What do I need to read before I can read Heidegger?

>>10019310
Start with the Greeks

adolf hitler - my struggle

Plato
Aristotle
Hölderlin
Husserl
Hegel
Kant
Schlegel
Schelling
Fichte
Dilthey
St. Augustine
Kierkegaard
Jordan Peterson
Brentano
Nietzsche

>>10019329
>Jordan Peterson
Alright.

Why?

>>10019344
it's a gag list ya dork

Maybe I should rephrase the question.

Has anyone on this board read Heidegger? If so what books do you feel are necessary for understanding his works?

>>10019310
My experience is that you will need to have an overview of his terminology to start with. Thing is, he creates lots of new words to describe his characteristic concept of 'being'. You will only understand what he is on about if you are already read-in on the subject. Otherwise it basically impossible.

You can start studying here. This is a good website:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

>>10019434
So basically just read introductory books about Heidegger before reading the real deal.

Okay that sounds doable.

>>10019368

Hey, man. I wrote my master's thesis on Being and Time. Let me try to narrow it down to five.

1. Platonic Dialogues. I can't say which five would be the most Heideggerian here, but you need to have read the Sophist AT LEAST. The more the better.

2. Aristotle. Metaphysics and Physics Book ∆ (4). For reasons that will become immediately upon reading Being and Time. This is an absolute must.

2.5 Brentano's On the Several Senses of Being in Aristotle. This is the work that inspired Heidegger to do philosophy in the first place and I would highly recommend reading it.

3. Descartes' Meditations. Part of the book is replying to age-old questions about the nature of knowledge. Heidegger rejects the Cartesian picture, but you need to know where he's doing it and why he's doing it. Knowing what questions B&T is answering is a key part of reading the work.

4. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Being and Time would not exist without this book. I guess you could get away with reading the Prolegomena and the Transcendental Aesthetic, but it's not like it's a fucking coincidence that Heidegger published a book on Kant two years after the publication of BT. You should not be doing philosophy in the first place if you have not read this book.

5. Husserl, Ideas I (and II if you're feeling saucy). If you're not aware of Heidegger's relationship to Husserl, you need to be. Again, what questions is Heidegger trying to answer? Many of them are contained within this book. It's a great work of philosophy that should be more widely read but it is quite difficult. You should look at people like Zahavi to get an idea of what's going on here because it's fucking dense. Familiarize yourself with the project of phenomenology. Do it by reading this work.

Hope this helps. One can jump right into the Heideggerian deep end if they want but the work is dripping with meaning that you don't want to miss out on. Otherwise you're going to miss how revolutionary it is and just use it to confirm your own opinions. But Being and Time is an extraordinary book and I'll gladly help out anyone who wants to read it. The problem with Heidegger is that he is a true philosopher's philosopher, which means that he's read pretty much fucking everything. He revolutionized philosophy in the 20th century because he *understood* the philosophy that came before him. If you want to get the most out of BT, you should make a sincere attempt to understand its historical lineage. Happy hunting.

>>10019523

let me add on top of this that you should also just read everything that Heraclitus and Parmenides wrote. It's not much and you can do it in an evening. Read it slowly and purposefully, highlight things you find interesting and comment on them yourself. What's going on in Parmenides' poem? What do you find insightful about Heraclitus' ontological claims? Those sort of things :)

>>10019368
Yes, I have and so have plenty of others.

Heidegger is a very self-contained philosopher. In his early works (Intro to Metaphysics, Being and Time) most of his references to other philosophers are to show how they miss the question of Being and go astray in their thinking (he primarily uses Descartes, Plato, and Kant as examples). While knowing these philosophers can help you better understanding what he is trying to avoid in philosophy, ultimately you can still have a good grasp on his philosophy without being well versed in these thinkers. While Being and Time is difficult, if you give it some effort, you will still be able to understand it with little to no background in philosophy.

Many of his later works are primarily exegetical, so obviously you need to know about the philosopher he is lecturing on. Most of his focus goes to the pre-Socratics, but he also has volumes on Nietzsche, Leibniz, Hegel, etc. Much of his philosophy goes into analyzing 19th century German poetry as well, so if you can read German it would be good to check out poets like Holderin, Trakl, ad Rilke (translations aren't worth it).

But ultimately, you can read almost anything Heidegger wrote without needing an outside source. Whenever you don't understand a passage of his, it's better to just reread it until it clicks rather than go hunting for some philosophical passage elsewhere to provide you the "right" background.

