/lit/ - Literature

>*I* don't understand this
>It's *his* fault!

>>4622055
No seriously, Heidegger is awful.

He asks the question 'what is art' and then doesn't actually answer it.

>>4622060
He doesn't answer it the way you want him to, in the manner in which you want him to. You then can't consume and use his writing like you do with other people, lazily repeating and not thinking.

He's taking you down a wood path and you're not realizing that it's the walk that is important.

What I like about Heidegger is that his texts start super clear and super lucid like they were written for the kindergarten. But after a few sentences/pages it slowly dissolves into the super abstract Heideggerian realm where you get bombarded by (at first glance ! ! !) batshit insane sentences.

example :

>The word designates a mode of Being; specifically, the Being of those beings who stand open for the openness of Being in which they stand, by standing it

But once you get into the right mindset and focus on it it is really rewarding.

>>4622060
>actually answer
>2014

>>4622088
Fuck the German language and how impossible it is to translate to english
>tfw learning german solely to understand these philosophers

>>4622088
>tfw you think you understand what he's saying but can never be sure

Maybe this is the way it should be. Colloquial language does use a lot of abstract terms as if they were as clear as day, which is Hegel's opinion as well as far as I know.

>>4622125
>learning german solely to understand these philosophers

be prepared to spend at least ten years.

I THINK THEREFORE I LE AM

I THINK NOT

LE POOF

GIVE HER THE D

SO SMART

WOW

VERY PHILOSPHICAL

MUCH INTELLIGENT

>>4622125
Heidegger is noticeably easier in the the English translations because in the original German writings he actually creatively plays with the language itself, meaning that you must have a very very very good grasp on German (which even the average native speaker does not have) plus take in the obscurity of his terminology and thought all within the framework of his wordplay.

>>4622163

>>4622163

This is true. While it is still useful to have at least some knowledge such that if you look at a line from the original it's legible, translations are the product of years of an expert trying to make the text reasonably intelligible in a way the original might not have always been. Plus, you often get extensive footnotes. So if you read Heidegger in English, you get "care," "concern," and "solicitude," but you also get a series of lengthy footnotes explaining the linguistic play.

>>4622125
It's very hard to translate something that does not mean anything.

>>4622173
Also, this.

>>4622186
>Heidegger's writing
>doesn't mean anything

Frenchfag detected. Go back to your Master's thesis on a poststructuralist reading of the taste of penises worldwide.

>>4622186
>Muh Analytical philosophy
>Muh STEM
>Trtuh is..o-o-objective hehe...

>>4622194
I'm pretty sure that all Frenchies from Derrida to post-structuralist neo marxists are Heideggerians.

Derrida's work is for example just applied Heidegger.

>>4622194
>>4622197
You both missed. Try again.

>>4622125
But you´ll be able to read less difficult authors as well, and they´re incredibly rewarding as well. Currently I´m reading Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre by Goethe, and I´m loving every sentence of the book.

>>4622226
But you can just read him in english since what that guy write actually mean something.

>>4622247

>>4622273
kinda interested in sauce

>>4622284
Unfortunately I´ve no idea. Found it of [s4s] the other day.

>>4622051
>What the fuck am I reading
You are witnessing the unveiling of world.

>>4622160
i leled

>>4622051
>Most german philosophers like to take the reader down the road of their thought rather than just give their answers straight away

"The truth is the whole. The whole, however, is merely the essential nature reaching its completeness through the process of its own development. Of the Absolute it must be said that it is essentially a result, that only at the end is it what it is in very truth; and just in that consists its nature, which is to be actual, subject, or self-becoming, self-development. Should it appear contradictory to say that the Absolute has to be conceived essentially as a result, a little consideration will set this appearance of contradiction in its true light. The beginning, the principle, or the Absolute, as at first or immediately expressed, is merely the universal. If we say “all animals”, that does not pass for zoology; for the same reason we see at once that the words absolute, divine, eternal, and so on do not express what is implied in them; and only mere words like these, in point of fact, express intuition as the immediate. Whatever is more than a word like that, even the mere transition to a proposition, is a form of mediation, contains a process towards another state from which we must return once more. It is this process of mediation, however, that is rejected with horror, as if absolute knowledge were being surrendered when more is made of mediation than merely the assertion that it is nothing absolute, and does not exist in the Absolute."

I mean I detest Heidegger but still fuck you and your Verdinglichungstrieb

Does Heidegger deal around with the question of being/existing in the first place? I can't tell if Being with capitalized B means this in articles about him.

Seems interesting fellow, funny how I havent read none of the people he influenced or was influenced by.

>>4622858
>I can't tell if Being with capitalized B
das Sein
das Seiendes.
Look up the difference.

>>4622858
Basically his question is what does it mean to be or rather what is Being itself.
There is a major problem in answering this question however, it is that our language is limited to go this far back and talk about such primordial things.

When we say what "is", we already have some notion built into the word "is" that distracts us. So you must ask what is is ? etc
So he goes and tries to slowly peel way the layers of the onion to arrive at this question.

Being and Time is this systematic attempt where he plays around with language and constructs absurd (in a good way) neologisms to try and get his thought across. He then found out that such a task is impossible and turned to a more poetic method but still very very Heideggerian.