/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4709791]

Where do I start reading Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.4709798]

>>4709791
Start with the greeks.

[Anonymous No.4709802]

>>4709798

Actually a very pertinent response.

[Anonymous No.4709840]

>>4709798
what greeks?

[Anonymous No.4709872]

>>4709840
presocratics

[Anonymous No.4709874]

your favourite chair

[Anonymous No.4709887]

>>4709872

like who?

[Anonymous No.4709888]

>>4709798
>>4709872
where should i start to get rid of this terrible meme?

[Anonymous No.4709881]

>>4709798
>>4709872
where should i start to get rid of this terrible meme?

[Anonymous No.4709894]

>>4709791
The title page

[Anonymous No.4710302]

>>4709791
aristotle and husserl

[Anonymous No.4710421]

>>4709881
>>4709888
where should i start to get rid of this terrible meme?

[Anonymous No.4710424]

>>4710421
muh may-mays lelele

[Anonymous No.4710430]

>>4709881
>>4709888
>>4710421
the greeks

[Anonymous No.4710434]

>>4709791
>>4709798
>>4709802
>>4709840
>>4709872
>>4709874
>>4709881
>>4709887
>>4709888
>>4709894
>>4710302
>>4710421
>>4710424
>>4710430
>>4710177
>>4708445
>>4710394
>>4710331
>>4710395
>>4710389
>>4710261
>>4710266
where do i start to get rid of this terrible meme?

[Anonymous No.4710477]

>>4709881
the greeks

[Anonymous No.4710495]

where do i start to send you faggots back to /s4s/

[Anonymous No.4710631]

>>4709791
Get a firm grasp on the general lines of western philosophy. Don't have to start with the greeks, do it in any order you like but make sure to include:
Plato
Aristotle (yeah, fuck the presocs, you can read those when they become relevant)
Descartes
Leibniz
Kant
Dilthey
Husserl

Optional:
Heraclit
Hume
Hagel
Fichte
Schelling
Schleiermacher
Nerdsche
Brentano
Frege

Then for avctual Heidegger, start with something short from the earlier Freiburg period (anything whose title tickles your fancy) to get a feel for his style. Then work your way towards Sein und Zeit - try to read this with seondary lit/other people in a reading group

good luck

[Anonymous No.4710645]

>>4710631
just an additive to make sure:
donb't read everything by all those people. just make sure you understand them well enough.

[Anonymous No.4710661]

>>4710631
Another important one is Thomas of Aquinas

[Anonymous No.4710674]

Heidegger, like many before him and many since, purported to do away with all philosophy before him and invent it anew. So you start reading Heidegger by reading Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.4710714]

>>4710434
husserl isn't a greek and the suggestion of starting with aristotle and husserl is a good one. no meme

even though i agree start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.4710732]

>>4710631
>no Spinoza
Pls.

[Anonymous No.4710734]

>>4710732
Leibniz is the more relevant one for understanding Heidegger

[Anonymous No.4710789]

>>4709791
Considering you're aware of Heidegger and want to read him, I'm gonna guess you at least have some awareness of the history of philosophy. If not, then just read up a bit on the history of metaphysics.

>>4710631
This seems to favor an understanding of his early period, rather than his later, less systematic works (the two aren't completely opposed to one another though). Nietzsche, Heraclitus, Holderlin, and Kierkegaard (especially his early existentialist writing) all influenced Heidegger far more than anyone on that list.

This is what I would recommend.

Being and Time:
All of the Introduction and Division One is really quite lucid and can be grasped through careful reading, even without prior reading of western metaphysics. Dreyfus's online lectures and Polt's collection on supplementary commentaries are good aids.

Division two is a bit trickier. Here's a quick run down on what you really should read and fully understand-
sections 46-53; sections 64,65; 68-69; 73-75. These mostly cover being-towards-death, anxiety, care, disclosive moods, and time.

Then take a break and read some Nietzsche and Holderlin. Read Heidegger's writings on Nietzsche. Also become acquainted with Heraclitus. Maybe read the Tao Te Ching.

Now read these:
Letter on Humanism
The Origin of the Work of Art
The Thing
What are Poets For?
The Way to Language
Building Dwelling Thinking
Question Concerning Technology
The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking

[Anonymous No.4710791]

>>4710789
>This seems to favor an understanding of his early period, rather than his later, less systematic works
Yeah, I did that on purpose though. 1) the early period is, I think, a better introduction to the general movements present in H.'s though. Better in the sense of easier to access. 2) I have some problems with the later Heidegger. Reification of language goes a bit to far off from my everyday experience. Origin of the Work of Art is... I don't know... something's wrong but I cannot put my finger on it. One thing is that it does not lend itself well to the understanding (art historical) of a work of art. Though, I suppose if you're an artist it's a nice stick up your ass. I do like the idea of das Geviert though.

[Anonymous No.4710794]

Black Notebooks. What's the verdict?

[Anonymous No.4710800]

>>4709791
If you are still here, OP. I'd like to first know why you want to read Heidegger, before ginving you advice.

[Anonymous No.4710802]

>>4710789
>all influenced Heidegger far more
b-but muh scholasticism

[Anonymous No.4710804]

>>4710789
Could you explain the greatest differences between early and late Heidgger?

[Anonymous No.4710815]

>>4710804
Early Heidegger is a systemic approach to the question of Being through beings. He starts with Dasein because it is the being for which Being is a question. Being and Time is basically an exploration of Dasein and its mode of being. This project goes hand in hand with his destruktion (deconstruction) of western metaphysics. He doesn't really get very far with either of these and starts to see the systematic approach as not suitable.

In his later works, he reads a bunch more Nietzsche, Heraclitus, Holderlin, and Rilke and starts to focus more on art and language as a way of understanding Being.

[Anonymous No.4710821]

>>4710815
So, early period is still very much in line with Kant's transcendental project?

[Anonymous No.4710827]

He is one of the most complicated philosophers
I recommend you to learn german, read Aquinas, Hegel,Descartes,Kant,Kierkegaard,maybe nietzsche and then you start with heidegger
Obviously start with being and time and then read Holderlin and the essence of poetry

[Anonymous No.4710872]

>>4710827
>no aristotle

fucking WHAT

[Anonymous No.4710875]

You don't, you jump straight to Metzinger who actually knows what he's talking about.