/lit/ - Literature

>>3566901
>mfw someone went to /adv/ to get help on countering this argument

>>adv/res/11894349

>leave for an hour
>mfw my thread is still here

I'm reading a short summary on western philosophy. On the cover of the book the author has written:
I've chosen 20 philosophers that I believe to be the most important ones in the western history of ideas. I like them all, except Heidegger.


>Heideggers face when

Is Heidegger an ontologist, a phenomenologist, neither, or both?

Heidegger Heidegger was a boozey beggar
Who could think you under the table

Existentialists report in!

Silly /lit/, all this talk of existentialism, and not ONE mention of Heidegger.

Sartre seems to be a big topic, and understandably so, considering he's the only existentialist who claimed to be an existentialist (probably not in those words, because to claim to be an existentialist would put him in bad faith). As far as Sartre is concerned, he was more interested with consciousness, action and authenticity. He proposed the triad of Being-in-itself, Being-for-itself, and Being-for-others; as a culmination of the necessary modes of being to make the self. It's basically that a Being-for-itself is a being with a nothingness at its center (nothingness as consciousness) positing itself as a Being-in-itself (through the nothingness of possibility of being, yet never capable of being that thing in its totality. Because to be conscious of something, you need to not be that object of consciousness in its totality, this is where the nothingness at the heart of the being-for-itself arises), through Being-for-others: playing a role. You are never a thing in its entirety, only a being playing at being that thing. All of this is possible because existence precedes essence.