Scan barcode
pithingcontest's review against another edition
reflective
3.5
[7/10] Do I agree with what he concludes? Almost never. Do I appreciate his philosophy? Absolutely. Really liked the dissection of faith as a purely irrational endeavor—he writes the concept of "faith cannot be rationalized, because if it could, it would be meaningless" (not a quote) far more eloquently than I ever could. Some of his points itch the same part of my brain that makes me love philosophy so much; that feeling of being understood by a long-dead author who already wrote all of my thoughts and ideas, even if I hadn't fully formulated them yet. It's extremely funny to me how I could read his argument, agree with most of it, and then come to completely opposite conclusions. As a staunch atheist, reading Christian theology has always been so fascinating to me, and Kierkegaard is no exception.
I can absolutely see why The Sickness unto Death has had such a lasting impact on existentialism and philosophy writ large, holy fuck. It's like Nausea on steroids.
Now to read Either/Or.
I can absolutely see why The Sickness unto Death has had such a lasting impact on existentialism and philosophy writ large, holy fuck. It's like Nausea on steroids.
Now to read Either/Or.
lukasstock's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
carlajo713's review
1.0
Two books in one, but neither was my cup of tea. I like his phrasing and eloquence in writing, but my love fest ends there.
camstipated's review
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
1.5
I could rant about Kierkegaard for a while but I’ll try to keep this short:
I think he’s stupid. That’s not a joke or something, I actually don’t think he’s very smart.
For one, he expressed in ‘Either/Or’ his dichotomous view of religion and reason, so the fact he even wrote books breaks his foundation as a writer. He claims that defending God is tantamount to killing him by placing yourself above him, but any preacher is placing himself above God by elaborating on His message.
Another reason I think he’s stupid is that he gets hung up on dumb issues like Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac that are truly not that interesting. Nobody should have 200 pages to write on that one story. Not to mention that I disagree with just about everything he says about the story.
The last reason I didn’t like this book is that it’s made clear that one of the main audiences Kierkegaard was considering was the church because he was seeking employment there. Where Nietzsche feels unbridled and Camus feels at least honest, Kierkegaard seems to be a blind man walking down a path that even he doesn’t believe to be correct, and yet he believes himself to be in a position to preach. He is trying to impress the church at the expense of truly expressing himself, or his ‘self’ is just weak.
To summarize: Kierkegaard is stupid, a bad writer, and a shill for the church. Do not read this book.
I think he’s stupid. That’s not a joke or something, I actually don’t think he’s very smart.
For one, he expressed in ‘Either/Or’ his dichotomous view of religion and reason, so the fact he even wrote books breaks his foundation as a writer. He claims that defending God is tantamount to killing him by placing yourself above him, but any preacher is placing himself above God by elaborating on His message.
Another reason I think he’s stupid is that he gets hung up on dumb issues like Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac that are truly not that interesting. Nobody should have 200 pages to write on that one story. Not to mention that I disagree with just about everything he says about the story.
The last reason I didn’t like this book is that it’s made clear that one of the main audiences Kierkegaard was considering was the church because he was seeking employment there. Where Nietzsche feels unbridled and Camus feels at least honest, Kierkegaard seems to be a blind man walking down a path that even he doesn’t believe to be correct, and yet he believes himself to be in a position to preach. He is trying to impress the church at the expense of truly expressing himself, or his ‘self’ is just weak.
To summarize: Kierkegaard is stupid, a bad writer, and a shill for the church. Do not read this book.
andyogm's review
3.0
I read just Fear and Trembling. Not a fan of Kierkegaard's style. It felt more like he would rather have been a poet than a philosopher. The work was full of mythic, poetic, and biblical examples (beyond just the main one, Abraham and Isaac) that didn't add that much to the work. Could probably have been half as long and made more sense. I'm looking into secondary literature to make more sense of Fear and Trembling.
I'm also not convinced that Abraham wasn't just a murderer.
I'm also not convinced that Abraham wasn't just a murderer.
jackholloway's review
5.0
The Sickness unto Death is one of the most important books I've ever read.
jeremiah's review
The Hannay translation is great:
"From the Christian viewpoint, every poet-existence (all aesthetics notwithstanding) is sin, the sin of writing instead of being, the sin of relating oneself in imagination to the good and true instead of being it, or rather of striving existentially to be it" (109).
"From the Christian viewpoint, every poet-existence (all aesthetics notwithstanding) is sin, the sin of writing instead of being, the sin of relating oneself in imagination to the good and true instead of being it, or rather of striving existentially to be it" (109).
More...