Essay Sample on Kant vs Kierkegaard: History, Freedom, and Teleology

Introduction

Different philosophers provide different views on certain topics. However, different philosophers can also have similar views on certain topics. Many explanations draw their meanings from the views given by philosophers. In addition to drawing meaning, philosophy has aided in organizing ideas to give them significance. Various philosophers such as Kant and Kierkegaard hold different views on history, existentialist view of freedom, good and evil. While Kant holds to the philosophy that man is a free creature whose freedom is inextricably linked to the moral law which is indoctrinated by the specter of an all-knowing and omnipotent God. In contra, Kierkegaard holds to the view that man's freedom is for man for him to revisit to himself. In this regard, and in accordance with Kierkegaard, man is free and completely free in his creation and as a result responsible for that very freedom. The views of Kierkegaard and Kant have more difference than similarities.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

How Does Kierkegaard’s Concept of History Challenge That of Kant?

Both Kant and Kierkegaard offer differing concepts about history. Kierkegaard believes in the incompatibility of freedom and necessity within history. From his perspective, the necessary laws of nature cannot demonstrate the presence of necessity in actuality. According to Kierkegaard, history is characterized by, has come into existence, hence it attributes to freedom but not a necessity. Moreover, history does not involve nature's history but human history alone. This is because although nature exists, it does not have a memory of its existence. Moreover, despite having the present, and future, nature is never free because it does not recognize its existence such as the past in a way that can decide on its present and future. In this regard, Kierkegaard posits that human beings are the only ones who can relate themselves to the past and can choose freely from their future. Hence, history can only be defined as human history rather than nature.

On the other hand, Kant believes in a teleological theory of nature where he posits that nature helps reason. Hence, unlike Kierkegaard who eliminates nature in his concepts of history, Kant considers nature as advancing the reasoning of human in understanding history. He, therefore, does not isolate nature from human history as Kierkegaard did. According to Kant, there are two forces at work in history and these include the morality and empirical dynamic of conflicting self-interests. In his view, Kant sees history as the realization of nature's secret plan to bring forth a perfectly constituted state as the only condition in which the capacities of mankind can be fully developed. History is a revolution that leads to different creatures and the evolution of humankind. Kant develops his telos of history from his philosophy of universal history. His view is advanced and enlightened by the cosmopolitan condition. This shows that the Kierkegaard's concept of history challenge that of Kant on the basis of incompatibility of freedom with the necessary laws of nature which cannot demonstrate the presence of necessity in actuality and on the basis that human history exists in isolation with nature's history. According to Kierkegaard, history is the process of coming into existence and in doing so history refers to human history. History is a continuous change that requires freedom to do so and in accordance with the freedom of choice. Conversely, for Kant history is the encompassed by two forces which include the dynamic of conflicting self -interests and morality (Kain, 1989).

Why Does Kierkegaard’s Existentialist View of Freedom, Good and Evil Upend the Kantian Picture of Progress and Teleology?

Existentialist philosophy is founded on the idea that there is not God on whose behalf man's actions ought to be relegated. In this regard, it can only be assumed that rather than God creating man, it is the man who created man. The philosophy considers existence to possess no meaning and man does not hold a superior identity than other creatures. In this regard, like other creatures on earth, man is no different. Man is, therefore, not bound to any authority but is own master of his own fate.

According to Kant, a person gains freedom by following what is right to do which then allows space for one to experience. An individual draws freedom from the clear exhibition of duties. Kant arguments on Existentialist are based on religion and that man cannot exist without his supreme creator who is God the provider of everything. For Kant, it is God who provides man with the free will and as such, the actions of man exist because God has allowed them. Besides, the arguments of Kant were based on the priori, moral-based philosophy in which the boundaries of humankind are limited for the purpose of preserving the greater good. Man does not have the absolute freedom since there is a limitation to it led by the dangers of determinism and materialism. In such a situation, the principle of freedom has to be saved at all costs t preserve its value. Kierkegaard holds to almost similar views to the existentialist philosophy. Despite this, he believes in the existence of a superior being who is God. Due to his view on God and freedom, Kant and Kierkegaard differ. For instance, it has been established above that Kant hold to the fact that God defines the free will that man possesses. This is contrary to the views of Kierkegaard that God does not influence the views of man. Although man is a free social being, he has the choice to move on with life. Man's actions are guided by the conscious spirit and lives in a community to which he provides security. Through his ways of life, a man realizes his predicament of becoming himself in the unseen and unknown movements of life that do not rely on the system.

