The Sickness Unto Death (Kierkegaard) Read as fiction or poetry for entertainment values, this book is a classic. The work flows smoothly, while attaining excellently descriptive vocabulary throughout. Philosophically, there are many interesting psychological, emotional, religious, and moral insights. However, much of the work falls victim to the old adage of muddying the water so that it may appear deep. Often times, this perspective is taken by those who attempt to rationalize their inability to comprehend. Here, Kierkegaard's facade is easily seen through, despite his use of non-defined (non-existent?) abstract terms. Basically, Soren is merely attempting to justify his own emotional and religious views. Emotionally, it was quite likely that Kierkegaard had major depression. His life was a struggle through this, and this work coincidentally coincides with this fact. The topic, or "sickness," being disgussed is despair. The many differing aspects of despair are elucidated convincingly well, the problem arises with his generalization. Claiming that everyone was in a state of despair, while those not conscious of their despair where in a class of despair themselves. This psychoanalyitc-like description tells us nothing, while being particularly beneficial to the author how cannot possibly be proved wrong because he says nothing. Kierkegaard could be onto something with his universal despair, he merely does not give us reason to consider this. More likely, he made the usual inductive, scientific, yet invalid logical error. That of deriving an universal from a particular. Namely, "I Soren Kierkegaard was found to be in despair on occasion x1, x2, and x3. Therefore, I as well as everyone is in a state of constant despair." Ofcourse, numerous observations under diverse contexual settings will strenthen any such argument; but they can never be proven absolute. So, why would Kierkegaard posit such a wide ranging hypothesis with little to support it? Possibly, this entire book was a projection of his own emotional state. It could even be descriped as self-medication. Afterall, is it not comforting to believe that others suffer from the same ailments as yourself? This is a very intriguing idea, and I hope to return with more readings and background information to support this. Along with his emotional projection, his religous projection could also be seen as self-medication. For those unfamiliar, Kierkegaard was devoutedly christian, while is book is a strong appeal to this religion. However, the appeal is too strong, it is the desperate exaggeration of a man seeking spirituality. Essentially, the argument progresses as follows: everyone despairs. There are different levels of despair depending upon ones self-consciousness. Even complete self-consciousness will not save one from despair. This must be coupled with faith and a humbling of oneself before god. Does not this seem convenient? That the only way one may attain emancipation from despair is to become a true christian? Total dependence upon an external will content us? Perhaps I am have too much pride in my individualism, but I cannot accept this view. Yet, perhaps my rabid atheism knows the consequences of acceptance of Kierkegaard's theory, a sad state indeed. Basically, in writing this book about self-reflection and self-consciousness, Kierkegaard disregards his own advise. He is blind to the latent reasons pushing him into this writing. Maybe I cannot take any christian argument seriously...