I besides believe that the issue that I am discoursing is deep. and hence interesting. Its failings would be its deficiency of quotation marks. The trouble with this paper was seeking to happen the thought in the first topographic point. It took me a batch of clip to happen deep similarities and differences between the two. It besides took me some clip to calculate out how I would put the essay out and how I would flesh the essay out. As this paper is non superficial. I found myself happening new thoughts and job as clip passed.
This gave me another job as I ever had to rethink and re-edit. The ends for my following paper are to include more quotation marks. as my documents lack grounds. My other ends are to transport on composing interesting and thought arousing documents. I aim to seek to do my essays every bit clear as possible. as undertaking deep issues can sometimes do the authorship rather convoluted. Love of Duty vs. Love of Choice In their essays ‘Lectures on Ethical motives – Friendship’ and ‘Works of Love – Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor’ . severally. Kant and Kierkegaard both appear as dreamers: They each portray a Utopia in which friendly relationship is cosmopolitan.
Kant believes that flawlessness can be achieved if people put love of world before love of oneself. and Kierkegaard believes that flawlessness can be achieved if you love everyone as if they were your neighbour. Ironically. both besides contradict themselves: Kant contradicts his other thought that one will ne’er be able to accomplish the ideal of friendly relationship. where spouses portion everything with each other. While Kierkegaard contradicts himself by stating a true Christian is wholly altruistic.
This is a contradiction. as person who is selfless can non hold a pick ( free will ) . but as rational worlds we do hold a pick. Given these analogues. are these two minds finally offering us the same sense of Utopia? No – in fact. Kant is a realist who uses a scientific attack to calculate out what it means to be a friend. whereas Kierkegaard is a spiritual mind who applies his spiritual morality on people. Their utopias look really similar on the surface. but their implicit in methods to make them are immensely different.
Both Kant and Kierkegaard come from two really different backgrounds. Kant was born in Prussia. and was interested in natural philosophies and mathematics. He didn’t have a positive position of faith was besides asked to halt learning Theology at the University of Konigsberg by the authorities as he allegedly ‘misrepresented’ the rules of Christianity. This shows that Kant was a mind independent of faith. Kant believed that “mankind’s concluding approach of age. ” was “the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature province of ignorance and mistake.
” This is the antonym of Kierkegaard. as he was a devout Christian. Kierkegaard tried to integrate faith ( Christian morality ) with ground. This is where he comes up with his thought of ‘loving thy neighbor’ . Whereas Kierkegaard comes from a place that his manner is the ‘right’ manner. as it was mandated from God. Kant comes from a place which is influenced by Rousseau and Aristotle. in fact Kant’s thought of adult male holding self-love and love for humanity comes directly from Rousseau’s book ‘The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality’ .
There is besides a deeper difference: Kierkegaard’s spiritual morality implies responsibility. whereas Kant’s position on friendly relationship implies pick. Choice lies at the bosom of Kant’s doctrine. He says that adult male has two basic inherent aptitudes: amour propre and love for humanity ( commiseration ) . These two inherent aptitudes conflict with each other and merely one can win. Kant believes that in an ideal universe. all people would set love for humanity before amour propre. This would make a universe where love is reciprocated. and hence adult male does non hold to worry about losing his felicity.
In kernel. Kant’s version of a Utopia is where adult male chooses to love humanity. This is immensely different to Kierkegaard’s version. where adult male has no pick. as it is his moral responsibility to love everyone as if they were his neighbour. Kierkegaard does admit Kant in a manner. by separating between earthly love and religious love. He says earthly love ( Kant’s type of love ) is the exact antonym of religious love. He argues that a ‘poet’ ( Kant ) is perfectly right in stating that earthly love can non be commanded. Kierkegaard believes that Christian love is better as it is ‘completely selfless’ .
For Kierkegaard. “Christian love Teachs love to all work forces. unconditionally all. Just as unconditionally and strongly as earthly love tends towards the thought of there being but one individual object of love. every bit unconditionally and strongly Christian love tends in the opposite way. If a adult male with regard to Christian love wants to do an exclusion in the instance of one adult male whom he does non wish to love. so such love is non ‘also Christian love. ’ but it is unconditionally non Christian love. ” ( 41 ) Kierkegaard besides believes that it is rather liberating to be forced to love.
As if the absence of pick creates peace. He believes that “it is promoting in your relation to a distinguished adult male. that in him you must love your neighbour ; it is humbling in relation to the inferior. that you do non hold to love the inferior on him. but must love your neighbour ; it is a salvaging grace if you do it. for you must make it” ( 50 ) . Thus the difference between earthly and religious love is that earthly love is a pick and religious love is a bid from God. Both Kierkegaard and Kant come to different decisions because in their authorship. their focal point is on separate thoughts.
Kant. being a adult male of ground chiefly. near his doctrine in a scientific mode. To explicate. he breaks one thing into smaller things. Kant makes observations based on what he sees. hears. gustatory sensations. odors. and feels ( like his three types of friendly relationships ) . However. he does besides do some conceptual premises ( discussed before ) such as his thought of seting love of humanity before amour propre will do reciprocation of friendly relationship. Unlike Kierkegaard. Kant does non concentrate on faith as it is unneeded for person who is merely interested in empirical observations.
Kierkegaard nevertheless is non concerned with empirical observation. as he believes that there is something higher and more of import i. e. Christianity. Kierkegaard concentrates more on morality and what he believes is right. alternatively of concentrating on what is really at that place. Kierkegaard doesn’t even speak about friendly relationship in his authorship. This shows that he places much more importance on what his faith says is right alternatively of seeking to detect and deconstruct what friendly relationship is. Although both philosophers have radically different thoughts on how to accomplish a Utopian universe. their thoughts as an terminal consequence are really similar.
They both want a universe in which everyone loves everyone. The difference is that Kant’s love comes from ground. whereas Kierkegaard’s is religious. For this ground Kant’s thought seems more logical to the rational human being. Kant doesn’t believe in forced love. he believes in a pick to set either love of humanity or love of oneself at the bow. Kierkegaard’s thought of loving as a moral responsibility is contradictory at its bosom. because how can you love if you don’t have a pick who to love? If you ‘love’ everyone it stops being love because love is defined by its antonym. How can at that place be love without hatred?
If it can’t exist. so how executable is Kierkegaard’s thought? This is the chief job with Kierkegaard. because his observations come from his religion. In the existent universe. love should come from understanding. non dogma. If there is no apprehension. it’s like a bondage of the head. Works Cited Immanuel Kant. “Lectures on Ethics” . Ethical motives. Trans. Louis Infield. Harper Torchbooks. The Cloister Library. Harper & A ; Row Publishers. New York and Evanston. Soren Kierkegaard. “Works of Love” . Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor. Trans. David F. Swenson & A ; Lillian Marvin Swenson. Princeton – New Jersey. Princeton University Press.