How seriously do you take peoples' opinion if they haven't even read something like Being and Time? Seriously asking.
>>7394778
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.
>>7394782
Agreed. He's like the Beatles of philosophy.
It's pretty necessary for understanding the direction of 20th C. philosophy. But honestly, the most important idea is of ontological difference (check SEP for clarification) and you can get many of the main ideas from some slightly easier reads like the Introduction to Metaphysics.
depends on what the opinion is about.
reading any one book does not make your opinion more credible. philisophy books even tend to give me an opinion that my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (at least worth more than the opinion of people who aren't "in to" philsophy) but i try to fight against that.
i think that great books like Being and Time just help you appreciate the fact that your opinion (on many given matters) has a long ways to go.
>>7394778
as someone who tends to not be interested in philosophy, I treat their opinions as if I myself could have them. There is nothing wrong with reading philosphy, but their is something wrong with considering another person's opinion invalid because they haven't exprerienced what you have. So I haven't read this book which you consider a major work. I'm sure I've read many books that you haven't that I consider major works. We both have valid opinions.
>>7394782
Great pasta
>unscientific style
Considering he wasn't, you know, doing science, this can hardly be held against him.
>I shudder at his grotesquely naive analyses of existence, fear, anxiety, the uncanny, conscience and death
I would just love--no, really, LOVE--to read more from you on how Heidegger somehow failed to realize the depth of the concepts he himself was excavating.
>>7394835
You sound like a pathetic moron in this post. Just fyi.
Scaruffi, the author of that pasta, is an expert in artificial intelligence and the cognitive sciences. I think it's already clear from that just how charitable he's going to Heidegger's project, something that essentially amounts to a kind of introspective psychology, the ultimate in naivete for a cyberneticist.
>>7394854
Scaruffi is a fucking hack music critic that misunderstands the most basic philosophical concepts. He has no business writing publicly on any subject, and that he continues to do so only heightens his embarrassment in the eyes and minds of actually knowledgeable people. The 'criticism' of Heidegger's 'project' you posted above is utterly vacuous, just like everything else posted on this shit board, including my own words.
Question: Is this book easy to read? Do I have to know something specific before Being and Time? Thanks, planning on buying it soon
>>7394865
Stop posting then.
Seriously, please do not fucking reply.
I think we can both agree you are worthless scum.
>>7394877
Consider the fact that you are incapable of formulating your own thoughts on a subject, and are instead forced by your own ineptitude to repost the tone-deaf ramblings of a dilettante. Who's scum here, really?
>>7394886
I thought we agreed that you'd keep your fingers still.
I can tell there's a lot of autobiography in your post, but absolutely nothing about anything that happened here.
>>7394887
You're a joke. Good night.
How does one reconcile atheism, or lack of belief , with the incessant need to feel superior to others because of what particular forms of media they consume (i.e. literature) ?
>>7394892
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Sweet dreams.
kill yourself OP, please
>>7394875
Just read it, it's a book.
>>7394904
Yeah, okay. Would you like to answer my question the next time? I know what a book is, I've seen some before. dimwit...
>>7394875
Just read the book you autismal mongo
>>7394904
How is it that from six (and a half) words, I can simply know, with almost absolute certainty, that having read that book is exactly what you, one who incessantly exhorts others to "just read" this or that item of their curiosity, have not done?
>>7394778
I'm still studying Hegel.
>>7394912
It's fairly dense and difficult to read if you're unfamiliar with fairly dense and difficult to read material. Frankly; if you're even vaguely familiar with some of the basic philosophical questions you should be able to catch on. Just read it nice and slow and don't be afraid to re-read complicated and confusing paragraphs. It's well worth anybody's time granted they actually have an interest in the topics. I did 'just read it' and am so, so, so so so glad I did, it was on a whim even.
>>7394922
It's beyond me.
>>7394778
about as seriously as i take the opinions of people who havent read "The Time-Being" by Dogen.
and i'll put money on it that you aint read that.
>>7394875
>spending money on books
>>7394875
No, it isn't easy to read. You won't understand any of it unless you have a thorough knowledge of the greeks and you are at least educated on hermeneutics. It's completely dumb to think you will tackle this book without background knowledge.
>>7395297
>educated on hermeneutics
different anon here, where would i start with that?
Well, I haven't read it and I don't talke my own opinion seriously.
>>7395297
>the greeks
Jesus Christ an you not leave your God damned memes out of anything.
Disregard this twat. The Greeks are largely negligible here.
>>7395475
>aletheia, logos and noesis in their original senses are central concepts for Heidegger
But nah, you're right, the Greeks are irrelevant here.
I fucking hate you guys sometimes.
