/lit/ - Literature

>>6552503
*Philosophical

Read husserl's Cartesian meditations

Husserl basically invents the type of phenomenology that Heidegger does in that book.

Once you know what he is actually talking about you can start to tackle his basic writings.

>>6552503
>How can a person with a basic philosophic knowledge get into Heidegger? What other thinkers influenced him/were influenced by him?
in embracing the nazi ideology.

>>6552503
Read Hubert Dreyfus intro books on Heidegger
He's babby level Heideggerian thought

>>6552503

kill the jews

>>6552515
>>6552532
As far as I know there is not any kind of antisemitism in his works.

>>6552558
The recently released Schwarze Hefte would have you think otherwise, but hen again, they weren't intended for publication.

>>6552512
>you can start to tackle his basic writings

Such as...?

>>6552562
Looked up about them. Pretty interesting. Have the notebooks from 42-45 been published yet?

>>6552577
Yeah, they have been, despite some french fanboys actually trying to prevent that from happening iirc.

>>6552523

Ignore all ITT but this.

this is what you need to understand Heidegger AND it's implications for philosophy (it explains it towards other philosophers too)

>>6552573
Look up "Heidegger: basic writings"

its literally a collection for people in your situation.

>>6552503

There are a couple of ways to approach Heidegger such that he becomes accessible to thought; a few anons have already pointed to Dreyfus. While Dreyfus is solid in some respects, he's also very limited in most others; he's able to point to some areas in Heidegger that relate to existential experience, but he seems to not grasp Heidegger's interest in the Question of Being, which leads his analyses astray, and causes them to be a bit too limited when one wants to figure out what the hell all of these phenomenological analyses have to do with Being.

One approach would be to look at Heidegger's early lecture courses, especially his course on Plato's Sophist, and his three courses on Aristotle in the 20s (Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle, Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy, and Logic: the Question of Truth). These courses show Heidegger working out a lot of his terms (Dasein, for example, is his translation of the Greek word for soul, psyche), and developing the account that would become Being & Time. If you don't have the time to work through those courses, a wonderful summary of the 20 courses with respect to the development of Being & Time can be found in the form of Theodore Kisiel's "The Genesis of Being and Time", which traces the ideas of the lecture courses that relate directly to Being & Time, and how they developed.

Another great source is Thomas Sheehan, a scholar who for the last decade or so has been trying to push a new way of reading Heidegger that takes into account pretty much all of his writings and lectures, and which takes seriously Heidegger's insistence that his work was phenomenological through and through even up to the end, and that the question never changed. He just released a book late this past year, "Making Sense of Heidegger", that I would encourage anyone having trouble with Heidegger to take a look at. You can find a number of articles in pdf form by Sheehan at the following page:

http://religiousstudies.stanford.edu/WWW/Sheehan/thomassheehanheideggerarticles.htm

And if you need one particular short introduction that may help begin to make sense of Heidegger for you, check out the following Sheehan article written for the Heidegger Circle in their annual journal, Gatherings:

http://www.heideggercircle.org/Gatherings2011-01Sheehan.pdf

Good luck!

>>6552712
This is great, thanks a million for your effort.

>>6552712
You are a wonderful person. I'll add my thanks to OP's.

>>6552503
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9nEhrt5X1I

You might have watched it already, but if not you should

>>6552503

All the Routledge Philosophers books are great. They're accessible while being fairly comprehensive and always willing to get into the deep. If you want a lucid, powerful 400 page or so overview, it's called "Heidegger" by John Richardson.

I don't know your background, but if you start with all of >>6552712 you might have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

>>6552712
Thanks

thank you

>>6552558
Don't worry. Americans and communists are the same as Jews to him, there's a lot of hate towards them.

>mfw i cant even into his diaries

>>6552888
Alright I'm not precisely fond of the Americans either

>888

>>6552937
Prosthetic legs.

>>6552761

The Richardson book is fine in large part, especially with respect to Being & Time, but he follows Dreyfus too closely in not understanding the question which unifies his work. He also commits the usual misunderstanding that Heidegger's thought underwent a "turn", which Heidegger himself in the preface to William Richardson's excellent "Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought" explains is a misunderstanding; that the "turn" is something that happens in the matter of the thought, and has nothing to do with a change of orientation or method on his own part.

