Talk:Søren Kierkegaard/Archive 2

Influenced by Hegel?
An anonymous editor has been removing Hegel as an influence in the template. There has been more than one debate over the use of "influence" here. Does a thinker have to be a follower of another thinker in order to be influenced? For instance, Kierkegaard was undoubtedly influenced by Hegel, but negatively influenced. Isn't influence just the power to have an effect? Or, as some such as the anonymous editor think, does the effect have to resemble the cause? Is it too misleading to list Hegel as an influence? FranksValli 08:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bertrand Russell was positively influenced by Hegel (and the British Hegelians) during his time at Cambridge University before the revolt against Hegel and the British Hegelians and the rise of analytic philosophy, for example Russell's Essay on the Foundations of Geometry is a self described Hegelian piece. (ref. Russell's "My Philosophical Development")
 * Likewise, Kierkegaard was positively influenced by Hegel (and the Danish Hegelians) during his time at Copenhagen University, but later revolted against Hegel and Danish Hegelians and the founding of his very unique philosophy.
 * Thus, one could make the claim that Hegel both influenced Russell and analytic philosophy as well as Kierkegaard and his philosophy, both very negatively and in very different ways. But people don't usually list Russell as influenced by Hegel.  Why? Probably because (I think) Russell uses Fregeian and Moorean terminology to discredit Hegelianism.  Kierkegaard, as his pseudonyms, (and Marx) use Hegelian terminology, if ironically in K's case, to discredit Hegelianism.

So I'm a bit divided on the issue; though I would like to read the anon's justification for removing Hegel. Poor Yorick 11:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is often said K didn't understand Hegel. What is the evidence that he read him directly?
 * One of the great benefits of purposely obscure, senseless writing is that incomprehension can be attributed to misunderstanding. "You see," said the professor condescendingly, "you are simply unable to plumb the profound depths of this genius."Lestrade 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Lestrade


 * K does read and study Hegel, especially when he was at the University of Copenhagen. The Concept of Irony in 1841 is his university thesis, and he clearly references Hegel and is much more friendly to him than his future works.  Kierkegaard also had Hegel's original works in his personal collection, and he referenced them during his authorship.  In the bibliographies of Kierkegaard's Writings (Princeton University Press), K had at least

and much more than I care to list out. Some of his journal entries also make reference to specific passages in Hegel's works, such as H's Aesthetics (JP 41-42 III C 33). If you'd like to read more about H and K, see some works by J. Stewart and M. Westphal. Poor Yorick 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2 editions of Science of Logic
 * 1 edition of Lectures on the History of Philosophy
 * 2 editions of Phenomenology of Mind
 * 1 edition of Philosophy of Nature


 * Thanks for your knowledge on this subject Poor Yorick. Maybe in the end it is too misleading or complicated to list Hegel in the infobox?  Anyhow, Hegel is definitely mentioned in the article (and in Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard), so anyone who wants to know in-depth can understand the influence.  I also saw your sig on philosophyforums.com with a quote that would be fun to copy here :)


 * "I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity: in our common stupidity."
 * - Søren Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard is always described by scholars as influenced by Hegel, so much so that it would be a glaring omission not to include Hegel in his list of influences. And there is good reason for this scholarly opinion. It is often necessary, in order to properly understand much of Kierkegaard's work, to have a prior understanding of certain Hegelian concepts. As already mentioned by another commentor, one of his works, The Concept of Irony, is strongly Hegelian. That book alone ought to be enough to put Hegel on Kierkegaard's list of influences. In his later work he is often very critical of Hegel, but he nonetheless incorporated Hegelian ideas into his philosophy. "The Present Age," for instance, relies heavily on the Hegelian idea of dialectical synthesis for its central insight. It would be absurd to read that text and claim that Kierkegaard was not influenced by Hegel. 75.34.14.9 04:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Kierkegaard regarding Hegel: “I feel what for me at times is an enigmatical respect for Hegel...I have learned much from him...His philosophical knowledge, his amazing learning, the insight of his genius, and everything else good that can be said of a philosopher I am as willing to acknowledge as any disciple.” (From his private journals, 2/221).