On the idea of evil, Kant came up with the idea of radical evil (Anderson-Gold & Muchnik, 2010). As a moral being, who has freedom guided by God, human beings have the option of deciding whether to do good or evil. Hence, Kant recounts radical evil as a genuine moral alternative while nevertheless being an innate condition. As an innate thing, human beings are liable to either choose to do what is morally right or do that which is evil. Kant believed in a view that is revolutionary and affirmed by the propensity to evil within human nature but entitled to practical human reason. Kant sees the human being as a creature that is neither evil nor good but one that lies in between (Anderson-Gold & Muchnik, 2010). This belief does not agree with the Kierkegaard argument that evil is not in existence and human beings should not be bothered by.

In contrast to Kant, Kierkegaard does not realize anything wrong with evil but opts to discuss other issues that relate to evil (Khan, 1975). One of the many is the view of human suffering. According to Kierkegaard, suffering is part of human existence and a significant factor. In this regard, one should enjoy everything and indulge in pleasurable activities as one deems fit. Pleasure and enjoyment are, like suffering part of human life and existence. There is no need t fear suffering since it has to be present in life and since it has no aesthetic value. Due to its lack of aesthetic value, suffering is a misfortune and tribulation that faces a person but will come to an end since it is a foreign element. However, Kierkegaard posits that despite suffering being part of human existence, it can be avoided by doing what is ethically right (Khan, 1975). From a religious point of view, Kierkegaard sees no reason to attach suffering to human existence since the two are not related. Although he does not consider suffering to be a threat to human existence, sin is a threat to human existence. However, he posits that suffering from an end to Eternity brings comfort and joy. From his point of view and unlike Kant, Kierkegaard finds evil to be essential for human development and it is neither instrumental nor disciplinary (Khan, 1975). As a result, one cam conquers evil through prayer, being more ardent in spirit, being sincere, devoted and industrious. He does not differentiate between suffering and sin but calls all them evil. As a result, human beings should not consider the existence of evil in any way. This is completely contrary to the Kant view that evil is in existence and should be considered as being present among the human race.

Hence, it is evident that Kierkegaard challenges Kant ideas of good, evil and freedom o the basis that a human being is a free creature and that free will should benefit him and he is the only one answerable. He rules out any influence of a superior being as Kant argues. Since a human being is free and uses his freedom to achieve whatever he wishes, he can enjoy and take pleasure in everything without being cautious of any force. In this regard, sin and evil do not exist but suffering does, however, it should not be a great bother to human being since it comes and ends.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Kierkegaard and Kant have more differences than similarities. One of the most profound differences betw1een the two philosophers is in the idea of existentialism. On this idea, Kierkegaard posits that freedom is for man and for him only and responsible for that very freedom. Hence, Kierkegaard idea of existentialist differs from the of Kant since Kant holds to the view that man has freedom, however, that freedom is linked to the moral law indoctrinated by superior being known as God who is all-knowing and all-seeing. In terms of the definition of history, Kierkegaard defines history as the process of coming into existence in which only human being can come into existence but not nature. Human beings have free will and as such can choose their future freely. On the other hand, nature does not have free will and can hence not choose their future. In this regard, history refers to human history.

References

Anderson-Gold, S., & Muchnik, P. (2010). Kant's Anatomy of Evil (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kain, P. J. (1989). "Kant's Political Theory and Philosophy of History," Clio, 18: 325-45.

Khan, A. (1975). Kierkegaard's Conception of Evil. Journal of Religion and Health, 14(1), 63-66. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27505271Patios, G. (2014). Kierkegaard's Concept of History. Prolegomena, 13(1), 85-106.