/lit/ - Literature

with him.

>>11773433
And then what

>>11773465
hyperstition

>>11773467
>and then what
and then derrida? you'll at least have a better sense of what he means when he talks about presence and so on.

you can read levinas too, derrida likes him. but there's a lot of heidegger to read. when heidegger makes sense to you derrida will as well.

First you need to be familiar with the whole of western philosophy (and Freud in some cases)

>>11773509
Well, which one of his works would be a good place to start?

>>11773541
The later works are more readable than Being and Time. But get a guide for Being and Time if you want to approach it head on. I'd say just get an idea about Heidegger from secondary literature.

Also read some something about structuralism before getting into post structuralism. His first three works are the main works: speech and phenomena, of grammatology and writing and difference. You can also just jump in with some secondary literature aid and see what you can pick up from it.

>>11773541
for heidegger? you'll want an intro. i usually recommend pic rel, it helped me understand B&T. and you don't have to plunge into B&T straight away either, it's probably better to start with some of his big essays (the ones collected in the Basic Writings): the origins of the work of art, for example.

there are other introductions to heidegger as well, but i've found this one to be the most helpful.

i'm not super well-read on derrida in particular, so maybe some other anons can help you with good guidebooks or works on his thought.

Heidegger, yes, but as for Derrida Sense and Phenomena seems to be the best place to begin.

>>11773421
Noone on /lit/ takes Memerson seriously, m8.

>>11773421
Why, because Peterson BTFO'd this Post-modernist hack?

>>11773433
What else do I have to read besides Husserl before I get to Heidegger?
Should I read Dilthey too?
Note: I've already started with the Greeks, read through St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, bits of Ockham and Duns Scotus' works, Descartes, Spinoza's Ethics, Leibniz' Monadologie, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Nietzsche (whom I might re-read after getting through with Schopenhauer), and I plan on getting into Kant, Böhme, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard later on.

>>11774204
then read those germans first

>>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.

>>11773421
Structure sign and play. Then differance. If you know your Heidegger and Levinas, Violence and Metaphysics lays out the real philosophical backdrop of his thought.

As for later works, following his “ethical turn”, I always found his stuff on hospitality the most intriguing. It not only engages with but really builds upon the heideggerian/levinasian themes he began his career in dialogue with

>>11774230
Also if you’re getting into Heidegger don’t listen to the haters: dreyfus’s commentary on B+T is fantastic. Aside from his overly specialized diatribes against cognitive scientists he really lays out what is FORMALLY most essential to the heideggerian project, and why it matters. Once you learn these forms, you can start to apply Heidegger in more creative ways. But learn the bedrock first: get Dreyfus (RIP Bert).

>>11774226
Kierkegaard was Danish. Kant was born in Königsberg, then part of the Kingdom of Prussia, nowadays in Russia, and was of Curonian (Baltic) descent.
But, yeah, I do plan on reading all those Germans.