Contrasting Aristotle and Kierkegaard

Neither Aristotle nor Kierkegaard define humanity from a cultural relativistic perspective, thus both believe in the existence of some sort of universal truth and standard for how a person ought to live. Aristotle is a rationalist, meticulously defining and outlining these universal requirements for happiness, which he perceives to be the ultimate goal of human life. Kierkegaard is nearly the opposite end of the spectrum with his extremely irrational teachings based upon the paradox of Abraham, emphasizing the importance of faith, which he claims as the overarching virtue for man. The distinct differences in their philosophies comes from the fact that Aristotle philosophizes from a secular perspective, while Kierkegaard teaches from a religious one. Aristotle argues that relationships between human beings, specifically, friendships, are what define people. Kierkegaard claims that the only necessary relationship is between that of a human being and God. Aristotle bases his ideas on ethics, claiming that a person seeking true happiness, as he defines it, will possess a moral nobility. Kierkegaard's is founded upon pure faith, and he teaches that a person will follow even the irrational and sometimes immoral without a doubt, all in the name of faith. Despite their stark differences though, Aristotle and Kierkegaard converge on a theme against idealism. Both philosophers believe that a human being ought to live a life of action, instead of mere contemplation. Each teaches that a person can only be truly defined through their actions.

A great source of disagreement between Aristotle's and Kierkegaard's philosophies lies in their differences regarding what exactly defines a human being. Aristotle believes that in a well developed society, a person's ethics should come from it. People ought to define themselves through that society, and thereby have a moral obligation to it. Inherently, human beings do not understand ethics, people merely have the capacity to learn them. Moral virtue is learned through habit and "we are by nature equipped with the ability to receive them, and habit brings this ability to completion and fulfillment." The habits of morality must be instilled in a person from early childhood, so as to build the ethical nature through repetition. Thus, the relationships between people are crucial for development of ethics, and in defining a person as virtuous.

Relationships between people, specifically friendships, dominate much of Aristotle's teachings. He claims that friendship is a necessity and that "it is... most indispensable for life." He breaks friendships into three categories, those that are for utility, those are for pleasure, and those that are good. All friendships are based on something people have in common, and the higher the form of friendship, the more that they will have in common. Thus, if two people have too little in common, for example a master and a slave, a real friendship will ever form. Friendships for utility are of the lowest kind, and involve a relationship in which a person is not loved for themselves, but rather their usefulness or pleasantness. This form of friendship ceases to exist the moment a person stops being useful or pleasant. The next form of friendship is that of pleasure, and often times exists between young people. As young people grow and find different things pleasurable or fall momentarily in love, they gain and lose friendships of pleasure. A friendship of good is the most perfect form of friendship, and it can only exist between two men who are alike in virtue. Their desire to be good is intrinsic, and they are noble because they enjoy being good. This ultimate form of friendship is what he claims that all people should seek to achieve.

Kierkegaard feels that the idea of defining oneself through a society is cheap and superficial. He argues that a person can find faith only after abandoning everything that holds him to this world. Only through isolation from the rest of society can a person be in a position to find the higher means, specifically, faith. Faith is not to be confused with hope, which he scorns as "only its remotest possibility , a faith that has some inkling of its object at the very edge of the field of vision but remains separated from it by a yawning abyss in which despair plays its pranks." Faith is the belief that one will receive their wish and promise in this lifetime, whilst hope is the belief that one will receive these in the afterlife. Faith defines a person in this life through their interactions with God and their willingness to abandon everything of this world for God's word. It cannot be learned through practice, but rather, it must be found after much searching.

There are three basic stages in life, the child, the man, and the older man. Each of these stages represent different stages in the comprehending the paradox of Abraham. As a child who first hears this story, a person will regard Abraham as a heroic figure, almost an idol for worship. When he reaches the second level as a man, he will begin to view the story from a moral standpoint and begin to have moral doubt as to the ethic responsibility of a person. Finally, when he becomes an old man he will start to see the role of faith. Yet, unlike Aristotle who believes that with practice comes greater comprehension, Kierkegaard states that "The older he became the more his thoughts turned to that tale... yet less and less could he understand it." Comprehension is not a goal in human existence, and greater understanding does not play a role in defining a person. A person ought to seek faith and must disregard all that is worldly, including a desire for understanding. To Kierkegaard, everything is centered around faith, and faith is not usually a reasonable or rational virtue.

For Aristotle, the human soul has three capacities, the vegetative, the appetite, and the rational. The irrational part of the soul is divided into the vegetative and the appetite. Of these elements, the vegetative is responsible for nurture and growth. Found in any organism that needs nourishment, it is not exclusive to human beings. It is most active in sleep, for what defines a man as good or as bad is least noticeable during slumber. The appetite is also referred to as desire, as it is the sense of perception in the soul. It is the other irrational part of the soul, and it is that part which fights against the rational, reasoning part of the soul. Yet, "in a morally strong man it accepts the leadership of reason, and is perhaps more obedient still in a self-controlled and courageous man, since in him everything is in harmony with the voice of reason." Thus, Aristotle displays his rationalist thinking, a man that is noble in character will most always have a greater rational half of his soul. Reason and this rational part will guide men to do the right thing and to follow the correct path in life. Men who are virtuous will strive to consistently listen to reason and those men that have nearly perfected the art of being human will have learned to completely control their irrational half of their soul.

