before reading this book, is there a good introduction to understand it better?
It's for a course I took, help me :(
>>6326016
meh, not really. there are a lot of texts that are mean to be accompanied-readers which may help, but I just used Dermot Moran's 'Phenomenology' and had read Husserl's Ideas and Cartesian Meditations
Cartesian meditations by Husserl
>>6326019
mine was also for a course. it's a v v challenging read, m8. watch some youtube vids, google basic terminology (i.e. dasein, das man, authentic/inauthentic self, readiness at hand, etc.) and familiarize yourself with the basic concepts before reading. that way you'll be able to better pick out the key concepts/passages that illustrate said concepts without being like 'wtf did i just read'. phenomenology is a mind fuck at first
>>6326016
Go to your Uni library, search the website for any and all companion readings, and just start fucking hoarding and reading them.
I have one companion piece by Micheal Gelvin thats helpful
http://www.amazon.com/A-Commentary-Heideggers-Being-Time/dp/0875805442
also, believe it or not they made a movie about it that's not too shitty if you keep a little bit of critical distance and are willing to toss out what the film says in favor of Heidegger's writing.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1515195/
its basically Herbert Dryfus giving a really good intro lecture to Being and Time, and will give you some broad knowledge of the topic at hand.
Approach Being and Time like your new shitty hobby; that is to say, sink a few hours here and there, then a week or two of really intense study, then go live life, have sex with an attractive woman (or man, I won't judge), get drunk, read Kant, come back to it, etc. etc.
anyway, just don't get burnt out on it (or rather, WHEN you get burnt out on it) and expect to have your opinions on it evolve over time.
Also, Heidegger is one of the worst, most obtuse writers I have ever come across in my time studying philosophy. I love his work and theories, but his writing is something else. Good luck.
Spelunky.
Fashionable nonsense.
>>6326016
Mein Kampf.
Reading one without the other does both of them injustice.
>>6326686
huehuehue
those "heidi was a nazi" jokes are really getting old. has anyone of you actually read his black notebooks?
>>6326687
Have you? There can be no doubt that heidi was a nazi, he just didn't buy into the racialism part. Instead, he considered jews a metaphysical antagonist.
>>6326691
as a matter of fact i have. better brush up you german and get yourself a copy and you'll see that it's not all that simple. yes, the man had isssues but he wasn't an antisemite.
>>6326696
He was an antisemite, just not a racist.
Und ich muss meine Kenntniss der deutschen Sprache sicher nicht auffrischen, um das zu wissen.
>>6326710
Dann geh und kauf die schwarzen Hefte und wir können weiterreden.
http://www.amazon.de/Gesamtausgabe-Abteilungen-%C3%9Cberlegungen-II-VI-1931-1938/dp/3465038150/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427534754&sr=8-1&keywords=schwarze+hefte+heidegger
>>6326715
Die brauche ich nicht zu kaufen, die gibt es bei uns in der Bibliothek. Und so ein verblendeter Fanboy kann man doch gar nicht sein, dass man einfach mal ignoriert was er da über Juden schreibt.
>>6326729
Auch gut, ich schlage vor, dass du am Montag in deine Bibliothek gehst, dir den Band 94 raussuchst (siehe Link) und Seite 367 aufschlägst. Danach siehst du die Sache vielleicht ein wenig anders.
>>6326735
Da du ja offensichtlich die Schwarzen Hefte auf dem Schreibtisch liegen hast, tipp' doch einfach mal das entscheidende Zitat ab und rette Martins Ruf.
Jetzt bin ich wirklich auch neugierig auf dieses Zitat.
help there are nazis in my /lit/
>>6327776
Nope, just people who are in denial about Martin's politcal convictions.
>>6326026
The Idea of Phenomenology by Edmund Husserl is the same? more complex? Trust me, I know shit about phenomenology.
>>6326016
I have to say, that's a pretty uncanny cover for Being and Time.
>>6326016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaIWz_87Kz0
A 27 part lecture series on what the book's trying to say by someone considered to be one of THE experts on the subject.
