Talk:Søren Kierkegaard/Archive 1

pseudonyms

It should be discussed that his psyeudononemous or however you spell it (it's late and I'm tired) is a personal method of portraying his concept of irony, the clash between the internal and the external... the cambridge companion to kierkegaard is just fantastic giving a wide range of interpretations about K. First and foremost he was a poet/literary writer whose ideas are left to the mind to unravel. He is not as discreet as people like to read him as. But it's fitting, his philosophy allows for such interpretation. He's not trying to make you believe in anything! Believing in god is absurd. He's trying to lay a foundation for a subjective possibility of something else.

• Right, he didn't want to make people believe in anything if they don't want to, unlike Hegel who proclaimed his system was THE philosophical system. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 06:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• i just added a little blurb/summary of his thought, and in it i ntoed that pseudonymous writing in denmark was also part of the trend at the time among danish intellectuals.Oldseed 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sock Puppets and Meat Puppets in that age?--81.159.182.102 23:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute to this discussion, as I think it is one of the most baffling (?) and complex problems in Kierkegaards writings. His pseudonyms are not just playfull irony (irony being first of all a philosophic concept), they seem to me one of the most central themes in his thinking (see Meddelelses dialektik Papirer VIII/2 B 79-89). Irony and his pseudonyms are the only way one person can lead another to the belief in God (see J. Climacus, Philosophiske Smuler).

Requests

Some discussion of themes would be nice...

What was his philosophy?

• lol, good point. just added a blurb. hopefulyl this can be added on with a nice concise summary, before the in-depth analysis of the concepts themselves. Oldseed 06:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger

I moved this part here until it is expanded:

His work influenced Martin Heidegger.

How did his work influence Heidegger? Do you have references? Also, this should be its own paragraph or section, not just a sentence tacked on to the end. -Seth Mahoney 21:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

i was actually just translating from the french wiki. as for references, just type in "martin heidegger kierkegaard" in a search engine, and the influence of one on the other seems to be widely reported. Guppy 02:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation effort! My concern here is that there are no references in the article itself, and that there isn't enough content in that particular statement to be especially useful. I'll do as you suggest, though, and do a little searching to flesh it out over the next few days. -Seth Mahoney 03:02, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Particularly look to the concepts of "angst" or anxiety. Being and Time uses the concept in its foundation, as the mode of Dasein which is being-towards-death. Kierkegaard has a book on the concept.

Stevenchabot 23:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)American dream

Kierkegaard is mentioned three times in the notes to Sein und Zeit, on pages 190, 235 and 338. In these notes it becomes apparent, to what extent Heidegger appreciated the efforts of Kierkegaard to grasp the notion of "angst", "the Moment" (/temporality in general) and to think through the problem of existence. It should be noted, however, that, according to Heidegger, Kierkegaard failed on all points, a fact that Heidegger contributes to: 1) Kierkegaard's relationship to the philosophy of Hegel, 2) his (defective) interpretation of the ancient philosophers, and 3) his theological outlook. Kierkegaard is also mentioned in: Holzwege (p. 245), Was Heißt Denken? (p. 129), Nietzsche Bd. II (p. 472, pp. 475-480), Wegmarken (p. 11, p. 27, p. 40f. and p. 426f.) --Saperea 16:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger is always an ambiguous topic in relation to other philosophers. His interpretation of Nietzsche is widely regarded as faulty. Heidegger was a philosopher of great originality, but not of great erudition. Some call his interpretation of Kierkegaard "enthauptet", meaning decapitated.

Implication on Heidegger's views

This sentence: Atheistic philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger mostly support Kierkegaard's philosophical views, but criticize and reject his religious views. implies Heidegger was an atheist. However, there is no such statement from Heidegger himself. This label becomes widespread just after a lecture of Sartre from 1945 ("Existentialism is a Humanism"). I suggest the sentence is reworded to avoid that implication. Yuzz 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Name" section

Isn't the "Name" section a bit excessive? I can understand having a quick pronunciation explanation, but does an encyclopedia article really need such an extensive discussion of the etymology of one man's name, especially right at the beginning?

Hey, it's a difficult name. Even with the pronunciation guide, I can't get my tongue around it. :P

As a native dane I have to say that the ethymology behind the name is wildly inaccurate. It is correct that the litteral translation of surname is "Cemetary" but the fact that surnames were only catching on in Denmark at the time, however, is not. I suggest you remove that section (it doesn't really add anything) or at least do some more research.

