Free Comparative About Two Different Philosopher Essay Example

There are unique differences between Buddhism and existentialism. The uniqueness in differences mainly depends on the metaphysical traditions with unique phenomenological methodology. In the section of ethics, existentialism and Buddhism are different on how they influence the society. Proper understanding of the elements would mainly depend on the arguments by Nietzsche and The Buddha. There are controversial arguments by Nietzsche as he tries to argue against Buddhism. The influential arguments for the two are proper definition of Buddhism.
Nietzsche is the main pioneer of existentialism in the western world. He takes exclusive positions against Buddhism. He defends various problems in the society with exclusive challenges that come with the Buddhist philosophy. He attacks the Buddha through ethical prescription in comparison with the doctrine of life-affirmation that he preaches.
The Buddhism criticisms by Nietzsche define misunderstanding for the actual definition of Buddhist doctrine. He is the proper definition of the misunderstanding of Buddhism that exists in the West. There are unique definitions of how improper understanding of Buddhism and it is good to analyze them in the light of critiques by Nietzsche.
The interesting part of the differences between Nietzsche and the Buddha is on the common notion on which the two are grounded. The two arguments are mainly grounded on the human and world conditions. The commonalities are uniquely inclined to the epistemological views as well as the nihilistic attitudes of the Buddha and Nietzsche towards metaphysical issues.
The Buddha and Nietzsche Philosophers argue for a common stand in the habit of believing. They believe that it contains a substance, self-universals, and duration. However, the philosophers deny the facts concerning these things as they aim at favoring dynamism, and interdependent phenomenon stream that does not have any concrete basis.
Also, the Buddha and Nietzsche argue on the element of emptiness. The complexities and subtleties of the argument by the two philosophers run deep as each of them tries to come up with unique argument concerning the issue. However, their arguments are controversial. The Buddha is believed to have come up with exclusive awareness of the fleeting, temporal reality nature through his first encounters with a sick person, an old person, and a dead person. The Buddha argues that there are people born with the consumption of the soul. He describes them as the people who die long for the doctrines of weariness, as well as renunciation. He says those who wish to be dead should be allowed to die since it is at the expense of their soul.
Nietzsche is a corrected philosopher who comes up with unique argument on the same. To some point, he agrees with the philosophers where he defines Buddhism as a real. At this point, he compares the argument with Christianity where he says that Christianity was a representation of covert resentment. Buddhism proposes treatment for suffering in opposition to sin where the treatment is a representation of life surrender, and a weaker response to the human condition that is for the individual. He characterizes Buddhism as an escape for pain as people turn away from life and longing for nothingness. He contradicts his argument by talking of the argument by the Buddha as a rejection for livelihood.
Dukkha is the Sanskrit term that mainly means suffering. However, its meaning is wide, and it is sensitive in the definition of the Buddhist doctrine. The arguments by the Buddha on the basis of Dukkha brings Nietzsche in a controversial argument against the suffering belief by the Buddha. He analyses it as a simple definition of pessimism within Buddhism. The misinterpretation of the term Dukkha is a major element for controversy between the Buddhists. There are three flavors of Dukkha that people confuse causing misunderstanding in the non-Buddhist world. The different flavors have unique meanings. Therefore, they cause the extensive differences on how different people understand the philosopher.
The Sankhara-dukkha is the most important element of the Dukkha. It defines an existential incompleteness following the spirit of ignorance. The incompleteness is because of personal contingent and unenlightened point of view. At this point of argument, the Buddhist can easily convince Nietzsche on the meaning of suffering.
Nietzsche agrees with the Buddha on the significance of the noble truth in the definition of suffering. He argues that the birth, death, and disease are not only painful, but they result from spiritual ignorance. The argument is exclusive support for the argument by the Buddha. He manages to take the illusions by the Buddha to be true.
Also, the two philosophers take distinct positions when it comes to the sensitivity of actions that people undertake. Some actions enjoin together, and they frame the exclusive uniqueness of the Buddha in his argument on the topic. He argues that skillful actions result from natural undertakings by the Buddha. He continues to say that good actions are duties of the code of behavior. The activity that comes to an end is not an activity in general. It is a representation of unskillful actions that come from spiritual ignorance. The wrong actions encounter the goals of enlightenment. There is no proper room for proper livelihood if the necessary actions do not take place. However, the practice of the Buddha does show the practical results of taking an action of an issue. Instead, the actions that can be said to be meaningful in the line of religion enlightenment are because of the cessation of the actions that occur because of the biases thus, unenlightened.
Although, Nietzsche comes up with unique argument concerning the action in contrary to the idea of the Buddha, it would be difficult to believe his arguments. He seems not to define the proper knowledge of action and inaction. He shows no proper understanding of some of the arguments by the Buddha. There are unique elements such as Nirvana that Nietzsche does not understand, and he fails to describe them accordingly. The element is likely to make his argument null in comparison to the argument that the Buddha brings forth. Proper explanation or challenge of the argument by the Buddha could be more influential if the necessary definition of certain elements is taken seriously and proper understanding of the terms is clear in the presentation.
Nietzsche argues that the descriptions by the Buddha on the Nirvana element is the proper definition of illusions. He argues that nothingness is what remains when the illusion withdraws from the Buddhism definition. The Buddha does not pose equally challenging presentation that would convince Nietzsche on the application of Nirvana in the Buddhism religion. He fails to agree with the Buddha at all costs and aims at continuous challenge of the work. However, in his conclusion he fails to describe the uniqueness that comes with his thoughts he lacks a ground to prove to the Buddha that his challenges were valid. There are no proper rooms for explanation of Buddhism in the society. Nietzsche seems not to understand Buddhism by posing improper definition of Nirvana. According to the Buddha, the misunderstanding is following failure to practice the Buddhism.
The two philosophers come with unique arguments. In most cases, the Buddha defines a principle, and Nietzsche challenges the argument by countering it with another unique element of the argument. Nietzsche is a major challenge to the Buddha and his teachings for Buddhism. He poses concrete arguments that are challenging to the actual arguments. He is the proper definition of the challenges that the Buddhism would face. As a Western, Nietzsche believes in unique principles that cannot agree with the Buddha arguments. However, at some point, he succeeds in coming up with unique and proper definition of contrasting arguments by Nietzsche. The controversial words such as Dukkha and Nirvana bring in exclusive argument that is the proper definition of Buddhism and the contrary as Nietzsche tries to challenge the Buddha. It is interesting how the two philosophers define uniqueness in their thoughts and challenge for each other’s work.