/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9220705]

*deletes*

[Anonymous No.9220774]

>>9220705
Fact: Being and Time contains the key to defeating ZOG. Heidegger was being obscure for a good reason.

[Anonymous No.9220872]

>>9220774
Tell me more

[Anonymous No.9220914]

am i a pretentious shit for liking this book despite not understanding the half of it

[Anonymous No.9220961]

>>9220914
The introduction alone solidifies its place in the history of philosophy

People just don't comprehend how fucking smart Marty was

[Anonymous No.9220967]

>>9220914
I mean kind of, depends which half you got

[Anonymous No.9221006]

>>9220705
Before I read Heidegger I was a left wing transgender drug addict, now I live in a cabin in the pacific northwest, hunting my own food, hoarding ammo and fathering an ever more numerous brood of White Children

[Anonymous No.9221007]

>>9220967
i listened to several hours of hubert dreyfus' lectures on it which helped me to understand a lot of the jargon. i just found it fucking impossible to follow a lot of it because of the translation difficulties and how circular and repetitive it gets. but when the psychobabble becomes comprehensible it's pretty interesting.

i think maybe i enjoy the challenge of trying to understand it, so much as the book itself.

[Anonymous No.9221018]

>>9220914
No. Don't let brainlets tell you differently

[Anonymous No.9221020]

>>9221007
Maybe you need more background reading. You need to have a good working knowledge of Kant, Nietzsche and Hegel at least. Husserl very recommended too

[Anonymous No.9221044]

>>9221020
yeah i'm sure i do.
i've read nietzche but i know little of kant or hegel.

[Anonymous No.9221047]

>>9221020
yeah i'm sure i do.
i've read nietzsche but little of kant or hegel.

[Anonymous No.9221608]

>>9221020
You do NOT need knowledge of Nietzsche for Sein und Zeit... he's mentioned in passing ONCE in the whole book.
HUSSERL, on the other hand, is a fucking MUST, along with aristotle and descartes

[Anonymous No.9221619]

>>9221608
thanks for this. i'm the guy above your post.

[Anonymous No.9221622]

>>9220705
I don't know if this book had anything to say or it was merely a giant bluff, but i know that it doesn't prove anything. Heidegger provides no proof whatsoever for what he claims. Even if he is saying something, he doesn't prove it. So it becomes a little pointless to try to figure out what he said.

To me Heidegger's convoluted and unscientific style seems to have more in common with psychiatrists than philosophers. I shudder at his grotesquely naive analyses of existence, fear, anxiety, the uncanny, conscience and death.

If you pick up this book at a library or at a second-hand bookshop, you will notice that only the first few pages have annotations and bear signs of having actually being turned. Virtually nobody had ever read this book to the end. But it is routinely listed as a milestone of philosophy. I personally think it represents a milestone of everything that gives philosophers a bad reputation: unscientific, incomprehensible, incompetent, and, ultimately, just plain silly.

Be suspicious of any philosopher who hailed this as a great book. Heidegger stated that Sartre had misunderstood most of his ideas, and that's the biggest compliment ever paid to Sartre.
Then again any summary, written in ordinary language, of this book constitutes a misunderstanding of his "ideas", because those "ideas" depend entirely on being written in a convoluted and unscientific language.

[Anonymous No.9221692]

>>9221622
This.
Read Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.9221775]

>>9221020
How do into Hegel? what immediate pre-reading should I do (and by this I mean I have already read the greeks and some other) and what of Hegel's books should I start with

[Anonymous No.9221907]

YOU DAS MAN NOW, DOG!

[Anonymous No.9221919]

>>9221006

Hey, neighbor!

Stay on your own property.

[Anonymous No.9221923]

>>9221622

Scruffy, I swear to Christ, if I ever meet you irl I am going to throttle your disgusting chicken neck.