Philosophy Of Soren Kierkegaard: Existentialism

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Philosophy Of Soren Kierkegaard: Existentialism

Soren Kierkegaard has a lot of controversial things in his existentialism and philosophy and this includes his dislike of Kantianism and Hegeliansim and Churchism. He believes in a few things but most especially, he believed that God truly exists. Thats why he tried looking into the concepts of churches among all religions. After examining it, he realized that its not good to rely on the church in order for you to have a connection with God. The church shouldnt be a third party, in modern terminology, in our relationship with God. That is what it means when he said that there shouldnt be chaperoning on our intimate bond with God. What we have with God is a bond that should only be joined by Him and us individually. I have no right to judge your relationship with Him and so as you to mine. We understand our own relationships differently thats why its absurd if we rely on it on our churches.

Kierkegaard disliked Kantianism and Hegelism because according to him, he hates the idea of it being a system. Its not good to live a life with a set of strict rules that one should follow. Kierkegaard instead centered his idea of living an ethical life with faith. He even said that our life is a sum total of our leaps of faith and we are here where we are right now because we made a risk and we made it happen. Its not because we followed a set of rules. Its in those moments that you leap out of uncertainty that you find what life really means. Life is supposed to be lived so following a set of strict standards doesnt help us.

Since Kierkegaard is known to disagree with Kant and Hegel on their ethical systems due to their strict nature, its ironic how some critics think that the Three Stages Paradigm is a rigid system. One of his goals in his ethical program is to center our life on faith and not on a set of rules. Thats why he crafted the paradigm in order to foresee the stages that we will encounter in reaching the ultimate test of faith. The first is the aesthetic stage where our life is governed by pain and pleasure. We tend to do things that give us pleasure and turn away from things that cause us pain. The second is the ethical stage where the person will have the ability to judge the rightness and the wrongness of an action. The highest and final stage is the spiritual stage where our time comes to make a bond with God and take a leap of faith unto and for him. Theres no way that this can be classified as a rigid system because this is generally applicable in real life and every people have really undergone these stages in life.

What I love about Soren Kierkegaards belief is that according to Sartre, Kierkegaards whole project states that Existence precedes essence because we as human beings are worth more than what we are capable of doing. He viewed human existence as a subject, not an object, in the language of English Proficiency. We, humans, are not discovered because we in ourselves are the discoverer. No human should feel objectified because we are not made to be objects for others. We have the ability to color our life. It repeatedly stated in our discussion how we are worth more than our accomplishments and failure. A failure is an event. It will never be a person. Kierkegaard, a world-renown philosopher, believes that we have our intrinsic values as humans and I think its something that all of us should remember. Its somehow an anthropocentric view that other existences are mere objects to us humans who are defined as subjects in this world but it is really that true because only humans have the ability to be rational. Therefore, in this world, it is reasonable to regard humans as subjects.

It can also be exemplified in the statement the human person is a subject-in-plenitude and in mystery which states that as humans as we are, we are irreplaceable and can never be duplicated. We are different persons with unique abilities that make us special. We can get a huge lesson from the existentialists through this because people, nowadays, keep calling other people as the next up-and-coming person by using a real person. For example, they keep calling Vice Ganda the next Dolphy when, in fact, Dolphy is a separate person from Vice Ganda. They may have similarities, especially in their sense of humor, but they will never be the same person. Instead, we should call him the one and only Vice Ganda because he in himself is a unique individual. This also teaches us not to compare ourselves to other people. We are separate beings and should never be compared, like apples and oranges.

Click Here To Order Now!