Also, the last part of his name sounds more like "or" than "guard". The d is silent, and the "aa" combination is the old way of spelling what is today known as å. So it's more like "Keerkegorr".

Philosophy

In the second paragraph under "Kiekegaard's Thought", I wonder if it is best to describe the "leap of faith" as having faith (and doubt) in the existence of God. It seems to me that Kierkegaard was really talking about *trust* in God. Faith in God's existence may play a part, but it does not seem to be the central point to me. Any thoughts on this? --Earl-Grey 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored some sections that were excised by Grammatophile. Since he didn't post reasons, I can only guess why they were taken out. The restored sections are "Aesthetics" and "Despair," two concepts central to Kierkegaard's philosophy.

I also restored part of the "name" section. The correct pronounciation of the name seems article-worthy --it's quite different from how I had been pronouncing it previously.

I removed some sections on Marx. Although they were well written, they focused more on Marx than on Kierkegaard, and duplicated information already available in articles on Marx (to which I provided links).

I also edited the philosophical elements section to provide more organization and eliminate redundancy. This was necessary, as the article was approaching the 32K limit. The most major change I made was to reorganize several sections under the "Spheres of Existence" heading.

Kitoba 16:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kitoba, I assume this is yours http://ceh.kitoba.com/hook/kierkegaard.html as well as the "K. Narrative" section. First, "Fight Club" is after "High Fidelity". Second, I don't see how "Fight Club" fits the pattern. (As soon as I wrote that I thought: maybe it's vandalism, I mean "mayhem"... in that case, never mind.) Why not mention the rest of your examples from your webpage while you're at it.64.165.203.35 03:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

looked at history, Fight Club added Feb2 by 24.81.82.101, clearly a fellow member of Project Mayhem. Let's see how much longer it lasts till some one else fixes (removes) it. Great movie though; I'm sure K would have loved it.64.165.203.35 04:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good article in _New Yorker_ on K in the last month or two. fyi 64.165.203.35 03:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

point of classification

Somebody please defend calling Neitzsche an existential philosopher.

I'm with you on this one - I don't think that is an appropriate classification. In fact... -Seth Mahoney 23:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

The only defence I can offer is that he is widely listed amongst existentialist philosphers. Would you like me to google up some references online where he is listed as an existentialist? --Randolph 16:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's start with this quote from the stanford encylopedia of philosophy;

"Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher of the late 19th century who challenged the foundations of traditional morality and Christianity. He believed in life, creativity, health, and the realities of the world we live in, rather than those situated in a world beyond. Central to Nietzsche's philosophy is the idea of "life-affirmation," which involves an honest questioning of all doctrines which drain life's energies, however socially prevalent those views might be. Often referred to as one of the first "existentialist" philosophers, Nietzsche has inspired leading figures in all walks of cultural life, including dancers, poets, novelists, painters, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists and social revolutionaries."[1]

Do you want more? --Randolph 16:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) I've changed it back to the original text before Sethmahoney's edit, as what it was replaced by was not well worded. Neitzsche is listed as an existentialist, quite widely in fact, so I don't see why it's necessary to change the wording because one person disagrees with a popular categorisation of the aformentioned philospher. --Randolph 16:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's the point in defending Nietzsche as an existentialist (and, for the record, its two people who disagree with you thus far, not one)? Isn't this an article on Kierkegaard? At best, this is a debated point - existentialism is generally recognized as beginning with Sartre, and all prior "existentialists" (note the use of quotes in your selection) are more often referred to as proto-existentialists or just people who influenced existentialism or philosophers who took up the problems of human existence (note: if you want to use that definition for 'existentialist', try disincluding any given philosopher) than existentialists proper. Finally, also from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this time the article on Sartre: "He [Sartre, born 1905] is commonly considered the father of Existentialist philosophy, whose writings set the tone for intellectual life in the decade immediately following the Second World War." If Sartre was the "father of existentialist philosophy", how could someone who had died before Sartre was born have been an existentialist? -Seth Mahoney 19:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche is categorised under existentialism in the wikipedia article dealing with him personally, he is listed in the philosophers in the article dealing with existentialism itself, his links to existentialism are both recorded here on wikipedia and elsewhere on the interenet and in print. I was browsing through my local bookstore and found a book on philosophers and he was in the existentialist section of that book. The point in defending Nietzsche as an existentialist is that he has a relation to existentialsim. Not making note of that relationship does not do justice to the subject. I don't really want to have to go to all the trouble of digging up 20 articles from the internet which class Nietzsche as an existentialist when the argument you are presenting is the one lacking any proof from notable sources. At the moment all you have presented is your own personal take on the situation. I've at least quoted one article that clearly states his relationship to existentialism. Where is your source distancing him from existentialism? --Randolph 23:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a further source for your perusal. [2] The article is from an eductional institution, the title is existentialism, the subject is Nietzsche. I get 12 pages of hits on google with Nietzsche and existentialism. He is widely known as an existentialist. I'll change the article back and ask that you provide a notable source that support your claim that he is not an existentialist that can address the many other sources that say he is. Currently all you have is you POV with no sources. Without a source your POV is not relevant. --Randolph 23:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's with the hostility vibe going on here? Regardless, my POV, as you put it, is personally that Nietzsche was not an existentialist, but with respect to this article, recognizing that my POV is not the only one, all I'm saying is that Nietzsche's status as an existentialist is highly contested. Now, you bring up several points, which I'd like to respond to individually:

