1. Do you approve of Kierkegaard’s father teaching technique? Explain. Are there similarities between his techniques and virtual reality? Are there differences?
Yes, I do approve of Kierkegaard’s teaching technique. Basically Kierkegaard and his father were always having intellectual and emotional conversation wherever they were heading to. I feel that it is a form of simulation for Kierkegaard to get himself involved with God. It makes one feel that no matter where we are, we should always put a leap of faith in God because he is always there for us. So how is it useful? Such teaching will enable kids to grow up to be more innovative and creative. It is the process of turning something non-visual or non-sensory into concrete concepts in our minds. That conversion is crucial for a child’s development. It allows a child to take an abstract concept, like “democracy” and turn it into real-world things.
Schools often teach concepts, and they assume children will naturally create accurate, real-world images in their heads. But they were never taught how to imagine something. Therefore the importance of such teaching produce visionary that may lead to a better future, a better world. For example: politicians and scientists. Yes, there are similarity and difference with his techniques and virtual reality. By definition, virtual reality is an artificial environment which is experienced through sensory stimuli (as sights and sounds) provided by a computer and in which one’s actions partially determine what happens in the environment.
The similarity is they both allow people to imagine and picture themselves in the virtual environment and feel it. Gamers enjoy the sensation and “real-life” battles between monster and them. Similarly, we, who believe in God, enjoy the sensation of knowing that he is by our side. But the difference is virtual reality relies on computers or technology to aid us in producing the images while Kierkegaard’s father chose to describe every fine details and made use of the functionality of brain to imagine the description. Not to forget, everyone think differently, so the projection in the mind would be different from one another.
2. Whom do you think Kierkegaard identifies most with: the friend who doesn’t want to choose or Williams? Or perhaps both?
I think that Kierkegaard identifies himself as the friend the most. The friend said: “Get married, and you’ll regret it. Don’t get married and you’ll regret it.” He is part of what he believes it. Kierkegaard believes that subjectivity is the truth. Either if Kierkegaard should get married or not, he would not know until he finds out himself. There is no objective truth in life, only personal truth which varies for each individual. William said about being refrained from choosing because others have chosen for him. This contradicts to what he said about becoming authentic. A person does not accomplish anything unless he or she accomplishes it by themselves, by making the experience their own. If a person chose not to choose what they want, they will never achieve selfhood and become a true human.
3. Compare the second excerpt with Sartre’s theory of the existential choice.
Sartre’s theory of the existential choice believes that everyone always have a choice. Even if we do not choose, we actually made a choice of not choosing. There is always a part of us that we know we are not animals or inert things which allows us to make a choice simply because we know about our own existence and morality. In the second excerpt, it is obvious that Williams’s theory clashed with Sartre’s. By accepting the fact that he has been refrained from choosing, that is his choice of choosing to believe in what others say. Despite, Sartre’s theory does not believe in God, both Kierkegaard and Sartre believe that we should all make our own choices instead of letting them decide our fate. We are who we are only if we make our own choices.