مقایسه اخلاق جمعی از منظر ابرانسان نیچه و شهسوار ایمان کی‌یرکگور

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران،

چکیده

نیچه یکی از متفکران رادیکال و بن فکنی است که از رهگذر نقد اخلاق بردگی، اخلاق سروری را که در هیأت و هیبت ابرانسان متجلی و متبلور می شود مطرح می‌کند. ابرانسان به نزد نیچه، چرخ خودچرخی است که با پشت پا زدن به ارزشهای واپسین انسان و اخلاق بردگی مترتب بر آن، ارزشهای مترتب بر اخلاق سروری را که دربرگیرنده مؤلفه هایی چون تکینگی، آفرینندگی و خودآیینی است متحقق می‌کند. کیرکگور نیز به مثابه متفکری فردگرا و سیستم ستیز در تلاش است که همچون نیچه، تکنیگی؛ فردیت، کنشگری و گزینشگری آدمی را از چنگال نظام های متصلب اخلاقی و اجتماعی رها و آزاد کند. یافته پژوهش حاکی از آن است که در مقام مقایسه و تطبیق آراء نیچه و کیرکگور، می توان این سخن را به میان آورد که به رغم شباهت دیدگاه نیچه و کیرکگور در باب ضرورت رهایی و خلاصی فردیت و تکینگی آدمی از چنگال اخلاق، جامعه و فرهنگ، سورن کیرکگور بر خلاف نیچه که متفکری طبیعت گرا و زمینی است، از منظر و موضعی ایمانی سعی در احیاء اگزیستانس(هستی منحصر به فرد و تکرارناپذیر آدمی)، شور و عاملیت و فاعلیت آدمی دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparing Collective Morality from the Perspective of Nietzsche's Superhuman and Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith

نویسنده [English]

  • Hossein Roohani
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Administrative Sciences Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

A radical thinker, Nietzsche proposes that slave morality is crystallized in the superhuman being through criticism of slave morality. According to Nietzsche, the superhuman is a self-revolving wheel that, by stepping behind the slave morality, realizes the values related to the slave morality, which include components such as singularity and self-discipline. As an individualistic anti-philosopher, Kierkegaard tries to free man from the clutches of rigid moral and social systems, like Nietzsche. The findings indicate that in terms of comparing and adapting the views of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, which was done by using the comparative method, it can be said that despite the similarity of Nietzsche's and Kierkegaard's views on the necessity of emancipation and liberation of singularity. The singularity of man from the clutches of morality, society, and culture, Kierkegaard tries to revive existence (the unique and unrepeatable being of man), passion, agency, and efficacy of man, unlike Nietzsche, who is a naturalistic and earthly thinker, from the perspective and position of faith.
Keywords: Superhuman, morality, leap of faith, the last man
 
Introduction
As a radical and critical thinker, Nietzsche proposes slave morality by introducing master morality. In Nietzsche's master morality and superhuman, man becomes the creator of his values. Nietzsche's superhuman is a hard-working, risk-taking, adventurous, and noble person who throws his passion far beyond his reach. According to Nietzsche, Christianity and the modern world are two sides of the same coin because both of them suppress the passionate and active spirit of a person by clinging to slave morality. Just like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard is concerned about the liberating man from the clutches of anti-individualism systems, and by criticizing moral and social life, which is synonymous with the loss of human singularity, he tries to put forward a new type of man under the title of the knight of faith. The typical approach of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard can be summed up in the fact that both thinkers are trying to strengthen human agency and promote human singularity as a special and unique value by honoring the character of human activity. It is necessary to mention that Nietzsche tries to transition from slave morality to the end of man by proposing the concept of the superhuman, which is an earthly and temporal concept, while Kierkegaard tries to transition from the moral sphere from a religious perspective. In this essay, it is attempted to analyze Nietzsche's and Kierkegaard's opinions and ideas about concepts such as morality, superhuman, and leap of faith. The superhuman and the knight of faith should be examined and evaluated as the mediators of morality.
 