Jon Stewart's recent book (http://www.amazon.com/Kierkegaards-Relations-Reconsidered-European-Philosophy/dp/0521828384/sr=8-3/qid=1161791819/ref=sr_1_3/002-0660122-3652065?ie=UTF8&s=books), which has received positive reception in the philosophical community, provides plenty of examples in which Kierkegaard is influenced "not only negatively, but positively" by Hegel. The Amazon page and various reviews of it available online summarize some of the main points.

Even if the majority of the scholarly community saw matters the way Jon Stewart suggests they have in the past (emphasizing only Kierkegaard's oppositions to Hegel and not the things he actually took from Hegel), that would still be enough to show that Kierkegaard has always been taken to be "influenced" by Hegel. First of all, at least one book by Kierkegaard, the Concept of Irony (a brilliant work which still gets studied, so we can't write it off as unimportant as an aspect of Kierkegaard's work) is very much a Hegelian work. He explains aspects of Hegel's philosophy and then draws conclusions from them about his own thesis. So there can be no question that at least some of Kierkegaard's works were very much positively influenced by Hegel, and if *some* of an author's works (but not others) are influenced by someone, that is certainly enough to count that someone as one of his influences.

Second of all, even when Kierkegaard is responding negatively to Hegel, Hegelian philosophy is still functioning as a powerful influence on what Kierkegaard decides to write on and how to write about it (how else could he directly counter Hegel?). A negative influence is still an influence. But as I've said, aside from these two things, Kierkegaard's later and most famous works also contain *positive* influences by Hegel. As my above comment states, "The Present Age" features a clear example (though modified interestingly for his own purposes) of the Hegelian dialectic. This is only one example among many, as looking at reviews of Stewart's book will reveal for the curious.

Aside from just being obviously correct, the fact that Kierkegaard is influenced by Hegel is seen to be obviously correct by the general scholarly community, so much so that not listing Hegel as an influence of Kierkegaard would be to make the Wikipedia article seem to be backing some bizarre viewpoint over generally accepted opinion.
 * (There was a time when the general scholarly community agreed, as being obviously correct, that the sun revolved around the earth. This was the generally accepted opinion at the time. Other viewpoints were considered to be bizarre.)Lestrade 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

"Hegel also influenced existentialism through the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard." (http://encarta.msn.com/text_761552560__1/Hegel.html)

"Søren Aabye Kierkegaard was also strongly influenced by Hegel not only in his extensive use of dialectics but also in his employment of other Hegelian concepts and is therefore called sometimes as one of the right Hegelians" (http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/europ19/lect_7.html)- I'm not so sure about that last bit, personally, but scroll down to the "Philosophy" section to see the quote. The passage goes on to list all the many ways Kierkegaard opposed Hegel's philosophy, which is of course true, but he also borrowed many concepts and techniques from Hegel.

Even Wikipedia used to list Kierkegaard, along with "Feuerbach, Marx, and Engels" as people Hegel influenced, "although all of them opposed the most central themes of Hegel's philosophy." Being influenced by someone does not mean you can't think they're wrong about nearly everything. I got this quote from this fairly crappy and, I assume, infrequently updated Wikipedia mirror: http://g.w.f.hegel.en.xanax-prescription.be/ because I didn't feel like sorting through the history to find out where someone (perhaps the same insistent anonymous individual who keeps deleting the Hegel reference here?) deleted that and other references to Kierkegaard's being influenced by Hegel.

