Two recycled essays

I thought it would be interesting to give a second life to essays that would usually be submitted to my professors and never seen again. The current quality is acceptable but not outstanding; I'll revise and extend upon these as I find the time. The one on Kierkegaard was condensed for the sake of length (the version I handed in was 10 complete pages with the bottom margin reduced and sans a cover sheet and bibliography, in addition to several footnotes with reduced font size). To my knowledge, both are at least pretty accurate, the latter probably more so than the first. The latter is also probably a fairly good introduction to Kierkegaard for those who are unfamiliar with his authorship viewed in totality.

Enjoy:
1. On incontinence in Nicomachean Ethics
2. The role of Kierkegaard's pseudonymity


I might add..

1. Both documents are in PDF format. If you don't have Adobe Acrobat, get it here.


2. Academic dishonesty is bad. I authored these essays, please do not publish or use these under your own name (not that they're that remarkable anyway).

5/25 Addendum:

I'll revise these essays before long, but first a brief addendum which was written in response to some comments from my professor on the essay on incontinence. I'll try to include this example in some form or another in the essay, but I feel as though the discussion of twinkies isn't cut out for formal discussion.

So.. the act of smoking (or eating junk food) isn't deontologically/universally immoral, it's bad for one's health. If one consciously goes against a supposition that "I should not eat twinkies [because they are bad for me]" is he or she not giving precedence to the short-term sensational/psychological benefits over the potential long-term physiological benefits of not eating the twinkie? ( i.e. if one eats twinkies the short-term satisfaction is pleasing, and the sensation of sweetness is opiate... the rejection of the supposition that "one should not eat twinkies [because they are bad for one's health]" is done because the alternative, i.e. eating the twinkie, in given conditions is consciously determined to be more important to the individual than the health hazards... which to the individual is not irrational/incontinent.) I'm not sure if the existence of "incontinence" can be taken as a given [...].