1. Nietzsche is categorized under existentialism in the wikipedia article dealing with him personally.

I assume you mean that the article Nietzsche belongs to Category:Existentialism or Category:Existentialists. This is false. You could also mean that the text of Nietzsche states that he is an existentialist. This is also false. The text says, "Nietzsche is important as a precursor of 20th century-existentialism, an inspiration for post-structuralism and an influence on postmodernism."

2. Your local bookstore has some book on existentialism and Nietzsche was in the book.

See response to number one. Nietzsche was an important proto-existentialist. Of course he will be mentioned in the book. The book may even have said, "Nietzsche was an existentialist." Other books will deny the claim, saying that while there are connections between Nietzsche and existentialism, Nietzsche's philosophy is too different to be accurately characterized as existentialist. In fact, I took a class on existentialism. We talked about Nietzsche a little, but never as an existentialist. What to make of this? As I said, Nietzsche's status as an existentialist is contested. Therefore, stating either way is POV.

3. There is a relationship between Nietzsche and existentialism.

Yup. No argument here. There is also a direct relationship between Plato and existentialism. Does that make Plato an existentialist?

4. I have not presented proof from notable sources.

I'll just cut and paste from my previous response:

Finally, also from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this time the article on Sartre: "He [Sartre, born 1905] is commonly considered the father of Existentialist philosophy, whose writings set the tone for intellectual life in the decade immediately following the Second World War." If Sartre was the "father of existentialist philosophy", how could someone who had died before Sartre was born have been an existentialist?

You validated the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as an acceptable source, but now you don't like it when it contradicts your claims?

5. I have only stated my opinion, while you have quoted an article that agrees with yours.

See number 4. Also, at least one of the articles you claim supports your claims (Nietzsche) is in agreement with what I'm saying, not what you're saying.

6. You provided a link to a class offered at Community College at Rhode Island that seems to claim Nietzsche was an existentialist.

Fine, let's play this game.

[3] "He was not an existentialist."

[4]"I include Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre, and Jaspers, although not Nietzsche, who is not an "existentialist" in any sense that makes him comparable to these other figures."

[5] "Sartre's philosophical career focuses, in its first phase, upon the construction of a philosophy of existence known as 'Existentialism'." (Remember, Sartre was born after Nietzsche died.)

There, now you have four sources (including the one I provided earlier). Now provide me with five. Then I'll provide you with six, then you can provide me with seven, and so on. Seem stupid? Yeah, it does to me too. So...

I'm not saying that Nietzsche had no influence on existentialism, or that certain aspects of existentialism can't be traced directly to Nietzsche. That would be a remarkably stupid and untenable position to adopt. What I am saying is that we have to draw the line on who was and who was not an existentialist somewhere, and I'm picking, and most of the rest of the world is picking, Sartre. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and many, many others had a profound influence on what would become existentialism proper, but there's no sense in calling them existentialists, or we'd also have to call Descartes, Plato, and several of the presocratics existentialists as well. So rather than getting in an "I can make a bigger appeal to authority than you can bitch fight, let's work together on this and find a way to actually create a short, NPOV reference to Nietzsche if he absolutely has to be mentioned in this article. -Seth Mahoney 00:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your point 1. is correct. I was mistaken in the categorisation. My apologies for that. I don't mean to come across as being antagonistic. I was typing at 4am when I was replying to your comments. That may have had some influence on the tone. I appreciate you providing sources as I think it's important to establish within this discussion that it is a point of debate from sources. I would like to discuss the construction of a better NPOV way of stating what you describe. Currently I think the statement about the strongly atheistic existentialism of Nietzsche, does not directly state that Nietzsche is an existentialist, rather makes the impliciation that his philosophy relates to existentialism.

