Where should I start with Heidegger?
>>984660
Start with the Greeks.
No, really. He said himself any student of philosophy should study Aristotle for ten years before taking up modern philosophy.
What >>984696 said.
Once you've sufficiently studied the Greeks (I do think 10 years of Aristotle is an excessive requirement), you can begin with Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.
>>984660
If you have to ask in English, it's already too late.
Don't bother.
>>984696
Not only that, but his works are rife with Greek loanwords.
Dove right into "Being and Time" once and ended up spending most of my reading cross-checking ancient Greek writing to understand the context of the loan words.
>>984732
t. a pleb
>>984660
Start with a 20s lecture course (most of them are published), and try to read along with a solid translation of a work he's inspecting in the course. A great example is his course on Plato's Sophist, which gives you insight into how he develops his concepts. You're basically reading him make his way into Being and Time.
>>984660
The trashcan.
You should have at least a general background in the history of philosophy first--what you would get from a couple of survey courses. Then watch the Dreyfus lectures on him on YouTube. Then read S&Z.
>>984660
>>987072
If you do listen to the Dreyfus lectures OP be wary about taking everything he says as Heidegger. Dreyfus is amazing but it's his view of Being and Time. During the lectures he makes a lot of comments about how some of his views have changed and how he's still not sure about what Heidegger is saying in certain parts.
I got into Heidegger through really general overviews of him like Stanford's encyclopedia. I also read and discussed his essays with a professor and reading group over at my school. Then I jumped into B&T. You really should have decent knowledge of the history of philosophy, but if you're interested in philosophy and seriously studying it, you should have a lot of the preparatory work done without knowing it.
Enjoy, I can't wait to read it again.
>>984660
Oh also have a basic understanding of what phenomenology is and how it's done. Dreyfus says a lot of Heidegger won't make any sense if you don't consider the phenomena and I think he's right. It made a lot more sense when I thought if it that way. It may be hard at first if you've never done that kind of philosophy but you'll get used to it.
>>984660
His essay on Nietzsche's Will to Power is comparatively accessible and leads much of the groundwork for his philosophy, especially his post-Turn stuff.
>>987099
I was always under the impression Dreyfuss is reading him in a way that's very influenced by pragmatism. It may or may not be representative of Heidegger but it's only one way of approaching his work.
>>990791
Really? How so?
>>991043
I can't remember the specifics, because i didnt look into dreyfuss, but I wanna say it was something like he splits the text into talking about being and then talking about time instead of pointing out that the equiprimordial temporal structure was present throughout the entire text, not just the second half. that and something about failing to recognize the whole project as simply preliminary work and saying you don't have to read past a certain point
