1. Make you O.K. of Kierkegaard’s male parent learning technique? Explain. Are there similarities between his techniques and practical world? Are at that place differences?
Yes. I do O.K. of Kierkegaard’s learning technique. Basically Kierkegaard and his male parent were ever holding rational and emotional conversation wherever they were heading to. I feel that it is a signifier of simulation for Kierkegaard to acquire himself involved with God. It makes one feel that no affair where we are. we should ever set a spring of religion in God because he is ever there for us. So how is it utile? Such instruction will enable childs to turn up to be more advanced and originative. It is the procedure of turning something non-visual or non-sensory into concrete constructs in our heads. That transition is important for a child’s development. It allows a kid to take an abstract construct. like “democracy” and turn it into real-world things.
Schools frequently teach constructs. and they assume kids will of course make accurate. real-world images in their caputs. But they were ne’er taught how to conceive of something. Therefore the importance of such learning produce airy that may take to a better hereafter. a better universe. For illustration: politicians and scientists. Yes. there are similarity and difference with his techniques and practical world. By definition. practical world is an unreal environment which is experienced through centripetal stimulations ( as sights and sounds ) provided by a computing machine and in which one’s actions partly determine what happens in the environment.
The similarity is they both allow people to conceive of and visualize themselves in the practical environment and experience it. Gamers enjoy the esthesis and “real-life” conflicts between monster and them. Similarly. we. who believe in God. bask the esthesis of cognizing that he is by our side. But the difference is practical world relies on computing machines or engineering to help us in bring forthing the images while Kierkegaard’s father chose to depict every mulct inside informations and made usage of the functionality of encephalon to conceive of the description. Not to bury. everyone think otherwise. so the projection in the head would be different from one another.
2. Whom do you believe Kierkegaard identifies most with: the friend who doesn’t want to take or Williams? Or possibly both?
I think that Kierkegaard identifies himself as the friend the most. The friend said: “Get married. and you’ll regret it. Don’t acquire married and you’ll sorrow it. ” He is portion of what he believes it. Kierkegaard believes that subjectiveness is the truth. Either if Kierkegaard should acquire married or non. he would non cognize until he finds out himself. There is no nonsubjective truth in life. merely personal truth which varies for each person. William said about being refrained from taking because others have chosen for him. This contradicts to what he said about going reliable. A individual does non carry through anything unless he or she accomplishes it by themselves. by doing the experience their ain. If a individual chose non to take what they want. they will ne’er accomplish selfhood and go a true homo.
3. Compare the 2nd extract with Sartre’s theory of the experiential pick.
Sartre’s theory of the experiential pick believes that everyone ever have a pick. Even if we do non take. we really made a pick of non taking. There is ever a portion of us that we know we are non animate beings or inert things which allows us to do a pick merely because we know about our ain being and morality. In the 2nd extract. it is obvious that Williams’s theory clashed with Sartre’s. By accepting the fact that he has been refrained from taking. that is his pick of taking to believe in what others say. Despite. Sartre’s theory does non believe in God. both Kierkegaard and Sartre believe that we should all do our ain picks alternatively of allowing them make up one’s mind our destiny. We are who we are merely if we make our ain picks.