Materials
One of the leading and fundamental goals of this research is to show as well as to rely on and emphasize the typical approach of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard in their opposition to totalism and collective morality, and as a result, giving importance to singularity, singularity, and human agency. Also, one of the other goals of the research is to focus on the points of difference between Nietzsche's and Kierkegaard's views. In this research, it was emphasized that although Nietzsche and Kierkegaard try to remove the singularity and unique and unrepeatable existence of man. However, the fact is that Kierkegaard is trying to revive the singularity of man from a religious point of view, but Nietzsche, from a naturalistic and earthly point of view, tries to recover and re-examine the singularity of human beings.
 
Methodology
In this study, Nietzsche's and Kierkegaard's opinions and thoughts on morality were analyzed using a descriptive-analytical research method. Next, the similarities and differences between their thoughts on morality were discussed via the comparative method.
 
Results
The present study aims to do a comparative research of Nietzsche's and Kierkegaard's views via the critique of modern morality, which is the intersection of their standpoints. To this end, Nietzsche's views on the concept of the superhuman were analyzed. It was pointed out that Nietzsche proposed the master morality by breaking the foundation of the slave morality. The abstraction of the idea of the superhuman and the master morality as an alternative to the ultimate human being is one of Nietzsche's other initiatives in the fight against slavery morality. In this article, after describing Nietzsche's view on morality, Kierkegaard's views on morality were mentioned; it was emphasized that Kierkegaard rejects the moral sphere due to the loss of singularity of man and calls for the ascension of human evolution to the leap of faith. The leap of faith is the stage where the moral sphere is suspended, and a person regains his singularity. Finally, in the comparison between Nietzsche's superhuman and Kierkegaard's knight of faith, it was pointed out that although Nietzsche and Kierkegaard have a common opinion in criticizing modern morality. However, the fact is that Nietzsche is a naturalistic thinker, and this is the case that Kierkegaard, like Nietzsche, wants to restore singularity and human agency. However, Kierkegaard, based on a leap of faith, tries to revive human singularity and agency, while Nietzsche's superhuman is only a ritual that attempts to confront slave morality by relying on himself.
 
Discussion and Conclusion
A critical thinker, Nietzsche tries to recover the lost singularity of man by criticizing the collectivism prevailing in modernist morality. Just like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard is a supporter of human singularity and a staunch opponent of modern collectivist morality. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that Nietzsche goes against modern morality by appealing to the knight of faith; however, Nietzsche deals with modern morality from an earthly perspective.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Superhuman
  • morality
  • leap of faith
  • the last man
اشتراوس ، لئو (1373). فلسفه سیاسی چیست، ترجمه فرهنگ رجایی، تهران: نشر علمی- فرهنگی.
بلاکهام، هرولدجان (1391). شش متفکر اگزیستانسیالیست (چاپ هشتم)، ترجمه محسن حکیمی، تهران ، نشر مرکز.
پیرسون، کیت انسل (1390). هیچ انگار تمام عیار: مقدمه ای بر اندیشه سیاسی نیچه، ترجمه محسن حکیمی، تهران: انتشارات خجسته.
حقیقی ، شاهرخ (1379). گذر از مدرنیته، تهران: نشرآگاه0
زینلی، راضیه (1400). خود، دیگری و خدا در اندیشه کیرکگور، تهران ، نشر آن سو.
کاپوتو، جان دی (1399). چگونه کیرکگور بخوانیم، ترجمه صالح نجفی، تهران: نشر نی.
کارلایل ، کلیر (1398). کیرکگور، ترجمه محمد هادی حاجی بیگلو، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
کیرکگور، سورن (1384). ترس و لرز، ترجمه عبدالکریم رشیدیان ، چاپ پنجم، تهران: نشرنی.
 مستعان، مهتاب (1389). کی‌یرکگور، متفکر عارف پیشه، اصفهان: نشر پرسش.
نیچه، فریدرش ویلهم (1389). اراده قدرت، ترجمه مجید شریف، تهران: جامی.
نیچه، فریدریس ویلهم (1390). تبار شناسی اخلاق، ترجمه داریوش آشوری، تهران: نشر آگاه.
نیچه، فریدریش و یلهلم (1391). انسانی بسیار انسانی، ترجمه سعید فیروز آبادی ، تهران: جامی.
نیچه، فریدریش ویلهلم (1376). فراسوی نیک و بد، ترجمه داریوش آشوری، تهران: نشر آگه.
نیچه، فریدریش ویلهلم (الف1377 ). تبار شناسی اخلاق، ترجمه داریوش آشوری، تهران، خوارزمی.
نیچه، فریدریش ویلهلم (ب1377). حکمت شادان، ترجمه جمال آل احمد و دیگران، تهران: نشرجامی.
نیچه، فریدریش ویلهم (1380). چنین گفت زرتشت، ترجمه مسعود انصاری، تهران: جامی. نیچه، فردیدرش ویلهلم (1386). دجال، ترجمه عبدالعلی دستغیب، تهران: پرسش.
 وینی، میشل (1377). تئاتر ومسائل اساسی آن، ترجمه سهیلا فتاح، تهران: سمت.
هارت، مایکل (1392). ژیل دولوز، نوآموزی در فلسفه، ترجمه رضا نجفی زاده، تهران: نشرنی پیروز، عبدالحسین (1394). مبانی فلسفه هنرنیچه (زیبایی، والایی، کمال)، تهران: نشر علم.
هایدگر مارتین (1388). متافیزیک نیچه، ترجمه منوچهر اسدی، اصفهان: نشر پرسش.
 