>>6328179
Continental philosophy struggles from expressing its ideas concisely. If you can't explain phenomenology to me as if I'm a 5 year old you don't understand phenomenology.
Now I'm saying all this because I want you to explain to me wtf phenomenology is. Thank you in advance.
This is a quote from a forum:
Thought I'd dig up this thread; as I think 'a way into' thinking with Heidegger can be pointed to which was the OP's original request. Other answers have been pure ridicule or where they were good - may be too long - I will simplify - which always will 'get it wrong' - you have to read the WHOLE TEXT yourself to have a chance of thinking along the path that Heidegger points to.
Heidegger often brings up this fragment of Parmenides (A pre-plato Greek philosopher - whom Heidegger thought highly of):
"Thinking and the thought that it is are the same; for you will not find thought apart from what is, in relation to which it is uttered."
and elsewhere:
"For thought and being are the same."
So this is very, very simple stuff:
'I' think/percieve -----toward----> THINGS (beings)
THEN
THINGS in return ------> return to and condition 'MY' THINKING/PERCIEVING (Being)
Note first that Heidegger may render/translate 'thinking' as 'perception' and also that by 'the same' he means 'belong together' which is a fancy/poetic way of saying 'one does not lay the foundation for the other' - they are co-dependent.
Because of sentence structure I had to say that AS IF my thinking 'comes first' (which is what Heidegger thinks Descartes Cogito is) - when the first clue to thinking 'the being of beings' is that NEITHER ARISES FIRST - it's a chicken or egg problem!
Heidegger here is thinking back to a 'fork in the road' where philosophy closes off uncertainity for the certainty of 'the thinking subject' the 'I' that stands initially alone in order to then 'enter the world'. In Descartes 'philosophical move' of 'I think...therefore I am' Heidegger sees the thinking for us to overcome; This is the meaning of Heidegger's term 'being-in-the-world' It's as if Heidegger is saying "HEY DESCARTES? As if you could 'exit' the world to enter it 'more properly'!? TOO-LATE-PAL-YOU'RE-ALREADY-HERE"
This is directly related to the OP's question as when we ask about the 'being of beings' - it literally means 'the inteligibility of entities' or in more simple terms: the way in 'which things' (beings) 'make sense to us' (Being). So we must realise that 'Being' - as the way in which things make sense to us - is ALWAYS sliding/shifting/changing - in our personal history and in our cultural history and even between different 'times/epochs/eras'.
The being of beings then 'is' "The way in which things are always already understood" - the background against which anything can appear as the thing that it is.
We can now make sense of other Heidegger quotes such as "Knowledge is always already a kind of self-knowledge" which is to say that 'to know a thing' I must first know that I am capable of such knowledge. Which is why Heidegger often says that if you follow his thinking you will no longer ask 'what is?' - this or that entity - but you will instead turn to ask 'who am I?'.
1/?
>>6326016
Look for Richard Sembera's "Rephrasing Heidegger: A Companion to Being and Time".
http://www.amazon.com/Rephrasing-Heidegger-Companion-Being-Philosophica/dp/0776606638
So we can show an example of how this disturbs and displaces more traditional/modern philisophical problems:
For Heidegger the question of 'free-will' is a mistaken question - as it fails to take into account parmenidies' statement that 'thinking and being are the same' - we are neither purely determined - nor are we purely 'free' the two are 'the same' - the two are at play in some uncertain way. It gets VERY complicated but stick with it and it's rewarding!
2/2
hope
>>6328305
hope it helps*
>>6328310
What is this helping with again?
>>6326016
The Dreyfus lectures are very good as an introduction, but if you don't have enough time for those, go for that Sembera book that somebody mentioned above, which I remember as being pretty good. Magda King has a more thorough commentary that gets into more details than Sembera. If you need at least one thorough commentary, make it King's.
>>6326016
read the intro really carefully a few times, watch a few youtubes and put this nazi bullshit down, not worth the effort.