Would you prefer this statement?

"(as opposed to the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre or the proto-existentialism of Friedrich Nietzsche, both being derived from a strongly atheistic foundation.]])."

I would think that this would succinctly describe Nietzsche's relationship without labelling him an existentialist. It makes people aware of the existence of the term proto-existentialism. It would also justify his inclusion in the statement, which seeks to draw a distinction between existentialism with it's roots in atheism and existentialism with it's roots in christianity. --Randolph 04:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to touch a nerve here (note how when people start sentences like that, they touch a nerve) but I personally think Nietzsche had a great effect on existential thought for the next century. Regardless of wether or not he was precursor to the existentialist movement, his ideas have touched it quite alot. In Thus spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche, through the mouth of Zarathustra said, "Uncanny is existence and still without meaning..." Isn't that an existentialist thought? If not, I don't know what is (as an existentialist myself). He goes on to say that he will teach men their meaning, though that may not be very existentialist, it is about a being that creates his own meaning, the Superman. The Superman is the existentialist hero. The one creature that creates, destroys and lives to his fullest in a dionysiac way, with dionysian passion. His values and virtues are his own. He lives for himself and for a life that is his own. Though Sartre had given Nietzsche a way to actually choose himself, a form of freedom, with responsibility, there is another thing. The Superman must be able to love the choices he made, for he will relive them. Eternal recurrence is extremely existential. User:Dionisian_Individual 10:56, July 15 2006

Works great for me! Thanks for taking the time to worry about my concerns - I really appreciate it. My apologies, also, if I came across as antagonistic, and, you know, I totally understand that it happens. We're all human, after all. Have you studied much Kierkegaard? This article and existential despair, The Sickness Unto Death, Fear and Trembling, and Either/Or, among others, I'm sure, could use some work if you're interested. -Seth Mahoney 05:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. :) I've updated the article. I have an interest in Kierkegaard, but not as much time and/or access to resources as I would like to really get into it in depth. Please accept my apologies also for the tone of the replies. I appreciate your focusing of the issue on finding an acceptable NPOV compromise that did justice to both sides of the debate. --Randolph 05:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that 140.203.7.37 has some issues with the changes. To quote from his/her recent edit,"(Sartre, Nietzsche, atheism: changed it back to what i originally put to see if eleven words in brackets could inspire another half-page of ridiculous pedantry)" I'll leave it between you two to work out this dispute. :) --Randolph 22:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I feel the article fails to encompass the full range of existential thought - 140.203.7.37

You are, of course, joking. Regardless, the article doesn't need to encompass the full range of existential thought. Leave that to existentialism. Also, it is generally preferred that you sign your posts with -~~~~ - this will automatically insert your user name as a link. -Seth Mahoney 23:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Page style

A recent edit has reminded me of something that has been niggling me about this page, that is the use of links in the subsection headings. This is supposed to be something that is avoided, according to the styleguide. I find it makes the article look like a rather poorly designed web page when I see the links in headings. Is anyone going to object if I rectify this? --Randolph 01:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

By all means, go for it! -Seth Mahoney 19:49, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. It's on my 'pending tasks' to remind me should I forget. --Randolph 00:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a few Suggestions

As someone who has not read much of Kierkegaard, I found this article informative, interesting, and for the most part, well presented. However, I had just a few concerns. For one, some of the ideas described had a suspiciously modern feel to them, others sounded notably like the ideas of other philosophers - notably Baudrillard (the concept of fantasy replacing reality and so on) and Hiedegger (In the 'Subjectivity' section, specifically - reference to 'self as a self'). I think someone well versed in Kierkegaard could read over these, and make sure that certain concepts arn't being projected onto his. From an academic point of view, I think there should be more references - ie, just telling which of Kierkegaard's works these ideas (for example, abstraction) came from. In the same vein, I think a longer list of his written works would not go astray. Finally, while I did like the section titled 'Subjectivity', the language was a little too informal. The question/answer format was a little condescending, and read more like an introduction to philosophy textbook than an encyclopedia article. Otherwise, as I've said, I thought it was very good. Prometheus912 13:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

--hi Prometheus. as it happens, Heidegger stole a lot of his ideas from Kierkegaard. This is commonly accepted by scholars. As for noting this in the article, it could be done but it's also not necessary. The most cursory examination reveals that Kierkegaard lived and died before Heidegger.

