Talk:Leap of faith

message: The Søren Kierkegaard article is peppered with attributions giving him credit for coining the term "leapoffaith".  This article dismisses the claim.  Can anyone reconcile these?
--Talinus 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Søren Kierkegaard and Leap of Faith 

message: From Putnam's "A Reconsideration of Dewey Democracy": "James quotes [in Pragmatism, 105] an aphorism of Kierkegaard's (whom he could not have read, since Kierkegaard had not been translated into any language James read) to the effect that "We live forward but we understand backward."" Where, in Kierkegaard, do we find this aphorism? And how might James discovered it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.167.178.32 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The aphorism comes from the Journals. William James found the aphorism in the works of Harald Høffding. Høffding incorporated some of the works of Kierkegaard into his survey of philosophy, and that's probably one of the few ways James, and other American philosophers pre-1920s, knows about Kierkegaard. Poor Yorick 02:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We live forward but we understand backward 

message: 2. Marcus Dahle [1337]  (1402). Died by punishment for blasfemi.
[Marcus stood for that the only god there was; should be mankind and no "holy power" never to be seen or heard from. The church could have that so they ordered that he should pay the price for blasfemi. Marcus used this sentence and said: "No god will ever smite me; They only one to serve punishments is the people. And it is exactly what happends. It isn't god that punish me; It is the priests and the church!"
: Why is this on the article???? 82.17.136.199 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from main article 

message: I added a NPOV tag. The neo-orthodox interpretation of Kierkegaard is one among many (liberal, postmodern, existentialist). There are internationally respected scholars that would disagree with the content of this article, particularly the last paragraph.
189.146.2.183 (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of Kierkegaard 

message: i haven't looked over the edit history of this article in detail, but somewhere along the line it appears that somebody simply cut the opening and pasted it further down in the body, without making any amendments. this meant that the new opening sentence read "The phrase is commonly attributed to . . . ", which is obviously not the way to open an article. i have tried to fix this by merely cutting the two sentences that were originally the FIRST two from the body and moving them back to the start. this may disrupt the flow of that part of the body somewhat, but at least the article now has an introduction at the start as opposed to 1/8 of the way down . . .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.107.17 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction 

message: hi, someone who knows how to edit such links, please check the German language link to the article, as that deals with some odd special law term involving a move where trust comes first and then another law process action, it has nothing to do with the term being discussed philosophically and faith in particular neither. As it stands it has to be removed I think!
2A02:908:1A78:7A40:ECDC:FD04:9069:E833 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: german language link way off

message: Almost a decade ago this page was a very short but reasonably balanced article. Then, primarily one editor took it upon themselves to transform the article into the very one-sided compilation of Kierkegaard quotes that we see today, with quite a bit of obvious POV-pushing included. Even the section called "Kierkegaard, Goethe, Marx, and Tolstoy" is almost entirely about Kierkegaard. It's very tempting to revert back to the May 2012 version and then add in the few good parts of the current article, but giant reverts like that tend to be controversial (and should be), as they undo multiple editors' efforts. The other option would be to scrub away the bulk of all the sections after the Overview. I'd rather get some opinions beforehand instead of doing a big load of work and then getting reverted. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea to raise this discussion. I'd advise a less adversarial section heading and pinging the editor who made the major changes immediately subsequent to the version you wish to revert to. I am in general agreement that this article not only goes well off topic but it is also overkill for an encyclopedia entry. The possibility that there's content here that may form a new article or which belongs elsewhere should be considered. It also seems that "leap of faith" is a bit more broad a concept than what one would surmise from this article, which makes it awfully Kiergegaard-specific, and which may have to do with the POV-pushing you mention. Teishin (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's also related content at Trust_(social_science)#Philosophy that may not belong there. Just brainstorming here, but maybe there should be Trust (philosophy) where some of what is in this article and the social science article should belong, and Leap of faith should then look closer to your proposal that it should be closer to what it was in 2012. Teishin (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

text: This article definitely needs a lot of work. But removing almost 9 years of edits seems quite radical. I would suggest trimming the problematic sections and summarizing where needed. I haven't had the time to read through it in detail but I get the impression that many sections go way too much into detail. The best place to start may be the quotes: they are too long and too frequent. Having a reliable source or two giving a good overview over the concept might helpful for deciding and justifying where to trim how much. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undoing damage