/lit/ - Literature

>>10532924
He's a fucking dwarf

>>10532928
smol bodi big bren

>>10532924
Because I am still going through Kant and memorizing Plato so I can attempt to really follow his writting and not struggle liek you morons whenever you pick up a book you aren't quite prepared for.

>>10532928
More like a Hobbit

>>10533450
Well, you're working on the assumption I don't understand him or that I lack the necessary background, friend

>>10532924
I've reading Plotinus instead

>>10533483
Calm down bud. The question was addressed to everyone. The sentiment is simply that it seems few purple on this sub do adequate prerequisite reading despite their penchant for debating about 20th c. philosophy.

>>10533754
if you’re not an ignorant ape you can into any philosopher from any period with little preparatory reading anon. Kant, Hegel, Heidegger are “”””hard””” because the people who approach their ideas can’t systematize, philosophize visually or intuit anything. universal literacy was a mistake as many have said

>>10532924
If his writing is so great then why did you put scare quotes around the word criticism?

>>10533764
>if you’re not an ignorant ape you can into any philosopher from any period with little preparatory reading anon
False.
Absolutely and horrible false.
Shows you do not know what you are talking about; not just philosophy in general but how people approach each philosophical work and its concepts.

>>10533754
I was just pointing out a bias in the post - which made a statement, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with. Luckily, I find myself to be studying philosophy academically and as thus I'm somewhat prepared to engage with daddy Heidegger

>>10533767
Well, the word "critic" and its derivates are charged with a very specific meaning within Heidegger's writings (or at least, the Italian translations I've read), so I was wary about using it in English without scare quotes to indicate their inadequacy

>>10533764
Not OP by the way, this is just an asshat

>>10533764
>systematize
kys

>>10533451
Or even a Squat

>>10533793
>he doesn't systematize

Heidegger basically added couple more ontological distinctions to a cartesian two-sorted ontology. Most of his work is a pure literature and pseudo-thoughts without rigor.

>Janicaud's account of this trip and conference is among the most interesting stories told. One reads, for instance, of Heidegger's meetings with René Char, when they discussed their mutual admiration for Melville; one also finds Heidegger walking with Georges Braque, and on a harrowing drive with Lacan. There are accounts of Heidegger's exchanges with Ricœur and Marcel, and one learns as well of Heidegger's refusal (or perhaps inability) to speak French.

You will never go on an adventure with Heidegger in France

:(

>>10534513
>pseudo-thoughts without rigor

Mate, you don't get to say that about the guy who wrote The Principle of Reason

>>10532924
>>10532924
>>10532924

Can I read Heidegger's Nietzsche without any prior reading of H?

>>10535881
Eh, not really - at least not without a decently good understanding of Heidegger's thought. I'd recommend his courses on Hölderlin as a starter.

He's garbage

>>10535932
no u

>>10532924
what should i have read before i read him

>>10533754
>sub
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK

>>10537524
The Greeks (unironically, philosophers and poets), Hegel, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Hölderlin, the Scholastics, Trakl, Goethe... I mean, everything you can actually get your hands on

>>10533754
>sub
FUCKING KILL YOURSELF

>>10534513


>Heidegger basically added couple more ontological distinctions to a cartesian two-sorted ontology.

In three paragraphs or more, go ahead and tell me why you think this. Genuinely curious if you have any substantial reason to have this reading of Heidegger.

<3 nazi hobbit big bren <3