Charles Duke

There is a general consensus that Nietzsche criticized Kant and his heirs for championing the ascetic ideal, and at times Nietzsche’s “ascetic priest” indeed functions as a representative of Kant. However, Kant confronted the accusations of promoting asceticism in his own time, and in his replies to his critics he not only clarified his disregard for the “monkish asceticism” of which he was accused, but also employed the term “ascetic” positively in The Metaphysics of Morals to detail a regimen for self-cultivation and for delineating acceptable (i.e. life-affirming) and unacceptable (i.e. life-denying) forms of asceticism. In my comparative study of Kant’s and Nietzsche’s attitudes toward asceticism, I demonstrate that Nietzsche, like Kant, also delineates acceptable and unacceptable forms of asceticism that are necessary for realizing the highest levels of human achievement. By drawing on the works of various critics, I conclude that Kant and Nietzsche—each in his own way and specific historical context—emphasized the positive forms of ascetic practice designed to combat duplicitous, unacceptable forms of asceticism.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) criticized Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and the heirs of his philosophical edifice for their enslavement to the ascetic ideal. At times, Nietzsche’s ascetic priest functions as a representative of Kant. However, Kant confronted accusations of promoting asceticism in his own time from thinkers like Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805). In his replies, Kant not only clarified his disregard for the “monkish asceticism” of which he was accused, but he employed the term “ascetic” positively in *The Metaphysics of Morals* to detail a regimen for self-cultivation, in the process delineating acceptable and unacceptable expressions of asceticism. This paper examines the topic of asceticism in Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, arguing that Nietzsche, like Kant, also delineates acceptable and unacceptable expressions of asceticism. Additionally, I argue that these permissible forms of asceticism in Kant and Nietzsche align with their respective visions for the requisite discipline necessary for achieving the highest ends of humanity. In the process of this comparative analysis, this paper aims to illustrate the nuance and complexity of this topic within Kant and Nietzsche studies.

Though it is acknowledged that Nietzsche read Ludwig Feuerbach, little attention has been given to the significance of Feuerbach’s anthropological re-imagination of religion for the trajectory of Nietzsche’s own vision for liberated humanity, the Übermensch. For Feuerbach, the Christian religion represents a form of wish-fulfillment and subconscious worship of the human being as divine, where many of the presuppositions of orthodox Christianity (monotheism, human fallenness, other-worldliness, etc.) only impede human flourishing. The acknowledgement of the psychological damage wrought by the scheme and implications of Christian metaphysics is, for Feuerbach and Nietzsche alike, a necessary step in liberating humans from their own self-imposed shackles and enabling the human spirit to actualize its latent potentialities. This paper aims to identify Feuerbachian themes that Nietzsche appropriates for his own purposes in Thus Spake Zarathustra, attending to Nietzsche’s early reading of Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity (1841) during a key period of his intellectual development (1861–1863), and arguing that Feuerbach’s impact on Nietzsche is far more subtle and profound than commonly recognized.

While some recent scholarship has highlighted the remarkable similarities between the accounts of neighborly love in John Duns Scotus and Søren Kierkegaard, the important ways in which Kierkegaard’s account departs from the account of Scotus have not been thoroughly explored. For example, one crucial matter about which they disagree concerns whether the command to love one’s neighbor follows necessarily from the command to love God. This paper examines the ethical dimensions of neighborly love in the works of Søren Kierkegaard and John Duns Scotus, focusing primarily on the distinguishing features of their respective accounts of what it means to love God and, by extension, to love one’s neighbor in a way that adequately fulfills certain moral obligations.