not collaborative... each student was already familiar with the philosophers listed... I recall it was mostly about ontology and the ethics/responsibilities of being...marjoram_blues wrote:Imp - really appreciate your advice and encouragement, thanks.Impenitent wrote:It was part of a survey class... I remember comparing it to many other philosophers (Nietzsche, Kant, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Dostoyevsky - and quite a few others) ...marjoram_blues wrote:Imp - read, lecture, discussion. Don't suppose you still have the notes or schedule? I'm just curious to know how to read this book, to get the most out of it...was it broken down into excerpts which had to be read within a given time, and with a particular focus ?
read slowly and try to relate what K says to other philosophers with which you are familiar. keep in mind that K was a Christian apologist at heart (reasoned leaps of faith...)
when you read this book (or any ethics based book) ask yourself what kind of person can you be? what kind of person do you want to be? do k's arguments convince you?
enjoy it as you go and if you have questions, ask them here...
So, part of a survey class...does this mean that you and the other students were part of a collaborative learning/research project? How did that work ? Did each student pick a philosopher out of those listed ? And what was the result - an article, a book ?
I can't even begin to imagine how difficult comparative philosophy would be...well, yes I can
the result was a 15 or 20 page paper...