I have seen no decent arguments whatsoever for why Hegel ought not be listed as an influence of Kierkegaard. Certainly the relation between Hegel and Kierkegaard is an interesting and complex one, but no one upon seeing a philosopher listed as an influence of another will think that means the latter agrees with everything the former says. That is not how philosophical influence works. Rainada 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hitler influenced the whole world, but had no influence on modern thinking
It's a little bit like thinking about who was influenced by Hitler. Was Churchill influenced by Hitler? Certainly, since he was his strongest enemy. But was Churchill's thinking influenced by Hitler? Not in any respect. The same is with Hegel and Kierkegaard: The latter critisised the Hegelianism and made laughter of it, but was not influenced at any time and in any respect of his thinking from Hegel. If you claim that Kierkegaard was indeed influenced in his philosophising by Hegel, then plesae give references from Kierkegaard's own work. But, please, do not just claim that K. read some Hegelian works. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (04112006)


 * We wouldn't say Churchill was influenced by Hitler in the sense that is relevant here, because, while Churchill opposed Hitler militarily, he did not spend much time addressing Nazi ideology, he did not appropriate any of its elements into his own political views, he did not even spend time attempting to refute its claims. So this is a poor analogy for Kierkegaard's relation to Hegel: Kierkegaard did directly address Hegel's philosophy, did appropriate many Hegelian elements into his own work, in addition to spending a lot of time criticizing Hegel. This has been spelled out in some detail by others above, and you have failed (here and in your multiple edits on the article as recorded in the history page) to address the piles of evidence that have been collected above. You ask for "references from Kierkegaard's own work", but plenty of this has been given above. Perhaps you think the evidence that has so far been given is insufficient—but if that's the case, then you ought to argue that the current crop of evidence is insufficient. Furthermore, you seem to assume that it's never appropriate to say that X was one of Y's philosophical influences if Y only ever criticized X. And this would be a poor principle of philosophical genealogy: consider the absurd consequences for a case where the entirety of Y's contribution to philosophy consists of Y's criticisms of X. (Again, as has been explained above, this principle does not apply to the case at hand, but it is a poor principle in itself.) Flyingricepaddy 20:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You forgot one important thing: To give a single and simple reference from the works of Kierkegaard that clearly shows the "influence of Hegel on Kierkegaard". Please give a quotation from Kierkegaard's works that could be read as a sign of influence. If you cannot do that, then you (not I) have a problem. Kierkegaard was even less influenced and affected by Hegel's philosophy than Schopenhauer was. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (08112006)


 * Mr. Hans Rosenthal, I copied this snippet from the section directly above this one, which has already dealt with this issue AND come to consensus about it.: "Quote from Kierkegaard regarding Hegel: “I feel what for me at times is an enigmatical respect for Hegel...I have learned much from him...His philosophical knowledge, his amazing learning, the insight of his genius, and everything else good that can be said of a philosopher I am as willing to acknowledge as any disciple.” (From his private journals, 2/221)." There is also this playful dig on Hegel's dailectical philosophy in Either/Or: "Marry, and you will regret it. Do not marry, and you will also regret it. Marry or do not marry, you will regret it either way. Whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the stupidities of the world, and you will regret it; weep over them, and you will also regret it. Laugh at the stupidities of the world or weep over them, you will regret it either way. Whether you laugh at the stupidities of the world or you weep over them, you will regret it either way. Trust a girl, and you will regret it. Do not trust her, and you will also regret it. ... Hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way. Whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way. This, gentlemen, is the quintessence of all the wisdom of life." In addition, there is his dissertation (and first published work) The Concept of Irony, which is written in hegelian style and appropriates hegelian themes,while later on Fear and Trembling uses the story of Abraham and Isaac to show the problem of faith in Hegel's system.  Kierkegaard's writings show that he had an intellectual relationship with Hegel's ideas and that it affected his own work.  Please stop removing Hegel from the infobox now. - Sam 03:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Kierkegaard was negatively influenced by Hegel, meaning that Hegel defined the philosophical landscape that Kierkegaard was working in and against. The question of whether Hegel should be listed in Kierkegaard's influences box falls on two questions:
 * 1) Should the philosopher's infobox list both positive and negative influences, or just positives. I have mentioned above that Bertrand Russell was positively influenced by Hegel in his earlier days, but later criticized Hegel. Hegel is not listed as an influence on Russell's page.
 * 2) Was Kierkegaard really positively influenced by Hegel? This question would have been a straightforward NO, up to the 1980s. Commendable research by today's scholars, such as J. Stewart's "Kierkegaard's Relations to Hegel Reconsidered" has done much to re-open this question for debate. Poor Yorick 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why it would be odd to list Hegel as an influence on Russell is not that Russell's work only dealt with Hegelianism negatively; rather, the relevant consideration is that, past a certain point, Russell's work exhibits no concern for Hegelianism, either positively or negatively (as far as I can tell). If you read a central work like "On Denoting", you'd never guess that he was a Hegelian in his philosophical infancy, unless you already knew that. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, and quite unlike Russell, (a) directly criticizes and responds to Hegelianism, and also (b) uses characteristic Hegelian tropes (see Rainada's comment below), and (c) uses characteristically Hegelian concepts like mediation (see the index of just about anything Kierkegaard ever wrote). Flyingricepaddy 06:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I mentioned something similiar to that as well. In his pseudonymous works, Kierkegaard, or rather his pseudonyms, uses Hegelian terminology to discredit Hegelianism, Russell doesn't. But reading his signed works and taking Kierkegaard's entire authorship as a whole; K precedes from totally different assumptions than Hegel, for example, on their views of truths (one as a System, one as an individual). So I'm on the fence on this issue. Poor Yorick 08:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A clarification for those who still insist on having the name of "Hegel" mentioned in the Kierkegaard infobox: Was Charlie Chaplin influenced by Hitler, when he wrote The Great Dictator? Certainly. Chaplin would not have made this movie if he did not know of Hitler. But would you add to the Chaplin infobox that he was influenced by Hitler? Hardly. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (08112006)

