So i saw this guide i got interested in the "being like water" part.
I got a copy of Being and Time and im like 1 page in and i dont understand shit.
What do?
pls no bully
>>8236476
read the canon first
Any philosophical text is a dialogue with those preceding it - get at least a rough outline of Western philosophy (and in this particular case, Eastern too maybe) and then try again.
Not memeing by the way, this is how you do it if you don't want to be the whole thing to be useless.
>>8236476
Buy a companion to Being and Time, perhaps?
Try to get as much as you can out of the book, using dictionaries and encyclopedias if you have to. Maybe skim over http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/ .
I'm sure you can find plenty of Youtube videos about Being and Time, too.
>>8236504
This is also good advice. An introductory philosophy textbook can do you some good. Maybe read Durant's History of Philosophy. I know Russell's is a bit biased.
Save it for later. Being and Time isn't a work for laymen.
Read "Zen Mind, Begginer's Mind" instead. It's probably more what you're looking for as well.
>>8236691
>I don't think that's the case with most Eastern works, my friend.
May be, I'm woefully underread in that area - I was talking about Being and Time and its place in the Western Canon to be fair.
How do Eastern texts correlate with each other, if they do so at all?
>>8236702
By no means am I an expert on the subject, but from the research I've done on it when I was trying to figure out what key 'philosophical' texts I should read to get into Eastern works, I found that it's quite different from the West in that the works aren't usually dialogues with preceding works (though, of course they may be influenced by them). In this way, Eastern 'philosophy' is very different in that there is no Eastern canon like there is in the West. Also, their 'philosophy' is not purely philosophical, if that makes any sense.
Like I said, I'm not an expert so don't just take my word for it.
>>8236700
heidegger's philosophy is actually pretty similar to some eastern philosophies (i.e. Zen).
>>8236476
>not getting interested in DYS
>>8236476
The first 45 pages are murder, but it gets more comprehensible after that (when he actually starts talking about what it's like to be alive.)
>>8236476
I'd recommend reading "What is Metaphysics?" and "The Origin of the Work of Art" before diving into B&T because they explain some essential components of Heideggerian thought in much plainer language.
>>8236476
Strawman: The Graphic
>>8237357
What did he mean by this?
>>8236520
>I know Russell's is a bit biased.
>a bit
>>8236476
Don't start with Heidegger
You don't need a companion guide, it can distort your own opinion with interpretive bias
Start with the Greeks
I'm not even meming OP
>>8237505
Which Greek stuff is truly essential for what OP's trying to learn about?
>>8237534
It kinda seemed like OP was a newcomer to philosophy. Diving into all the modern existential texts might be fun and all, but you'll end up with a very narrow understanding of philosophy and the concepts in general. Many of the texts from the western canon are responses to other philosophies and are reactive to cultural thought and the state of society at the time. Without a strong base knowledge of the timeline associated with western philosophical thought, studying specific texts will often leave entry level readers more confused and disorientated than when they began, absorbing little to none of the actual knowledge. The Greeks are also notoriously easy to digest, and starting with them aids one's comprehension skills in philosophical writing. The most basic ideas related to OP's image might be Plato's thoughts on the ordered soul, and, as an extension, Aristotle's philosophy of eudamonia.
>>8236476
>SCHOPENHAUER
>peace
Pic related: It's Schopy
>tfw you've studied all the philosophies and are still no better than other people
wtf man i thought normies would worrship me
>>8236761
Yea, if you read his "Introduction to Metaphysics" he basically takes Heraclitus and Parmenides and recreates the Tao out of them.
Did anyone follow heidegger? Aside from Sartre, the guys after him all seem like he didn't happen
>>8239262
Is that a book? What is "how to read a book"?
>>8239337
>read "How to Read a Book"
>whats that?
Gosh I wonder. Maybe it's one of those readable pants.
>>8236476
How does the Ubermensch and the Absurdist not murge into a single philosophy?
>get existential crisis
>calm myself in minutes with good feels
I think I got this
>>8239447
Because they're two completely different concepts?
>>8236761
High end Catholicism resembles Zen, see Thomas Martin. Heidegger was a Catholic
>>8237446
>i think devil's spawn is a bit biased
>a bit
>>8239450
Are you implying that the Absurdist cannot, and does not, transcend normal morality?
That he does not create his own meaning in life?
>>8239462
not the same guy but absurdist is a joke philosophy
>hedonism is drink/fuck/eat
Not that I concur, but it's a VERY narrow list of all activities and a very stereotypical portrayal of hedonism.