Faith is irrational, and a person with faith must be willing to commit to the absurd without a doubt. Kierkegaard emphasizes passion, and the strength of faith over the logic of reason. Abraham was a witness to "that supreme passion, the sacred, pure, and humble expression of the divine madness." Divine madness is linked with faith, but can be easily confused with blind obedience. One that is acting out of blind obedience can still have doubts as to the irrational act that he is committing. He does not have faith in the sense that he does not know for sure that what he doing is indeed the correct path to follow. Kierkegaard describes a possible scenario in which Abraham acts out of blind obedience. Though Isaac is returned to him, he loses the youthful passion that was a sign of his unwavering faith. In this he plays what Kierkegaard has dubbed the knight of resignation, who is obedient in action, yet doubtful in thought. One must seek to be like the knight of faith who willingly commits to this paradox, and partakes in this moral dilemma without a doubt that it is the right course of action because the Lord has asked for proof of his faith. Faith transcends reason and the rational, and thus, a man of real faith will be overcome by this divine madness. Irrationality is a natural course for faith, because no one can comprehend the will of the Lord, but merely have faith that it is indeed what is right.

A person, according to Aristotle, requires more than faith though. He states that a person has three basic needs, the body, virtues of the soul, both intellectual and moral, and external. The first and second needs are simple enough to fulfill, but it is the virtues of the soul that require practice. Intellectual virtues include theoretical wisdom, understanding, and practical wisdom. Moral virtues are more difficult to understand, but essentially a virtuous person will act in moderation of all of their virtues. It is "to experience all this at the right time, toward the right objects, toward the right people, for the right reason, and in the right manner- that is the median and the best course, the course that is a mark of virtue." A person that has either a deficiency or an excess of virtue cannot become a truly good person. Only a truly virtuous person can achieve the level of happiness that Aristotle claims to be the ultimate goal of human life. Happiness ought to be the focus of life, but happiness as Aristotle defines it has three different forms, much like the rest of his philosophy. There is first the happiness that is derived from pleasure over conflict, which is the most superficial form of happiness. Next is that which comes from amassing wealth or honor. Again though, that is not a pure form of happiness. A person learns to be noble and gains good friendships in order to be the best form of happiness, that which is derived from virtue. When a person has obtained that virtuous happiness, he has reached the plateau of human life.

Kierkegaard's philosophy is often over-simplified as merely one must have faith, but it is more complicated than such. A true understanding of Abraham is difficult, as there are so many contradictions and confusions within the story. It is based upon the faith that Kierkegaard claims to be the overarching theme of human existence. Yet, faith is not a simple matter, he explains how in preaching the story of Abraham, many misinterpret the meaning behind the paradox. If a person were to preach that Abraham gave up what he loved the most in the world as a sign of his faith to God, he would not comprehend the anguish involved and thus lose the meaning of this story. "There is likely to be the most appalling, most profound, tragi-comic misunderstanding," and a person will no doubt be willing to sacrifice a similar beloved in the name of faith. It is the anguish however that makes Abraham the revered figure that he is, the anguish involved because the love that he had for Isaac was love with all of his soul. Kierkegaard does not preach to become another Abraham, for a person ought not to seek the amount of anguish and dilemma that Abraham had to face. Faith, while being the superior virtue, is not the only emotion to which God expects from human life. Kierkegaard states that love, both for other human beings and for God is a great part of what defines human life. Yet, "he who loves God without faith reflects on himself, while the person who loves God in faith reflects on God." Faith is not merely one devout passion for God, but rather a combination of several passions that center upon it.

While both philosophers outline how a person ought to live through action, Kierkegaard places heavy emphasis on the religious aspects of life. As the father of three religions, the paradox of Abraham preaches to a great number of people. However, there are very few that live their lives according to his teachings. Kierkegaard's philosophy on faith is not based on moderation, but rather a passionate pursuit of God that envelops a person's whole being. His teachings are not rational or reasonable and the average person finds that attempting life as he describes it is quite a harrowing journey. Yet, his scorn for rationalism and reason is understandable from a religious perspective, as religion itself is founded upon irrational ideas. From the universal perspective though, in which one religion cannot be used to define human life, his philosophy loses its meaning. A person cannot live according to his principles if his religion is not based upon the story of Abraham. Thus, Kierkegaard becomes a philosopher to only a select group.

Aristotle, on the other hand, provides a more secular view of how a person ought to live his life, giving an extremely detailed and exact account of how to be virtuous. However, it seems a little contradictory that despite the entire and meticulous account, he continually states that in order to truly achieve life's purpose one must be intrinsically good. A person must seek to learn morality and put it into practice, but if one is not good innately, one can never truly live life according to Aristotle. He claims that through practice a person will become virtuous, but no amount of practice and repetition can change the nature of a person. Though his outward character may seem to be that of a truly noble being, his thoughts may not be reflective of the same good character. So, Aristotle's teachings give a good structure and outline to life, but if one does not have an intrinsic goodness it gives no meaning to it.

Neither philosopher gives a complete account of human life, since one is so decidedly secular, while the other is so radically religious. Aristotle outlines well how to live life of moral action, but gives very little meaning behind those actions. Kierkegaard gives much meaning to the radical actions, but does not give particulars about how one must strive to live life. Despite the fact that their schools of thoughts are so different, they both emphasize the importance of living a life of action. It is action that gives a definition to human beings, and it is a life of action that a person ought to live. Yet, the question becomes whether a person could live a fulfilling life by following a single route of action either based on Aristotle or Kierkegaard. Generally, humanity falls somewhere in the middle of their teachings, with a combination of both Aristotle's moral moderation and Kierkegaard's religious foundation. However, a true combination of their philosophies is impossible, as they are nearly contradictory to each other. One cannot follow the reason of moral nobility and the irrationality of religious faith. That does not mean that only one path of life is fulfilling for a human being, merely fulfilling in different ways. Both Aristotle and Kierkegaard outline paths towards a fulfilling life, it is the choice of a person though what kind of life he ought to live.