Living during the same time under relatively similar conditions, how different could two philosophers be? Soren Kierkegaard wrote his book Fear and Trembling after he broke up with his fiancé, Regine, and was able to explore the implications of faith. Karl Marx wrote on communism after being faced with corrupt capitalist societies at the height of the Industrial Revolution. While Kierkegaard’s focus seems to be on the difference between ethics and religious faith, Marx’s readings emphasize economics as the basis of life.

Much of Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling discusses the idea of morality, or ethics, and the importance of this in society. In Kierkegaard’s opinion the three stages of life are fundamentally based on either the acceptance or suspension of ethics. The first stage, the aesthetic stage, serves to promote immediate pleasure while leading to eventual despair. Kierkegaard makes it clear that in this first stage the individual person and their interests are considered more important than those of the group because society (the group) has been given no thought or hasn’t even been created yet. Paradoxically, however, this self-interested person has not yet become a true individual because they have done nothing to define themselves as being separate from society.

Kierkegaard is not alone in connecting hedonism with the individual. Marx believed that the proletariat, the working class, was subject to a false consciousness in which each individual acts in their own self-interest without realizing the economic repercussions of their actions, leading to a capitalist society. Alienation, a result of the self-interest of individuals, was another issue Marx found in individuals which led them to being separated from their work, but more importantly each other. Without an economic analysis, Marx claims the individual and the rest of society are divided and therefore the interests of the group as a whole are never met.

Both Kierkegaard and Marx go on to describe a higher form of life in which the emphasis is on the group. For Kierkegaard this is the ethical stage, the stage in which morals and society come into play. Those in the ethical stage feel it necessary to abide by the universal values of the society and accept a life in which groups are above all else. Marx too describes a level of existence in which an economic analysis has been completed and the proletariat realizes they should be looking out for the interests of their own group because they are the predominant group in society. After having thrown off the shackles of false consciousness and alienation, the proletariat would then revolt against the bourgeoisie, taking back the surplus value which was robbed from them and securing the group (proletariat) as the leaders of society rather than a few individuals (the bourgeoisie).

While Marx finds a happy ending in the triumph of the group over the individual, Kierkegaard does not rest so easily. Kierkegaard created another stage after the ethical stage—the religious stage. He believed it to be the highest plane of existence one could achieve and it was very rarely attained throughout history. Kierkegaard used the specific example of Abraham’s Biblical story to illustrate this stage of life. Abraham was never in the aesthetic stage of life in the story, starting as an ethical human. He adhered to society’s laws and looked out for the wellbeing of others. When he heard a message from God, however, explaining he was to turn his back on the morals of society by murdering his son, he was willing to do so. Does this allow Abraham to continue his existence in the ethical stage of life if he is not wholly ethical? Kierkegaard reasons that since Abraham is for the most part ethical but has faith in his God enough to act against society’s morals for religious purposes, he cannot. But neither can he be demoted to the aesthetic stage of life. Abraham, through his momentary suspension of ethics, created the true individual who is “beyond the universal”. The religious stage is therefore the stage of life in which a person becomes an individual through religious faith.

But are morals really all that important? Marx finds morals meaningless, thus “communists do not preach morality at all.” Communists, rather, preach the necessity of an economic analysis. To preach morals, in Marx’s mind, would be to teach a man to not assert himself for the good of the group which is bad for whole of society. Marx wants there to be some individualism only if those individuals are part of and looking out for the wellbeing of the working class. Only then can there be a utopian world in which society is happy. Kierkegaard on the other hand does not completely disregard morals as Abraham is the model of the highest and best stage a person can reach in life—a combination of both ethics and the suspension of ethics. He believes that morals have a place in the world and in life, but they cannot be obeyed all the time. In the pursuit of religious adherence and in the name of faith, Kierkegaard believes one should momentarily suspend compliance with society’s morals to become an individual and to reach the religious stage of life.

Religion itself is a controversial topic, but between Marx and Kierkegaard, there can hardly be a greater divergence. Marx was an atheist and never preached the necessity of religion in any forms of his writings on capitalism or communism. In fact, he referred to religion as the opiate of the people, a form of false consciousness which blinded the proletariat to the reality of economics. In Marx’s utopia, religion would be nonexistent because people would realize that it would be unnecessary in the face of an economic analysis.

Kierkegaard finds great stock in religion, perhaps going as far as to break off his engagement with the love of his life, Regine, because of his faith. Again, Abraham is Kierkegaard’s way of illustrating religious faith. Abraham took the “Leap of Faith” when he believed the voice speaking to him was God and was willing to do his bidding. The Leap of Faith is the only way a person can jump from the ethical stage of life to the religious or from being part of a group to becoming an individual. This Leap requires a person to risk unethical behavior in the belief that they are doing it for a higher purpose. The connection between the Ethical and Religious stages of life—the Leap of Faith—is illogical and irrational. To Kierkegaard it is the ultimate test of human and the gateway to becoming an individual.

Marx would not support Kierkegaard’s so called “Leap of Faith,” due to its irrationality. Marx was an entirely logical person which is evident in the economic analysis he stresses so heavily in his writings. Religion is an illusion, an opiate that breeds false consciousness, and morals are ideas that limit the ability and willingness of somebody to act in favor of society. In his writing, Marx makes it clear economics and material conditions are the physical variables which determine a person’s actions and beliefs in society and therefore there is no human nature. By contrast, Kierkegaard speaks of passion, the idea of wholeheartedly believing in something enough to disregard ethics—much like the “Leap of Faith”. Thus, faith is what passion leads to, a natural progression through the stages of life, albeit rare and irrational.

Rationality plays a big role in how and what both Marx and Kierkegaard believe. Kierkegaard has no need for rationality, in fact he wishes for the irrational. That is the only way an individual can be created. Kierkegaard wants people in the ethical stage of life to understand that they have a choice whether to conform to society’s morals or to take the irrational “Leap of Faith,” and become an individual. To Marx, rationality is a must. All things not backed up in physical evidence stands in the way of people realizing the truth of the economic basis of life. Marx uses false consciousness and alienation to explain how people use abstractions to create illusions for themselves in situations where the economic analysis of material conditions \ could provide the truth about reality. Marx preaches that selflessness for the sake of the group is necessary and an economic analysis done by all will eventually lead the proletariat to overthrow the ruling bourgeoisie. Marx wants people to hold the group (the proletariat) above themselves while understanding they are in turn helping themselves.

Thus, fundamentally, there is a similarity between Marx’s and Kierkegaard’s beliefs. While Marx wants people to act in the interests of the group and in turn themselves, Kierkegaard wants people to take the Leap of Faith and act in the interest of God and so become an individual, increasing their state of being. Both philosophers wish for a person to hold a higher being above themselves which will later benefit them. But ,while this may be similar, many of their other ideals are radically different. Kierkegaard reveals that true religious faith, which is the rarest and greatest part of man, is in no way rational. Marx however relies on the rational to create peace with his economic analysis which leads to the proletariat revolution and later utopia. Whereas many others before them and around their time attempted to explain the complexities of human behavior, Kierkegaard and Marx brought light to new ways to decipher the truth behind life. Kierkegaard focused on the delicate balance between morals and faith, Marx on the economic conditions which held the proletariat back from a fulfilling utopia. While neither Kierkegaard or Marx could agree on just about any of their theories, they do both provide a unique outlook on how to overcome the selfish nature they found ran rampant in 19th century society.