/lit/ - Literature

>>6605784

So I just started reading The Sickness Unto Death
by Soren Kierkegaard. As someone who suffers from depression I wanted to know if reading this would help be a bit

Has anyone read this? I found it really good, I'm halfway unto it and I already have found good answers to some of my questions regarding life.

It's a great book, I really like Kierkegaard, he puts christian faith in a whole new perspective towards life and death. I liked his description on fatalism, determinism without god and the difference between necessity and possibility.

I found myself being a fatalistic and why since I became atheist I lost what means to have faith on possibility. Highly recomended

I really love Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Hume. I won't say I'm in a position to judge philosophical quality, I just like reading them.

Hi /lit/

I've just started reading Kierkegaard's Sickness Unto Death. Now, I've never read any philosophy before and it's taking me anywhere from 3 to 5 read-throughs of each paragraph, sometimes each sentence to actually understand the meaning of the language.

This is fine, I don't mind if it absorbs slowly, but I was just wondering if people who actually study philosophy (am I'm sure some of you do or have) can just breeze through these types of dialectics without having to pause to understand?

Basically what I'm asking is if when you get intellectually 'into the swing' of it so to speak, does the reading, and understanding become fluid? (Not that I'm not enjoying the struggle to understand the book, but I'm curious if, as the mind becomes more and more accustomed to abstract ideas, they sink in to the mind with greater ease?

I need to write a long paper on Sickness Unto Death by Kierkegaard. I read it, but I have no idea what my thesis should be.

Any ideas?

Finished part one of this today, and will probably finish the rest tomorrow.

I'm uuuuh... not quite sure what to make of this so far. On the one hand I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Kiekegaard talks about: widespread focus on material to fill the void of understanding something greater, the contradictions of stuff such as necessity/possibility (which to me just seems a fluffy way of talking about motivation), and the concept/realization of the self being an intimate connection with God (which likely comes from my own Christian upbringing) and finding purpose in that.
But at other times I feel Kierkegaard might just be writing archaically. It seems his paragraphs are mostly composed of stuff he already said to the point of nausea that I find myself scanning paragraphs instead of reading them. And I also sometimes feel that his emphasis on faith puts me off a bit since I was looking for something along the lines of a justification and examination of faith, instead of a book about self-development with pre-existing acceptance of God.

Thoughts on this /lit? Or Kierkegaard in general?