- Just so. Kierkegaard was an astonishingly "modern" mind; like he said himself, he was a "martyr" of his age. A great deal of modern philosophy has pretty much already been covered by him, not vice versa. Indeed, to be considered the father of or precursor to a philosophical movement as vast as existentialism necessarily entails a work that projected itself into the future, and almost always entails being copied and reworded later on. Aquilla

Subjectivity

I deleted the image of a precalculus textbook and its description "Scientific and historical textbooks are a source of objective knowledge and are existentially indifferent. Nothing subjective can be obtained from it." because the statement is untrue. History textbooks are very subjective in nature, one must only think of one's own experience in 3rd grade history as we were taught about Christopher Columbus. There is also subjectivity in science as well, as in the creation of theories, the scientific community as a whole develops many opinions, and theories must be justified ultimately to become accepted as fact User:ThusSpokeZarathustra 02:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• What Kierkegaard means by subjectivity is not that science/history is bias; subjectivity, the way Kierkegaard says it, are the fundamental truths of our existence. Objectivity is concerned with facts, (Water freezes at 0 degrees C, Chris Columbus sailed the Atlantic), subjectivity is concerned with ones actual existence. Textbooks can't tell you about your inner relationship to existence. If you read a textbook about skiing, with all its facts about the slope, the snow, the air, even factual data about how cold environment affects human skin, etc, is it the same as skiing? No. that's something what Kierkegaard's saying.

Several passages about this topic is in Concluding Unscientific Postscript:

All essential knowing pertains to existence, or only the knowing whose relation to existence is essential is essential knowing... all essential knowing is therefore essentially related to existence and to existing. Therefore, only ethical and ethical-religious knowing is essential knowing. But all ethical and all ethical-religious knowing is essentially a relating to the existing of the knower. - Concluding Unscientific Postscript.

Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 04:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears things up fairly well, though the main thing that troubled me was the statement "nothing subjective can be obtained from it." While the textbook can show us our relationship to the world, and convey many objective things, one may also glean subjectivity from it. Bias does not necessarily negate the presense of any objectivity, it merely adds another layer of subjectivity to it. ThusSpokeZarathustra 16:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Corsair Affair quote

Since the Kierkegaard's quote is his, I don't know whether his grammar is just wrong or what. I make suggestions in square brackets.: "The days of my authorship are past, God be praised. I have been granted the satisfaction of bring[ing] it to a conclusion of[by?] myself, understanding when it is fitting that I should make an end, and next after the publication of Either/Or I thank God for that. That this, once again, is not how people would see it, that I could actually prove in two words that it is so. I know quite well and find [it?] quite in order. But it has pained me; it seemed to me that I might have asked for that admission; but let it be.Johnor 06:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, this is Alexander Dru's translation of K's journals and grammar. That being said, I've double checked the entry

• "bringing" is right
• "conclusion of myself" is right, since Kierkegaard's authorship is sort of an autobiography and thus usually a reflection of himself.
  • Thanks for your prompt attention. I still might have a friendly quarrel with you on this one. I think he is still saying that he is the one who is ending it, not the publisher or someone else. It is a self-determined act that the public will not perceive that way. So I believe "conclusion by myself" should be the way it is translated/written. Thanks again.Johnor 16:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting interpretation; ok, you've convinced me I'll make an adjustment to the translation Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 08:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• "find quite in order" is how Dru wrote it, but it makes sense to put an it there: K's refering to his authorship.

I'll make the appropriate changes.Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 07:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible hoax on AfD

Do any of you philosophy people know anything about the Two Kierkegaards Theorum? It is currently up for deletion here. Some expert advice would be great. --LeftyG 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• • There was an article on pages 313-322 of Philosophy Today (1972) about the two Kierkegaards. There is some mention of this 'two Kierkegaards' idea in Richardson's Religion and Science ... . He writes of a dialectical process that shuttles between religious belief and reason and refers to Kierkegaard's custom of signing his writing pseudononymously when he takes on one of the antipodes of the position. Is this what the 'two Kierkegaard's theorem' is? I put this remark in the discussion of the theorem by mistake, then I removed it. Is there another place where the discussion is going on. It says not to modify it. Johnor 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Split Two

This article's gotten really big (~80kb), so I decided to split the philosophical bulk of the article into another article titled the Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard, and leave the biographical/journal entries in this article. I've left the short intro to his thought as a lead in to his new article. Any comments? Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 13:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Olavious sketch of SK now available

A new sketch of Kierkegaard is now available on Commons:

Soren Kierkegaard in the coffee-house. Sketch in oils by Christian Olavious, 1843

Feel free to use in the article :)

FranksValli 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

He looks like he could have been a boxing promoter Johnor 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:) 24.126.217.68 06:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done!