One of the most obvious ways Kierkegaard draws from Hegel is in his use of modified Hegelian dialectic. Sometimes he mocks this method or uses it against Hegel, and certainly he employs it in different ways than Hegel did, but he nonetheless uses this distinctly Hegelian method for positive purposes all through his work. In Fear and Trembling, faith is described as a sort of synthesis of the aesthetic and the ethical. The ethical individual, transcends the aesthetic, abandons its "silence" in favor of disclosure and abandons its hope that its desires will be fulfilled in favor of quiet resignation. The religious individual, the knight of faith, transcends this state, but like the aesthetic individual is silent, and believes that he will receive what he desires. The ordinary person gets finitude, his finite desires; the knight of resignation gives that up for infinity, but the knight of faith gets both. Similarly, in The Present Age, Kierkegaard argues that what is needed is a synthesis of reflection and passion. These ideas are very clearly influenced by Hegel's concept of dialectical synthesis. Rainada 17:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is useful to have a glance at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/

where you may read, why Hegel did not influence Kierkegaard. Please have a look at chapter "6. Kierkegaard's Politics", where the author William McDonald gives an example of the kind of "influence" that Hegel had on Kierkegaard. Here follows a short quote:

"While Kierkegaard greatly admired Hegel, he had grave reservations about Hegelianism and its bombastic promises. Hegel would have been the greatest thinker who ever lived, said Kierkegaard, if only he had regarded his system as a thought-experiment. Instead he took himself seriously to have reached the truth, and so rendered himself comical."

As I said before, Kierkegaard did not take Hegel for serious (he may have admired the person of Hegel, but he made laughter of his philosophy, the so-called Hegelianism).

So in which way was Kierkegaard influenced by Hegel ? In the way that he criticized Hegel's philosophy (the Hegelianism) ? Hardly. You may admire a philosopher for the influence on history he or she had, but at the same time that philosopher's influence may simply disgust you. (I admire Marx, but not Marxism.)

Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (17112006)

Cultural depictions of Soren Kierkegaard
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  17:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Should Hegel be added in the infobox as one of Kierkegaard's influences?
Should Hegel be added in the infobox as one of Kierkegaard's influences? All in favor please write Yes followed by your name. All against please write No followed by your name. A statement following this is optional. As is Wikipedia policy, consensus opinion will determine the placement, or lack thereof, of "Hegel" in the infobox.