Further, he takes Heidegger's late thinking to be religio-mystical, which, again, misunderstands the basic question that Heidegger was after, namely: What is the meaning of Being? In accounting for this all as a return to religious roots and as a form of mysticism, he misunderstands what that question is about, and he severs Heidegger's thought from philosophy and its preoccupation with the intelligibility of beings, and all philosophic questioning about that subject.

(I think this is where Sheehan is particularly strong; he traces the unity in Heidegger's questioning, even as his path of thinking leads him (Heidegger) down several different accounts for the same matter.)

>>6552577

A good recent article on the Black Notebooks, both their history and contents:

http://www.heideggercircle.org/Gatherings2015-02Adrian.pdf

his lectures

Just read Division 1 of Being and Time along with a guide.

Heidegger isn't building on Kant or rationalism or empiricism or anything. He's trying to formulate a fundamental ontology through the formal explication of our being. Not relying on epistemology as commonly understood or substance metaphysics and such.

Basically all of 20th century philosophy is in some way Heideggerean. Aside from Deleuze, but he's wacky.

Standouts are Arendt, Levinas, Derrida, Foucualt, and Agamben.

>>6552712
You seem to be knowledgeable concerning Heidegger.

I'm working through sections 72-77 of Being and Time right now and attempting to explicate through them something along the lines of Benjamin's time/history and a sort of Arendt/Agamben infused sense of a new political-historical community. To put it bluntly, I want to critically rescue those sections from a "left" perspective.

Are there any books that take those sections concerning historicality seriously, rather than quickly reading Nazism into them?

>>6553408
Ignore this post.

Doesn't know what he's talking about. Heidegger has direct relationships to Kant (read the first Critique to see that), hence the Kant book and the constant references to Kant throughout all of his writings.

Also, Deleuze is most certainly indented to Heidegger. Especially the later stuff. If this poster knew what he was talking about, he'd know how often Deleuze endnotes Identity and Difference.

But again, ignore this pseudo.

>>6553429
Hm, nothing's coming immediately to mind, but I can look through my library a bit later tonight when I get some time.

>>6553457
To be fair to that anon, they didn't say that Heidegger has no relation to Kant (or that Deleuze does not interact with Heidegger's thinking). I thought they were specifying that his project didn't amount to something like a "building upon" or continuation of classical empiricism, rationalism, or Kantian rationalism.

>>6553429
Zizek's The Ticklish Subject addresses the question of Heidegger's political ontology from the Left, at at least one point.
But Zizek is almost completely full of shit almost all the time so I wouldn't even bother with it, really.

>>6553471
Exactly. Heidegger is of course working in the traces left by Kant but his engagement with Kant by no means amounts to something positively substantive to his own philosophy. To get a sense for what I mean by that, consider how Deleuze reads Spinoza in such a way that one and the other come to affirm and play through one another in a building of concepts. To read Deleuze is to go back to Spinoza and to read Spinoza is to read forward to Deleuze.

Heidegger is working with a whole other manner of philosophical engagement with the moderns.

In any case, the main point is that one shouldn't approach Heidegger as the culminating course after a bevy of readings with Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, and Hegel and so on but rather allow yourself to approach him and disclose his manner of thinking without the recurrent need to situate it in one of the great camps of philosophy.

Read a section or two of division 1 of B&T a day. Ruminate on it. Go for a walk.The biggest initial hurdle is Heidegger's terminological framework. Get a guide for that.

>>6552512
Does anyone know where I can find a free ebook download for this book? What are the best websites for pirating ebooks?

Read Dreyfus, since you don't have too much philosophy background it will help you with the most important things from Heidegger so you can use it fast for other things.

You can always read the original B&T once you grasp a great deal of what Heidegger is about. Also Dreyfus comments on how it relates to the traditional ontology so you don't get lost

>>6553653
bookzz.org, avaxhome, and especially scribd.