Great article and great to see it as a featured article!

A couple of comments:

It is a bit surprising to see 'The Seducer's Diary' hardly gets a mention in the article. In the sixties, hippie times, growing long hair and having that book (along with Marx and Heidegger) in your pocket was part of the standard outfit kit in Europe. The Seducer's Diary together with Either/Or are the two works that survived to popular memory outside specialist circles.

Kierkegaard was strongly influenced by Mozart's music. He wrote about it endlessly and was in particular admirative of the opera Don Juan and refer to this again and again in his analysis of ethic versus aesthetic values. This influence is perhaps worth a mention too.

Finally, a commenter earlier on asked 'so what is his philosophy?'. Good question, but he didn't get an answer. One could fear it indicates that the article miss to convey the big picture there. The point here is that Kierkegaard did not see philosophy as a puzzle and the philospher's role to provide a unique solution ('a philosophy'). Rather his work was to provide improved or new pieces to the puzzle and inspire anybody to build their individual and personal world out of the many pieces.

--Uffe 23:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm a newbie in wiki and don't dare to touch the very good article. Although I'm from his hometown, Copenhagen, I'm not an expert on Kierkegaard. I just hope this contribution can inspire somebody more expert to further improve the article.

Thanks for the compliment. As for your points: 1. I'll look into Either/Or and the 60s reference, thanks for the mention. 2. Mozart and Goethe are mentioned in the article Either/Or 3. some of his themes are mentioned in Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard, although I think it needs some revision there. Cheers! Poor Yorick 05:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

An audio file would help.

I am not fluent with IPA, so to me the IPA spelling is as useful as a firefighter with a flamethrower. Also, the IPA symbols used are a little exotic to me so it only makes pronunciation ever harder. If possible could somebody insert an sound file with the person saying Kierkegaard's name. -67.41.245.198 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. There are a lot of philosophers whose articles would benefit from audio pronunciations. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Foucault, Sartre, Heidegger, and Baudrillard come to mind immediately. -Smahoney 01:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche is pronounced (nee-chuh)(nē'chə) and Heidegger is pronounced (high-de-gur)(hī'də'ger). The other names are still hard for me to pronounce.--67.41.245.198 20:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I also added the suggestion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. I don't have a good computer setup for recording myself, or know the technical details. But hopefully someone else will run with the idea. -Smahoney 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What is really important is to find a native speaker of Danish for this recording. I have asked on the Danish talk page long time ago, so far no results. I have a radical idea though. If somebody has a phone recorder or something, you can just call some philosophy department in Denmark and ask directly while recording the conversation :) 212.199.22.69 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Most computers (should) have a sound recorder. For Windows just go to the "Start" menu, then go to "Accessories", and the go to "Entertainment" and it should be there. (Why must Danish language letter so unnecessarily complicated to pronounce.) --67.41.245.198 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, they're not complicated for Danes to pronounce! I actually don't use Windows, but its more that I don't have the hardware. Even more, I guess, I don't trust my pronunciation skills. -Smahoney 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a native Dane who posted in the "name" topic, but he didn't even leave his name.--67.41.245.198 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Danes pronounce it "Sear-en Kirkegaar", but I might be wrong. FranksValli 23:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm Danish, and I'd explain the pronunciation like this: Take the English word "sir" and add an 'n': "sir" + n, with a clearly vocalized "r" like in "surrender". Incidentally, cutting "der" from "surrender", and swapping the length of the vowels in "surren" is another good rendering of the pronunciation of "Soeren". The "ir" in "Kirke" is close to "ir" in the English "irrelevant", and "gaard" is pronounced like the former U.S. vice-president Gore, but with a shorter and more open vowel.

3. english translation

The article says: "A third official translation, spearheaded by the Søren Kierkegaard Research Center, will contain 55 volumes and is expected to be completed by 2009." - If you read the ref-article it says: "With its 55 volumes, to be completed by 2009, this is the largest comprehensive edition of Danish literature in a century, if not in all of Danish history. This Danish edition will subsequently be translated into English, German, French, Spanish, and Chinese."[6] The word that should be noted here is subsequently. "Subsequently" could mean 2011, easily 2020 and even 2030, but certainly not later in 2009. This has to be corrected. --Anjoe 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)