[ 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: 28 KB, 335x499, 41tHACwkLWL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9698199 No.9698199 [Reply] [Original]

What should I read before tackling this, besides Aristotle's Metaphysics?

>> No.9698209

All the greeks and all the germans.

>> No.9698223

>>9698199
Heidegger's essay "What is Metaphysics?" is basically mandatory before reading Being and Time imo.

Or you can watch this lecture about it by /ourguy/ Sadler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-4hV6Rf1k

>> No.9698299

I want to read it but apparently the Dutch translation lacks a glossary. Should i get an English translationm?
I think my German isnt good enough to read the original version.

>> No.9698307

>>9698223
Meh, I was happy to have read it beforehand, but not really necessary. It touches on some points of SZ, but much of that lecture (and yes, it's a lecture, not an essay) is honestly pointing beyond Sein und Zeit. This is the first place I know of where H starts thematizing Ereignis, and IMHO that is the most important points of that lecture.

OP, idk, probably know some Kant, Nietzsche and Descartes. Maybe Husserl, but read a primer on him/phenomenology in general would be my advice, Husserl is more of a trip than Heidegger, really.

>> No.9699728

bump

>> No.9699840

Hegel because of Being.

>> No.9700273

>>9698199
Fashionable nonsense

>> No.9700320
File: 346 KB, 1829x788, 1447721686263.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9700320

>>9700273

>> No.9700717

This will be an unpopular opinion but you can probably go into it without much of anything. You'll definitely miss certain parts (for example his takedown of Descartes) and the more you know about the history of philosophy the better, but Heidegger is extremely systematic about how he presents information. Most of the difficulty lies in learning his vocabulary; once you have that, he really holds your hand the whole way and writes very dialectically, constantly summarizing previous points. He really doesn't refer to other philosophers in detail all that often (save for Descartes) and when he does he will quote everything for you before talking about it. If you're willing to sit with certain sections in hours of agony at first, you can do it. And after reading Being and Time, you might feel more inclined to go back and see what in the history of philosophy you missed.

Contrary to other posters here, I definitely wouldn't recommend starting with anything he wrote after Being and Time. The later stuff takes a different direction and he won't define certain terms and concepts he already laid out in BT. BT is the best place to start.

>> No.9700867

>>9698199
imho, this is one of Heidegger's least interesting and most overrated books.

I agree here with >>9700717 about Heidegger's later stuff. It is completely different and by that same token you should dive directly into it. Forget about his systematic/phenomenologic attempts. He is still too kantian and haven't met Hölderlin yet.

Read his articles and conferences. Read his Parmenides alongside with Parmenide's poem and commentators. Same with Heraclitus or Aristotle.

Being and Time is a failed project and an incomplete and abandoned book.

>> No.9700904

Husserl

>> No.9700916

>>9700867
Being and time is worth mostly reading for understanding his later works alone.
But I agree it's not his best.

>> No.9701016

>>9700867
Being and Time is incredible but you're right that his later stuff is much more interesting.

Basic Questions of Philosophy can act as an introduction of sorts to the mode of thinking he adopted later on.

>> No.9701144

>>9698199
You really don't NEED anyone, because heiddegger is more or less just exploring what it means to be in the act of being, and he is painstaking in laying out his system of how he views i.
Knowing general philosophy would help but I wouldn't say it's necessary.

>> No.9702167

>>9701144
>You really don't NEED anyone, because heiddegger is more or less just exploring what it means to be in the act of being, and he is painstaking in laying out his system of how he views i.

Then by this same logic you should also accept that you can straigth go to Hegel

>> No.9702599

I picked up a copy of Poetry Language Thought the other day. I'm decently familiar w/ medieval philosophy/theology, and like a surface-level scratching of Kant. Is there anything necessary to read, or is Heidegger pretty straightforward and dialectical in this collection?

>> No.9702600

every book

>> No.9702608

>>9702167
You can jump into most philosophy that isn't late 20th century academic trifling since you're dealing with a complete system and not the latest turn in a long period of convoluted, dry, and contrived discourse. Poststructuralists like Foucault can often be read on their own without much prerequisites and still be valuable, but yet you couldn't say the same for critical theory outside of some of the sociological topics like Adorno's Culture Industry. If you haven't read Marx, Hegel, and the academic canon du jour, then you're walking into a field of jibberish. Pick a book by Habermas, Butler, or somebody who was influenced by them (read: half of literary theory and philosophy today) and be prepared to understand not an iota of what they're talking about.

>> No.9702611

>>9702608
I meant to say "EVEN post-structuralists" to emphasize just how bad it has gotten today. Sure, other philosophers write their works in response to other philosophers, and the more philosophy you know, the better equipped you are to understand the nuances and the stakes, but when you're dealing with complete systems of thought over motivating issues, you don't need prerequisites to appreciate a good chunk of the work.

>> No.9702617

>>9702611
I read Hegel without any philosophical background and can confirm this.

>> No.9703584

bump

>> No.9704111

just heraclitus and some vague idea of platos forms

after that then you can read aristotle, hegel, kant and see how heidegger takes them up

too bad heidegger was a hack though and his philosophy a mistake

>> No.9704118

>>9702167
You can though.
You know he intended phenomenology of spirit to be a guide for new students right?

>> No.9704157

>>9700717
i'll agree that you can jump into without a having a totally horrible time. had a prof as an undergrad that just sent us into it. tho i think we read "what is metaphysics" beforehand if i remember correctly

>> No.9704280

>>9698199
I went in with a near complete ignorance of philosophy but I do really think that I came away understanding a little bit of what he was getting at. While reading, I tracked the posts /analysis of some reading group found though a google search on some old forlorn message board. It helped, I think?

3 years later I went back, accompanied with my notes from the first read plus a pesud's bushel of acquired knowledge I went back and did a reread. Though, this time, my Sacagewea was Lee Braver's Heidegger: Thinking of Being. I feel the revisit was enriching though I hedge this thought, mindful of my modest brain and the repletive density of Heidegger's thought.

Any pseuds up for participating in a reading group? Preferably, we could enlist somebody who has studied B&T at the university level.

>> No.9704308

>>9704118
I know. It's my point. Which majority of lit dont get.

>> No.9705028

>>9704118
>>9702167
But in that time all students dedicated to humanities were formed under Fichte's and Kant's systems. There were strong reasons to write the Phenomenology in the way Hegel did.

Somebody achieving that in our time is, in my opinion, Peter Sloterdijk (and maybe Giorgio Agamben sometimes).