Kierkegaard’s Attack Upon “Christendom”, Part 3
Existentialism, Philosophy, Religion January 7th, 2009I have been broadening my reading around Kierkegaard and I have concluded that both Nietzsche (FN) and Kierkegaard (SK) wrote in the same spirit and similar style – writing as a psychological investigation rather than a traditional discussion of abstract concepts. This is not too surprising considering they were almost contemporaries and have similar biographic details. On the other hand, the conclusions they arrive at are wildly different but I am delaying that analysis until a later time.
Common Themes of SK and FN
Both tried to find some truth outside of the common prejudice. This alienation from the mainstream is fundamental to both but is a break from other philosophical systems: in that neither SK or FN desire to establish a system and the impossibility of the majority to agree with their point of view.
The spiritual man differs from us men in being able to endure isolation, his rank as a spiritual man is proportionate to his strength for enduring isolation, whereas we men are constantly in need of “the others,” the herd; we die, or despair, if we are not reassured by being in the herd, of the same opinion as the herd, etc. The Instant No 5, Christianity of the Spiritual Man
“LIFE is a well of delight; but where the rabble also drink, there all fountains are poisoned.” “How have I flown to the height where no rabble any longer sit at the wells?” 28, Zarathustra
He certainly would not at once have allowed these thousands to call themselves disciples of Christ. No, He would have held back more stoutly. Therefore in three and a half years He won only eleven – whereas one Apostle in one day, may be in one hour, wins three thousand disciples of Christ. SK, The Instant No 5, A Genius / a Christian
“Not to the people is Zarathustra to speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd’s herdsman and hound! To allure many from the herd – for that purpose have I come.” FN, Zarathustra
“You seek followers? Seek zeros!” FN, Twilight
Both appeared to reject making objective valuations of life. At other times, they paradoxically do just that. To be fair to SK, he wrote under various pseudonyms and probably sought to examine concepts from various angles – possibly none of which are is personal view (although I am tempted to think books under his own name are his personal view). FN’s view evolved through his writings from being clearly influenced by Hegel and Schopenhauer to rejecting their views. But apart from this he attempted to be paradoxical in the same book (e.g. his view of women ranging from highly praising to being highly critical).
… assume that we are all thieves, what the police call suspicious characters [...] then to be that = 0; this is not to say that it does not mean anything much; no, it means nothing at all. The Instant No 5, When we are all Christian
…there is nothing that could judge, measure, compare, or sentence his [a man's] being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole. But there is nothing besides the whole. Twilight, FN
Based on both SK and FN’s writings, attitudes towards women where quite different in the nineteenth century (to put it mildly). Both associate women with deception. Nietzsche was specifically critical of the early feminism movement, possibly due to the implication that women were “victims” and sought the goal of “equality”. A quick hunt on the Internet on SK and feminism give me the impression that SK was critical of feminism if a superficial interpretation is used, but a more sophisticated reading reveals things are more complex.
(I am considering doing an analysis of FN’s infamous “Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy/the whip!” line but Zarathustra is like a riddle. Women are almost certainly not meant as women generally. Exercise to the reader: what does she represent?)
And the long robes – in fact that is feminine attire. Thereby thought is led on to something which also is characteristic of official Christianity, the unmanliness of using cunning, untruth and lies as its power. The Instant No 5, SK
Progress of the idea: it [idealism?] becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes female, it becomes Christian. (Twilight, FN)
An interesting parallel is the concept of the transitional nature of “human” was not lost on these writings. Both used the concept of man arising from animal (or what I prefer to called non-human) beginnings. Again, a superficial reading of this could be interpreted as a eugenics but neither writer intended to imply that human was objectively “higher” than a beast. But the difference between human and non-human were not ignored either.
In the New Testament sense, to be a Christian, in a upward sense, as different from being a man as, in a downward sense, to be a man is different from being a beast. The Instant No 7, SK
I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man? [...] What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. (Zarathustra, FN)
As I mentioned, both were interested in psychological explanations of belief and behavior. Both realized that a maladjusted human (who is “sick”) causes him to choose self harming behavior. Popular “wisdom” says the reverse: we are “made sick” by our “vices”. SK goes further than FN and claims sickness is the natural state for humans. For FN’s view of this analysis, see “Backworldsmen” and “The Problem of Socrates” (and its not agreement!)
For it is an ordinary accompaniment of illness to desire most vehemently, to love most of all, precisely that which is injurious to the sick man. But, spiritually understood, man in his natural condition is sick, he is in error, in an illusion, and therefore desires most of all to be deceived, so that he may be permitted not only to remain in error but to find himself thoroughly comfortable in his self-deceit. SK, The Instant No 7
Instinctively to choose what is harmful for oneself, to feel attracted by “disinterested” motives, that is virtually the formula of decadence. FN, Twilight
AC1
PS I am going an audio book of the Gay Science and it is sucking up so much time. The final duration is looking like more than 12 hours. Let’s just say it takes much longer than that to record and edit it to the final version.

January 7th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Incidentially, of my analysis FN would say:
January 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Its an accurate analysis to propose that their mutual approach was psychologically orientated as opposed to the perusal of abstract concepts. And it is rather striking to note the similarity of method(s) irrespective of ‘final’ viewpoints.
Kierkegaard under the psuedonym Haufniensis in “The concept of dread” has much to say about the inherent sickness of man. He talks a bit about original sin but suggests that dread precedes it. Sin if you like is born out of an inherent dread.
Adam in the garden of eden before he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit had no knowledge of good and evil, thus even though he was told not to eat the fruit he could have no idea that to disobey would be evil. All Adam knew was that God had commanded him not to eat the fruit. Kierkegaard suggests that Adam (and by extension all of us) are consumed by dread before we are aware of being ‘damaged’.
The dread for Adam was that although he did not know the difference between good and evil, God’s prohibition implied a freedom of choice that Adam was confronted with – he could choose to obey or disobey.
Thus dread preceded sin – and is more worthy of our attention.
Kierkegaard takes this in an interesting direction though and instead of lamenting dread or seeking a way to annul it prefers instead to accept it.
Dread though it precedes sin therefore also precedes salvation.
Dread and anxiety informs us of our choices, our personal responsibilities and increases our self-reflective awareness. (According to Wiki Satre adopted this theme).
Dread can help us recognise our potential, our true identity and our freedoms…
“Whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate.”
– Vigilius Haufniensis, The Concept of Dread