsche believes God is dead and all the Gods were dead. (Durant, 1965, p. 416)

The Death of God. What does Nietzsche mean when he says God is dead In his book, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsches fictional character Zarathustra says, If there were Gods, how could I bear to be no god Consequently there are no Gods (Durant, 1965, p. 416). This ontological proof somehow serves as the metaphysical basis of Nietzsches claim but practically its basis may also lie in the idea that there is no truly existing Christian for there is no true altruism (see Will to Power and Superiority).

The idea that God is dead also means that man must toil for himself, learn how to sacrifice, and most of all strive to maximize energy, intellect and pride (Durant, 1965, p. 427)  the very qualities of Nietzsches superman. Where the Christian religion has defined existence to be something dependent on the dictates of a Supreme Being, Nietzsche argues that human existence depends on the idea of surpassing man  of becoming the best of what one can be after one has tested himself and pushed himself to the limits, which actually follows from ones inherent will to power. And since the last Christian died on the cross, then only man himself is left to fulfill this goal.

The Lack of Wisdom in Love. And when theres no altruism and no God then what becomes of love Nietzsche believes that love itself is only a desire for possession (Durant, 1965, p. 421), and that love is not eugenic (Durant, 1965, p. 421). Nietzsche maintains that it is not proper for higher individuals to marry for love and that man cannot love and be wise at the same time. Love is viewed by Nietzsche as stifling and suffocating, which is in fact the very opposite of the Christian concept of love as a powerful, driving, inspiring force. What then justifies Nietzsches claim

Nietzsches superman has no other means of survival except three human selection, eugenic foresight, and an ennobling education (Durant, 1965, p. 425), and love and reproduction is not among these. Love, for Nietzsche, is particularly not synonymous to power. It is instead submission and death of desire. Therefore, for Nietzsche, man exists to preserve himself and not to die for the one he loves. There is no development in love for all it entails is acceptance. One loves and accepts another as himself, which means that when one loves another, he does not anymore desire his lovers development. Thus, if a parent tells his child, Whatever happens, I will love you for what you are, doesnt it imply that I will love you even if you killed someone or I will love you even if you destroyed your life

Kierkegaards Individualistic Meaning of Existence
Amidst the Romanticism that has swept Europe during the 19th century where society and religion were given so much importance, Soren Kierkegaard  was the philosopher who emphasized the significance of the Individual. Kierkegaards philosophy considers that mans own existence alone is important, and not the broad description of human nature, human beings or human society and religion.
The Subjectivity of Truth and the Importance of Faith. For Kierkegaard, human existence rests upon the contention that truth is subjective, hence personal. For Kierkegaard, things we can know through reason , or knowledge, areunimportant (Gaarder, 1991, p. 316). Kierkegaard therefore says that what is regarded as true for the whole human race may be objectively true but will still be naturally immaterial to man. The useful truths are therefore the subjective ones. If, for example, one is drowning in the river, one does not anymore concern himself whether the water in the river is indeed made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, or how many fish are swimming in it at the moment. Kierkegaard may have therefore considered the idea that the true purpose of the Enlightenment was not to be enlightened by reasoned truths but for personal truths to shed light upon each individual.

In religion, it therefore follows that faith is the most important factor in religious questions and that what matters is not whether Christianity is true but whether it is true for you (Gaarder, 1991, p. 317). What then is the purpose of religion but to develop personal faith and not to simply conform to tenets that do not mean anything to the individual Kierkegaard therefore says that man exists not for the purpose of religion itself but for the development of his faith. For the Danish philosopher, nothing else matters in religion except that.

The Three Stages of Life and the EitherOr Principle. Kierkegaard believes that there are three forms of life or life stages the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious stage. The one who lives at the aesthetic stage lives for the moment and grasps every opportunity for enjoyment (Gaarder, 1991, p. 318). And since the aesthetic stage is purely an attachment to the world of senses, angst or a sense of dread is most likely to follow. This angst experienced by the individual is for Kierkegaard the best motive for change and is therefore the best indication of the need for a leap of faith. This so-called leap of faith to either the ethical or the religious stage is supposed to be taken completely or not at all in order for the individual to fully experience its effect. This is Kierkegaards EitherOr principle.

The ethical stage is characterized by seriousness and consistency of moral choices and the call of duty (Gaarder, 1991, p. 319). The religious stage, on the other hand, is what Kierkegaard considers the only path to redemption (Gaarder, 1991, p. 319) and is therefore the highest of the stages. The religious stage is the stage where man freely chooses Faith over the sense pleasure of the aesthetic stage and the duty to conform to moral standards of the ethical stage. For Kierkegaard, therefore, the best form of human existence is where one makes a choice of his actions and where one rises above the aesthetic and the ethical stages. All it takes is a leap of faith.

Conclusion
Friedrich Nietzsches definition of human existence rests upon the idea that man has a will to power and therefore all his actions are directed in order to attain superiority and to surpass mediocrity. Moreover, for Nietzsche, since God is dead, man is therefore incapable of true Christian altruism. Man also cannot love and be wise at the same time. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, is similar to Nietzsche in that he does not make religion and society as the goal of man but rather man himself. Kierkegaard, however, emphasizes the importance of personal truths in human existence as well as the need for man to make a complete leap of faith from the aesthetic stage of sense pleasure into either the ethical stage of reasoned duty or ultimately, into the religious stage of freedom marked by faith.