I believe that this papers strengths are its structure and it being concise. I also believe that the issue that I am discussing is deep, and therefore interesting. Its weaknesses would be its lack of quotes.
The difficulty with this paper was trying to find the idea in the first place. It took me a lot of time to find deep similarities and differences between the two. It also took me some time to figure out how I would lay the essay out and how I would flesh the essay out. As this paper is not superficial, I found myself finding new ideas and problem as time passed. This gave me another problem as I always had to rethink and re-edit.
The goals for my next paper are to include more quotes, as my papers lack evidence. My other goals are to carry on writing interesting and thought …show more content…
Kant, being a man of reason primarily, approaches his philosophy in a scientific manner. To explain, he breaks one thing into smaller things. Kant makes observations based on what he sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels (like his three types of friendships). However, he does also make some conceptual assumptions (discussed earlier) such as his idea of putting love of humanity before self-love will cause reciprocation of friendship. Unlike Kierkegaard, Kant does not focus on religion as it is unnecessary for someone who is only interested in empirical observations. Kierkegaard however is not concerned with empirical observation, as he believes that there is something higher and more important i.e. Christianity. Kierkegaard concentrates more on morality and what he believes is right, instead of focusing on what is actually there. Kierkegaard doesn’t even talk about friendship in his writing. This shows that he places much more importance on what his religion says is right instead of trying to observe and deconstruct what friendship