No. Nothing seemed out of place. It was really helpful for me. I liked how he came at the religious aspect of Kierkegaard. I think that totally flies in the face of how a lot of the more conservatively religious interpret him - especially in terms of "should". Solomon said that what he was teaching was similar to Buddhism and Taoism which is what I thought when I read him, but Dreyfus didn't see it this way at all. I think I even wrote about that somewhere along the way. I loved Dreyfus presentation and got a ton out of it, but after having read Solomon's book on Nietzsche and hearing this lecture you've posted, I definitely think Solomon's understanding works better with my own. ,
Comments
Did Solomon's approach fit with the your previous understanding of Kierkegaard?
How about for you? Did something strike you as out of place?