/lit/ - Literature

>>15131756
I'm reading this right now as my first Heidegger and it's going pretty well

>>11781616
Any other essays in particular in the texts you'd recommend for getting a gist of the gamut of theory/history/contemporary critique?

imho you gotta take the heideggerpill. at some point you want to read all the big names you hear about: derrida, baudrillard, foucault, deleuze, lacan, all these guys. they're no memes, and they are big names for a reason. how much of them you want to read is really up to you. ignore what you have heard JBP say about them.

but heidegger to my mind is the big one. every major continental thinker in the 20C you will read will follow from either nietzsche or heidegger in one way or the other. and nietzsche is a boss too, he's quite possibly the most retardedly interesting man who ever lived. but in terms of social theory, and because it goes especially well with the critique of technology the acceleration guys talk about, heidegger is the guy. he must be read.

in terms of land, you'll want to know about deleuze as well, but, as i said, there actually is more to life than nick land. and reading marx too won't hurt either, the grundrisse or the 1844 manuscripts. you will want to read the PoS at some point as well, but i don't want to just throw all of these things at you at once, it can seem overwhelming.

basically just read whatever is the most interesting to you, that's my advice. there is no Official Canon, less so a prescribed order to read everything in. each of these guys kind of links to each other in interesting ways, either by affiliation or rejection. in time, you'll get to know all of them. it can be weird at first when you have no idea where to begin, so the best advice is just to read whatever floats your boat.

(when in doubt just read nietzsche again.)

>>11776354
>>11776354
you might be thinking of this, not sure tho.

anyways, after all of that and the social ecologies reference to land...why heidegger? i mean heidegger's amazing and you should read him for sure, just that it was surprising to see that after the note about hyperstition and the rest.

>>11774204
that's more than most, would be my guess. sounds like you'll be fine. the insanely long lists of pre-requisite readings /lit/ produces now and again are too much. no doubt if you read all that stuff too you may find Writer X more fulfilling or interesting than if you hadn't, but it's definitely not required.

heidegger's language is often arcane but i found B&T not all that hard to read once i sort of got used to it. i don't think you need to read husserl or dilthey beforehand, although you might want to afterwards, if heidegger really does it for you.

just jump in and take a swing at it. maybe get a copy of this too. his writing is dense but what he's saying isn't.

>>11733164
looking forward to it anon. i've read that essay and it's an amazing one. time spent with heidegger is not time wasted.

as for how to improve threads, honestly, i thought this one was great. i thought you were engaging with heidegger sincerely and it made me want to go back and check out pic rel again. looking forward to your thread.

>>9076360
start here