Kant and Nietzsche on Asceticism

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3970870
AutoresCharles Duke (University of South Florida), Charles W Duke (University of South Florida, autor de correspondencia)
Año2025
Volumen30
Número7
Páginas812-828
Fecha de publicación2025-10-03
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe European Legacy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1084-8770 • E-ISSN: 1470-1316
EditorialInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10848770.2025.2544375
OpenAlexW4414070734
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas16

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

Asceticism · Empiricism · Form of the Good · Metaphysics · Obligation · Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Hegel · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism