Feed Your Mind! Civil, intelligent exchange of ideas on philosophical topics.
From casual hobbyist to lettered scholar, your philosophical musings are welcome here.
Off topic posts are subject to removal. Please see group keywords if you are in doubt.
No. Nothing seemed out of place. It was really helpful for me. I liked how he came at the religious aspect of Kierkegaard. I think that totally flies in the face of how a lot of the more conservatively religious interpret him - especially in terms of "should". Solomon said that what he was teaching was similar to Buddhism and Taoism which is what I thought when I read him, but Dreyfus didn't see it this way at all. I think I even wrote about that somewhere along the way. I loved Dreyfus presentation and got a ton out of it, but after having read Solomon's book on Nietzsche and hearing this lecture you've posted, I definitely think Solomon's understanding works better with my own. ,
Comments
Did Solomon's approach fit with the your previous understanding of Kierkegaard?
How about for you? Did something strike you as out of place?