This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section on despair is seemingly short. There is alot more too it than that. There are about 6 or 7 different levels of despair, going from not realizing one is in despair, to embracing ones despair. I would do it, but I read Kierkegaard like 3 months ago in class and cant remember anything now. =/. Could osomebody please add to this section?
This page needs clean-up? Oh, wonderful--I love it when I can try to fix a bit and learn a helluva lot at the same time. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Sorry. I had to squee about it somewhere. Hee, excellent. Tamarkot 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is the history portion of the site? I remember it being here before.
-- Jmnage 13:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this seems like someone worked on this as part of an undergraduate philosophy class. It does not seem encyclopedic. And what is with the the pictures of calc books and Groundhog's Day? Definitely not encyclopeic. -- jabin1979 26 April 2006
As is the picture under individuality. "Try not to get lost in the crowd."???
Has Kierkegaard really been a "major" influence of postmodernism? I realise that nobody is entirely sure about what postmodernism is, but I've read a fair bit written by the ostensibly postmodern theorists, and they don't seem to invoke him all that often. I don't think the notion that truth is subjectivity, for example, is at all postmodern (postmodernism doesn't look for any non-social non-historical grounding for truth - objective, subjective or otherwise). I realise he might have had an indirect influence (via Heidegger, for example), but if you include indirect influences you get a bazillion "major" postmodern influences.
Shouldn't this be merged with the Kierkegaard article?
This analysis of Kierkegaard seems to be based primarily on a Marxist context. Having read most of Kierkegaard's major works, I have yet to detect the level of proto-Marxist thinking that this article seems to imply. I would like to see some specific references in regards to these ideas about mass production and abstraction. Otherwise, I'm going to have to edit the sections that include Marxist interpretations.
The Prodigal 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)The Prodigal
For secondary resources, I recommend Bruce Kirmmse's Kierkegaard in Golden Age Denmark, where it discusses his politics; and Karl Lowith's From Hegel to Nietzsche for an explicit comparison of Kierkegaard and Marx. Cheers, Poor Yorick 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I edited the sentence concerning the relationship between Kierkegaard and Socrates to read: "He measured himself against the model of philosophy which he found in Socrates, which aims to draw one's attention not to explanatory systems, but rather to the issue of how one is existing."
Then there was this bit of confusion involving Poor Yorick and edit conflicts. In the end Poor Yorick ended up putting this in the article: "He measured himself against the model of philosophy which he found in Socrates and preferred a philosophy that was fragmented and made deep insights, without committing to an encompassing all-explaining system."
This is almost, but not quite, identical to what was there before I did my edit. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, since there were some edit conflicts involved. Be that as may, I'm going to go back to my version. "Deep insights" is decidedly vague. And I don't know where Kierkegaard praises a fragmented philosophy, or where Socrates says anything about whether philosophy should be fragmented or not, or where Kierkegaard attributes the idea of fragmented philosophy to Socrates. On the other hand, he does go on about existence and Socrates and the Socratic attention to existence. This happens in various places, but I can reference the CUP. (Do we need page numbers? There's a longish bit about Socrates and existence, as contrasted with speculation, on pp.204-210 in the Hong&Hong edition.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingricepaddy ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that "Kierkegaard uses the same idea that Socrates used in his own writings". It is well known by students of philosophy that if Socrates ever wrote anything down, we have never discovered it. So while a minor factual inaccuracy, it casts doubt upon the accuracy of this section (I am not knowledgeable enough to fix this). I have added a disputed flag for this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatesurge ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I just expanded the section on despair to include the several types of despair and where one would find them. Feel free to clean it up if my prose seems opaque. Its hard to avoid and still do Kiekegaard justice. - Entity49 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entity49 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The section on individuality has a paragraph on Kierkegaard's view of the modern age. However, Kierkegaard wasn't around during the modern age. Comments about "media" and "mass production" are misleading because one gets a sense that it was Kierkegaard who said this. Perhaps, write what Kierkegaard said about the public and then create your own web-page containing your own views of the topic. I know too little about Kierkegaard to add his real views, but I get the sense that the views are those of the author and not those of a 19th century philosopher. Maybe quote him to support this argument.
Cacozelia ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead, the Self or ability for the self to be created from a relation to the Absolute or God (the Self can only be realized through a relation to God) arises as a relation between the relation of the Finite and Infinite relating back to the human. This would be a positive relation.
This paragraph makes no sense to me. The prose is poor, and "relation" is repeated in what seems a redundant manner.
In the "dread" section, a paragraph is spent discussing how original sin was generated when Adam ate the apple...wasn't it his wife who took the mortal munch? Telos ( talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Text says (section Alienation):
Did he really say so? Or should we try to reformulate the text so as to fit Kierkegaards time, in order to not allege thoughts that he never had (or?)? ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 11:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Besides the above criticism, this article is very good. It treats Kierkegaard philosophy very well, and I would only hope that more theologically oriented articles would treat the topic like this article does. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the person who put the tag on the article supposed to explain why the tag is there? 11614soup 18:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I would be interested in seeing some primary source material related to Kierkegaard and the Vedic system of the four aims of life. I think they should be removed. 11614soup 03:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Mattghg has removed an explanation which, although anachronistic, perfectly describes Kierkegaard's take upon objective and subjective truths. Since he did not describe his edit with a summary, I cannot know why he removed the explanation. Although Kierkegaard may not have thought of these very examples, some examples are useful in describing Kierkegaard's thought. I mean he perfectly understood that on certain issues there is a clash between science and religion, although science cannot refute purely theological assertions. So, I want some input about this deletion since imho the examples given, while not rendering Kierkegaard's Zeitgeist, do throw light upon a theme of his thinking. Of course, a reliable source explicitly relating similar examples to Kierkegaard's thought would be better than the examples chosen by me. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)