/lit/ - Literature

I just started reading "In Defense of Purity" by Dietrich von Hildebrand, and I really think that it is unreadable:
The terms which should be the most important for him, are the ones which he leaves the most obscure, like "deepth" and "profound", or even if he gives a definition for one use of them, he uses the term also in different senses, which are incompatible with the given definition, but are still not defined.
His argument seems really viciously circular, (even if his premises might be true):
>The sexual sphere is morally relevant because it is profound (Whatever that may mean)
> The sexual sphere is profound because it is morally relevant.

Being convinced that analytical philosophy is the only true heir of the scholastics and the ancients, I already had low expectations when I bought the book, but even for someone who works within the phenomenological tradition / method I find that Hildebrand is a really bad philosopher and I wonder how the Germans were falling for mystics like Hildebrand or even worse ppl, whose name should not be mention, lest his disciples come here to preach about the aletheia of Beying.

Has anyone else read the book? Does it get better? I want to keep reading, because I hope that Hildebrand is a better theologian than a philosopher, although I already doubt that someone who lacks traits needed for doing good philosophy could turn out to be a good theologian.
Hildebrand gets praised by the editiors as having had an enourmous influence on catholic thought. Whom did he influence except JPII? (BTW, I believe that the personalism of JPII/Woytila was much more influenced by Kant than it was by Scheler)