 * Yes FranksValli 09:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC). Much of the debate hinges on one's definition of "influence", which in my opinion (and the opinion of many above) doesn't preclude "negative influence".  No one has thus far denied that Kierkegaard was critical of Hegel - but it is impossible for someone to be critical of something unless they have been influenced by it in some way (i.e. negatively influenced).  Further, any potential ambiguity is cleared up 1) in the opening paragraph of the article ("Kierkegaard strongly criticized... the Hegelian philosophy of his time..."), 2) the Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard]] subpage, and if Hegel is to be included in the infobox, 3) a footnote with "a quotation from Kierkegaard's works that could be read as a sign of influence", which was originally provided by Sam as per Hans Rosenthal's request (Nov 8, 2006): '"I feel what for me at times is an enigmatical respect for Hegel...I have learned much from him...His philosophical knowledge, his amazing learning, the insight of his genius, and everything else good that can be said of a philosopher I am as willing to acknowledge as any disciple." (From his private journals, 2/221).'


 * Neutral Poor Yorick 11:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I'm pretty neutral on this matter. I could not find much in Kierkegaard's mature philosophy (excluding works of youth) as supporting any Hegelian ideas, except for his irony and parodying of Hegelian philosophy and language, a fact that, in-itself, could be considered positive, as Frank argues above. The last few sections in The Present Age could also be considered Hegelian, although it could be Kantian.


 * As for Sam's quote, I looked it up on the Hannay translation and I confirm it. It's not wholeheartedly critical of Hegel, but it doesn't seem exactly complimentary either. This is the quote in its entirety:

I here request the reader's attention for an observation I have often wished to make. Do not misunderstand me. I do not fancy myself a devil of a thinker who would remodel everything, etc. Such thoughts are as far as they could be from my mind. I nurture what is for me at times a puzzling respect for Hegel; I have learned much from him, and I know very well that I can still learn much more when I return to him again. The only thing I give myself credit for is sound natural abilities and a certain honesty which is armed with a sharp eye for the comical. I have lived, and am perhaps uncommonly tried in the casibus of life, in the confidence in an open road for thought might be found; I have resorted to the works of the philosophers and among them Hegel's. But here is where he leaves me in the lurch. His philosophical knowledge, his amazing learning, the insight of his genius, and everything else good that can be said of a philosopher, I am willing to acknowledge as any disciple. Yet, no, not acknowledge -- that is too distinguished an expression -- willing to admire, willing to learn from him. But nevertheless, it is no less true that someone who is really tested in life, who in his need resorts to thought, will find Hegel comical despite all his greatness. p.195, Papers and Journals (ref 45 VI B 54:12, trans. Hannay)


 * I say Yes Glump 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC), at least in the same way that, say, Kant was influenced by Hume; Hegel was a big part of what Kierkegaard was reacting against.


 * Yes - but Sam, while I am in full support of including Hegel for the reasons we have already discussed, I do not think that this vote should be used as justification for permanently fixing him there. Consensus building is a guidline, not a policy, whereas Consensus can change is policy.  Per that policy: "Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding."


 * In light of this, I think that having a poll is good idea, in order to better understand where the community stands here, and whether Mr. Rosenthal is the only person in disagreement, or rather always the first person to make the change. I submit that at the end of one week the poll be closed, and upon review of the results, post on the RFC page.  I firmly believe that the academic evidence and scholarly opinion shows that K was significantly influenced by Hegel, but the article and the community would not be served in the best possible way by relying on this vote alone. - Sam 23:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes for reasons given elsewhere. Rainada 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * yes Of course! His prime negative influence. 88888 20:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if five or even five Wikipedians say "Yes", then a single voice should shut down. This is the kind of democracy involved by those who also like to have an article like "ogrish.com" to remain within the encyclopedia Wikipedia. An article that leads you to view how living persons are killed while a camera makes a shot of the Kopfabschneidung. You are my favorite friends. You seem to be the ones who make the Wikipedia a quantaty. I disgust you. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122006)


