Knight of Faith vs Overman

For my final research paper, I suck in elect to comp ar and contrast Friedrich Nietzsches overman with Soren Kierkegaards horse cavalry of assurance As if a coroner were standing over a body, holding a cold hand in one and looking at his filament watch in the other, I hear Nietzsche say deity is dead. deity remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the human race has except owned has bled to death under our knives who will wipe this blood score us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed in like manner great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? Nietzsche, the reverenceless Science, Section 125 As if conversing with Nietzsche I hear the response of Kierkegaard to be, God will never die, notwithstanding combine in Him can, and has died, in you Nietzsche. To which Kierkegaard would add, besides thats only my perspective. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche each have views that respond to the issue of confidence and the liveliness lived by the individual.Kierkegaards view is called the knight of faith and Nietzsches called overman. The knight of faith is an individual who has placed complete faith in himself and in God. Kierkegaard argues that the knight of faith is the paradox, is the individual, absolutely nothing precisely the individual, without connections or pretensions. The knight of faith is the individual who is able to gracefully embrace life. roughly people live dejectedly in worldly sorrow and bliss they ar the ones who sit along the wall and do not sum total in the dance. The knights of infinity are dancers and possess elevation.They make the movements upward, and peg work through again and this too is no mean pastime, nor ungraceful to behold. But whenever they release down they are not able at once to affect the posture, they vacillate an instant, and this vacillation shows that later all they are strangers in the world. This is more than or less strikingly evident in proportion to the guile they possess, but til now the most artistic knights cannot altogether conceal this vacillation. champion need not look at them when they are up in the air, but only the instant they touch or have affected the groundthen one recognizes them.But to be able to fall down in such a way that the same s it looks as if one were standing and walking, to transform the leap of life into a walk, absolutely to express the sublime in the pedestrianthat only the knight of faith can doand this is the one and only prodigy. Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, Nietzsches overman can be described as overman has his own self, both his high and lower natures, neither repressed. He has this, his world, to which he is faithful. He has the slam of this life, in this world, without the illusio ns that this world is inferior.And he has his reflective mind that reinforces these ideas. I believe that Nietzsche would pick out his perspective to better because his claim focuses on this world, the one known to exist, whereas Kierkegaards claim implies a attached life. Nietzsche would argue that Kierkegaards claim has 2 assumptions, 1) that there whitethorn or may not be an after life, and 2) that it is superior to this life. I like Nietzsches view of overman overman is strength incarnate, reveling in the beauties of this life while satisfying his desires, both worldly and not.But it begs me to choose the question, as long as the anticipation of the next life doesnt deputise with the enjoyment of this one, can an overman not love this life and carry this love so far to greatly anticipate the next life as possibly even more beautiful than this one? I would provided like to challenge Nietzsche on the topic of ethics, and his overman. Since there is no accusative truth, the re are no object lens morals or values. angiotensin converting enzyme becomes free to create their own and this is precisely what overman does. Overman has his own set of morals and values.Unless the morals one lives by here on earth are different than those they live by in promised land, I dont see a problem. And even then I dont see a problem, unless one desires heaven with its values inferior to their own. If one enjoys the way they live here and nirvana takes those enjoyments and morals away, wherefore would one desire to live in Heaven at all? Nietzsche professes that God is dead, meaning the very idea of Gods salvation is no longer held in the worlds belief. If this is so, then doesnt it imply that having religious faith is indeed a subjective figure, if not the highest possible subjective act?The fewer people who truly believe only means that the objective uncertainty is greater. Since objective uncertainty is at a maximum, so too must be the will to believe and the p assion by which to believe. If this does not require also the maximum amount of courage, I dont know what does. I also like Kierkegaards view, but his view as healthful again begs me to ask questions. Kierkegaards knight of faith is self sacrificing. Christianitys silliness makes it harder to have faith than to not.It almost seems that faith is a response to the fear of being wrong about the future. Better to believe in precisely case than not believe and burn for it. The very degree of inquiry makes belief seem desperate. But strong God fearing people should not feel such apprehension for the next life. Now dont get me wrong, they shouldnt consider on the next life for salvation. They shouldnt even depend on the reality of the next life, for there may be none. But if so, one isnt even disappointed if the next life doesnt exist since this life gives them all the cheer they desire.The despair that, Kierkegaard speaks of, neednt exist if he grant the premise that God desires on es joy in this life, and if he grant the human race the possibility of achieving this gaiety, self-sustaining of the next and possible nonexistent life. Subjectivism says that it matters more how one believes than it does what or why we do. So if one believes fervently that one can be euphoric here, what God would impose that such subjectivity is wrong, that one can only be happy independently of this world? Nietzsches overman has this courageous independence, but why cant a knight of faith also have it?I think that both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard have valid points. The overmans worship of this world, a world made beautiful by God Himself, is justified. Its courageous to find happiness in a meaningless world. The knight of faiths authentic anticipation of the next is equally justified as long as such faith doesnt interfere with living an authentic life while here on earth. The overman is not inferior to the knight of faith and the knight of faith is not inferior to the overman. T hey are both authentic, subjective existing individuals, living life the fullest way they know how, both courageous in their own ways.They are both equally superior in courage to all the buckle down moralists, master moralists and mock Christians of the world. And while I live here on earth, neither the overman nor the knight of faith can discredit the other, since there may or may not be an afterlife. The lacking evidence of an afterlife doesnt suggest there isnt one. Where would be the challenge in believing in something I know to exist? Likewise the very notion of Christianity defying customary logic tempts me to doubt the faith it is so hard for me to have.