[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 78 KB, 600x710, aaaaaa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8502496 No.8502496 [Reply] [Original]

or did Nazi boy steal all his work from Husserl?

>> No.8502503

He's one of greatest philosophers of all time so yes.

>> No.8502522

>>8502503
isn't Being and Time generally considered good?

>> No.8502528

>>8502522
Yes it is. It's a hard read though.

>> No.8502533

>>8502528
I have a class on him this semester. Any witty 4chan tips?

>> No.8502538

>>8502533
Just read up on his terminology. A lot of that is hard to get into, but it'll do wonders for you if you know it before the class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology

>> No.8502540

>>8502528
like Hegel level hard?

>> No.8502550
File: 62 KB, 701x559, 1464135161180.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8502550

>>8502496
Heidegger's philosophy of time is just a mild re-imagining of Husserl, his being is just poorly written existentialism (Mostly Kierkegaard).

If you're going to read 20th century philosophy don't waste your time with the losing side.

>> No.8502551

>>8502540
>like Hegel level hard?

It depends. The Phenomenology of Spirit is an extremely difficult read, but Being and Time isn't that difficult as long as you understand his terminology.

But both of the books would be incomprehensible if you just picked them out of a bookshelf with little or no knowledge of either of them.

>> No.8502557

>>8502496
the western buddha *yawns*

>> No.8502563

>>8502503
>>8502522
>>8502528
>>8502538
Just listen to these scholars OP. He wrote a book that is long, hard, and good. He's great, the greatest for sure. And his philosophy is hard. Make sure you study for the test, cuz when it comes it will be hard, and good. If you don't do well that's ok. Just remember, you didn't understand a single word because it was hard and good.

>> No.8502568

>>8502563
This is the worst example of sarcasm I've seen on this board.

You must be twelve.

>> No.8502574

>>8502550
I agree that Wittgenstein was probably a more profound philosopher than Heidegger

Heidegger's "difficulty" is deceptive because of his poor writing and terminology

>> No.8502579

>>8502574
>logical positivism
>profound

>> No.8502592
File: 115 KB, 338x439, valentine-heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8502592

>>8502568
Confirmed for liking it good and hard.

>>8502579
You should read the book that comes after the Tractatus if you want to have an opinion.

>> No.8502607

>>8502579
there is actually nothing really wrong with logical positivism...its pretty much the most logical viewpoint of the world

its just, it trivializes philosophy so it fell out of style, but it was never really proven wrong

>> No.8502613

>>8502568
>sarcasm
What the heck do you mean? I was being serious. Heidegger is my favorite philosopher, and I'm an expert on his philosophy.

>> No.8502619
File: 109 KB, 500x500, Disgust Zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8502619

>>8502607
>there is actually nothing really wrong with logical positivism...
>its pretty much the most logical viewpoint of the world

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself

>> No.8502686

>>8502557
wait, he does have great things to say about technology.

>> No.8502696

>>8502686
He really doesn't like it at all.

>> No.8502710 [DELETED] 

>>8502696
yes, he does. the technological-minded are diseased "last men".

>> No.8502746

>>8502568
Whatever faggot I laughed at it