 * It was a democratic vote that sentenced Socrates to death. Yes, sometimes the majority can be wrong.  Sometimes also the single voice, the solitary individual, can be wrong.  FranksValli 06:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, negative Influence is still Influence. There are at least 2 books, one by N. Thulstrup and one by J. Stewart, that I am aware of on this subject. Pomonomo2003 12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor Criticism
"Kierkegaard would have said that this requirement for 'proof that it is God' relies on reason alone, and Kierkegaard believes that faith in God transcends 'reason alone' and belongs to the existential sphere of the individual who must take decisions that may influence his entire life and eternal salvation despite the uncertainty surrounding his concrete situation."

This sentance has been on this article for way too long. This is border-line original research speculating about how Kierkegaard "would have" responded, and I strongly doubt he would make an appeal to rationality -let alone reason alone. Unless someone can find a source for this response, I recommend deleting it -or reversing the way Kierkegaard "would" respond.

When describing the immortality of the soul Kierkegaard noted the true proof was not external, but internal. That is to say, if you don't have something inside telling you, "I'm going to live forever!" Then you do not have the proof.

Abraham had no external, verifiable justification to believe the angel or the voice he heard was God. Kierkegaard does not want to hide this fact! He wants you to feel the temptation to say, "Maybe it was a youngster prank...", Or, "Maybe it was the chili I ate last night...", so as to evade the solitary voice inside telling him, "Yes, Abraham, that IS God's voice." -Even when no one would understand or agree.

Silento's claim is that Abraham was not living by the external indicators but by that inner voice even when it assured the destruction of himself and his family. To say Kierkegaard would start defending Abraham on the basis of reason is a profound misunderstanding of Abraham and SK. Anyone making such a claim should go read Concluding Unscientific Postscript.

The earlier section on God as Being-In-Itself and Being-For-Itself is relevant, and it mirrors Kierkegaard's assertion that spirit is an existential contradiction (again, referencing the Postscript). The burning bush 03:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. And I agree, that sentence is poorly worded, though I believe the thought of that sentence comes from Chapter III of Philosophical Fragments, where Johannes Climacus says about proof's of God's existence (or proving existence, period):
 * The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to the Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it. I'll look into trying to reword it. Poor Yorick 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did my best to update the last paragraph in this section. There is likely some room to be improved upon. --The burning bush 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Postmodernism
Seems a touch dubious to list him as part of the postmodernist/poststructuralist school since he died just under a hundred years before such schools existed, at least according to their WP articles (as i recognize the issue is hairy and please don't tell me WP articles are not valid citations, that's not my point.) Certainly something he influenced, but school/tradition seems off. Am i missing something?


 * That's what the "precursor to" designates, as he's not part of the existentialist/pomo/poststruct/neo-orthodox schools, but that they've appropriated many of Kierkegaard's ideas into their respective schools. Poor Yorick 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Magister Artium
I corrected "Magistri Artium" to "Magister Artium". Magistri is the nominative plural ('masters') or the genitive singular ('of [a, the] master'). Whoever put "Magistri Artium" into the article was probably pulling it from Latin text such as "Gradum Magistri Artium", which means 'the degree of Master of Arts'.

Thnidu 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

can't listen to .ogg file for name
Dear Wikikin

I endeavoured to listen to the .ogg file to find out how to pronounce this philosopher's name a number of times but the webpage did not fire up. For some reason the opening was aborted. I wondered if it was because my version of Windows Media Player did not support these file types, but i then went and installed the Codec successfully. I also have Real Player installed as well. But no cigar. I intuit that there is something wrong with the Wikimedia linkage. I would appreciate someone developing this and informing me... or i am happy to remedy if somebody will 'learn me'
 * -D

Namaste in agape

Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

the pronounciation
The soundfile with the pronounciation (may be spelles incorrectly...) is to short. it says "søren kiegh" and stops... can anyoune please take a look at this?


 * Hi, it sounds alright. I hear "kie-ge-gore". Poor Yorick 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Death
The line about his death makes little sense - it says he died from complications from falling out of a tree as a child.