 
Allison ,R.B. (2001). Reading the new Nietzsche the birth of Tragedy the Gay science , thus spoke Zarathustra, and on the Geneaology of Morals , United states of America , Rowman & littlefield publishers.
Berkowitz, p. (1995). Nietzsche, Rickett, Heidegger, in heidegger and Nietzsche, Netherland , rodopi.
Brown , R.S.G(1989). Nihilism, the speaks physcology, T.Darby , B.egyed and b. jones (eds) , in Mictzsche and the Rhetoric of Nihilism: Essay an Interperation, language and Politics, Canda Carleton unniverstiy press.
Clark, M(1990). Niestzsche on Truth and Philosophy,Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
Gellner , E. (1964). Thought and change , London: weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Havas , Randall. (2013) The overman , ed k. Gemes and . j.Richarson in the Oxford handbook of Nietzsche United kingdom , Oxfrod university press.
Keith Ansell , person (2002) . An introduction to Nietzsche as Political Thinker , Cambridge university press.
Kierkegaaard,soren.(1992). Concluding Unsientifc Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, tr. Howerd V.hong Edna H.hong.
Kierkegard, soren (1971). Either, or , tr. By david .f Swenson , prinston , University press.
Lompert, L. (1986). Nietzsch’s Teaching : An introduction of thus spoke Zarathustra , New Haven, yale university press.
Middleton ,Christopher. (ed. And tra). (1969). Selected letters of Friedrich Nittzsche, Chicago, University of chicogo press.
Nietzsche, F. (1918). On the Geneology of morals, trans. Horace B. Samuel , New York , Bonin and lirerright.
Nietzsche, F. (1997) Twilight of the Idols or How to philosophize with the Hammer , trans Richard polt , Indianopolis: Hackett publishing Company.
Risse, M. (2007) . Nietzschean, Animal Psychology versus Kantian Ethics, ed. B. Leiter and.N.  Sinhababu, in Nietzshe and Morality, united kingdom , oxford university Press.
Samuel , A(2007).Nietzsche and god part. Richmonal journal of philosophy , 14 , www. Richmord philosophy net rip/ book – issues / rdp14. Samuel – pdf , (20/8/2016).
Taylor,mark.C.(1975). Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authorship.  A study of time and self , prinston university press.