The Concept of Sin

It is unclear whether it is the German or the English translation that is at fault here, but if you are interested in reading Pieper, you may want to start somewhere else. Pieper is someone I enjoy immensely. He is very readable, is good at making concepts easy to digest, and tends to be very accessible for some who wants to get their feet wet in Thomistic philosophy. This volume was the opposite in every respect.The translator's introduction would lead the reader to believe that he a number of liberties in translating. It is unclear whether the translator committed sabotage, but the English is cumbersome and many of the sentences go on for several lines. It takes the skill of an investigative journalist and logistician to decifer some of the passages.I have enjoyed other works by Pieper translated by Richard and Clara Winston, Sister Mary Francis McCarty, and Lothar Krauth. Two personal favorites are LIESURE THE BASIS OF CULTURE and HAPPINESS AND CONTEMPLATION.

As usual Pieper delivers some keen and penetrating insights into the nature of sin. However, I was disappointed upon finishing it because it raised questions for me that weren't answered or it didn't directly address the questions that originally motivated to read the book in the first place. Reading Pieper is always a learning experience for me - I just wish this book were twice as long as it is.

That the reality of sin and its effects is not solely a Christian idea is one of Pieper's key points in this book. He draws heavily from the ancient Greeks, as well as from the East, and from modern authors, who all illustrate how the concept of sin, and even the distinction between mortal and venial sin, is something which is found throughout human experience. He develops these concepts, and furthermore touches on specifically Christian elements to the understanding of sin and redemption. However, this book provides many insightful approaches to pondering the reality of sin.

A bit overly abstruse, and seems to take pages to say something that could be said in a few paragraphs.

what it is and how it impacts humans

Pieper begins this short book with the observation that while sin still have grave connotations in ourlanguage, it is used largely for humorous effect in modern times.Confucius once observed that the first step in philosophical debate was to agree on one's terms, and Pieper does a neat little job of investigating what the misunderstood yet evocative word "sin" means. His chief foundation is Thomas Aquinas, but he does a very impressive job of integrating modern, Eastern, and other pre-Christian sources; I did not realize how the concepts of expiation, confession, and original sin have parallels in Eastern and Classical thought. Even Sartre and Nietzsche--hardly Christians themselves!--are used in very sensitive, perceptive ways to show what sin does to us.The book begins with observations on how sin is perceived in modern times, and then analyzes what the word sin actually means (to "miss the mark"), and how the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek writers have used the the word sin. Building this foundation, we begin to delve into the psychological basis of sin, and look ata very troubling paradox of sin: "if sin is going against our nature, how can our natural desires lead us to sin?" This question of what exactly drives us to sin haunts much of the book, and Pieper gives no easy answers, but rather opens up this debate for the reader, and gives many references, allowing one to pursue this question on one's own later on.For anyone who wants to know more about why we do evil things, this is a good beginner's guide. Pieper is intelligent butaccessible, and the book is very compact. Sometimes I wish he would have spent a litle more time developing some ideas--he sometimes takes Scholastic philosophical terms for granted, and while he defines them clearly, it would have been nice if he shows why these definitions are relevant to us. For instance, he observes that the term "order" has a static, fixed connotation to the modern person, but to the Medievals, it could mean a dynamic process. Pieper then adopts the Medieval view without telling us why we should take the Medieval one over the modern. This could have been easily explained by noting how scientific laws, while they are fixed equations, describe dynamic events, like radio waves, falling objects, and chemical reactions. Such an explanation would have been easily within Pieper's capabilities, and would connect his wealth of Scholastic understanding to the modern reader more easily.Still, that quibble aside, this is a very readable, educational book, and I recommend it.

Pieper is known for his comprehensive brevity, always hitting the nail on the head, so to speak. (The metaphor is apt when one considers that sin is "missing the mark.")

Its been a few months, but it was really interesting to read philosophical reasons for not sinning. Sin is contrary to nature and reason and the only reason we continually fall for it is hubris (pride).

good buy