>>10019523
This list is legit. Also I would get some secondary sources on being and time. There are a lot of half decent introductions to his thought. There are a lot of terrible ones too. I personally found Dreyfus' commentary enormously helpful, but some scholars thinks he gets Heidegger wrong at key points.

>>10019310
Why would you want to read anything written by a Nazi?

>>10019523
>Aristotle
fucking dropped

File: molymeme concerned.png (226KB, 595x595px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 595x595px

>>10019796
>You don't need to read Aristotle to read a philosopher that heavily references Aristotlean ideas because I personally do not like Aristotle.

Aristotle for ten to fifteen years

>>10019329
Helli kantbot

>>10019796

This is a notion that has been building up within myself for some time, "Is Aristotle the ultimate pleb filter"?

>>10019523
>>10019549
Who was in the wrong here?

>>10019523
No Nietzsche?

>>10019523
I jumped right into it, I had read just The Sophist and Descartes before. It took me a few reads to actually finish the introduction, but it finally made sense. I kept reading and is really dense, but I can follow along. I don't know if I should keep reading it or go back and read all this stuff.

File: Capture.jpg (85KB, 757x906px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 757x906px

>>10019310

>>10019985
go back there retard

File: corbz.gif (756KB, 250x203px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 250x203px

>>10019989

>>10019310
My diary, desu.

>>10019346
Well most of those are actually adressed in Heidegger's work.

Heidegger.
At most, secondary literature about Heidegger's philosophy (scholarly).

If theme is unfamiliar use SEP or Wikipedia.

>>10019985
>left-wing icon Martin Heidegger
wut

I didn't realize Heidegger was a left-wing icon.

>>10019368
I have. None. It's rare to need to read prior literature. Only applies to cultural marxist mumbojumbp 20th century cuckxist's like Baudrillard Focault Geleuze Deleuze Diluze crap wank.

then again if they had something relevant to say you wouldn't need to so absolved.

>>10019434
>>10019452
Heidegger explains his new terms thoroughly when he brings them up. Being & Time does this. Main books do this.

He has done lots of work on ancient philosophy. THen you need good understanding of them. but that's very scholarly, and rare will autodidacts venture there because it's too hard without discipline.

>>10021233
Well I'm not trusting this guys opinion.

>>10019523
Why not throw in Hegel and Kierkegaard as well? He writes a lengthy critique of Hegel in Being and Time, and borrows heavily from some ideas of Kierkegaard, which are explained better in their original works.

>>10019977
No. You are fine. He is a retard. He might be scholar but he dun goof'd.

>>10019852
I've come to the conclusion that Aristotle is indeed the final ultimate pleb filter.

>>10021237
Socrates could destroy each of the word playing sophist faggots. They're cancer.

>dude anal anus is the world cyclican engine machine finger too

>>10021255
Are you alright, bro?

>>10021260
just schizophrenia and phenomenology of shitposting bro

>>10019310
I'd say the most important ones are Plato, Aristotle, and Husserl. He actually argues in Being and Time that nearly all philosophers since Plato and Aristotle have not seriously addressed what he addresses in his book. Husserl because he was Heidegger's mentor and Being and Time is basically a response to him. Heidegger is a case where having secondary literature may end up being more useful than a philosophical prerequisite, just don't take them as the Word of God or anything

>>10019950
The first anon tells you how to fukly understand Heidegger's ideas in his context, in a scholarly manner; the second anon tells you how to generally grasp Heidegger's ideas, which for non-academics might be enough,

>>10021374
What the first anon proposes is going to lead you to the 'start with the Greeks' meme. Because to understand each of the texts he mentions, you have to understand their origins. To understand Kant you'd need to have read Hume, to understand Hume, you'd need to have read Berkeley and Locke. In the end it boils down to having to read every major philosopher up to that point.

>>10021232
D'Souza is a fool.

>>10021463
or you could just read some secondary literature or Plato SEP pages.

>>10021463
>to understand Kant you'd need to have read Hume
Wrong, you just need to understand the problem of causality.
>to understand Hume, you'd need to have read Berkeley and Locke
Wrong, Hume is an easy read that doesn't demand any prerequisite reading in order to understand what he is saying.
>in the end it boils down to having to read every major philosopher up to that point
Wrong. Chronological reading isn't necessary. You can delve into philosophy in different ways. Plato and Kant are actually considered the best entry points into a serious study of philosophy.

>>10022039
This.
And you don't need any of that for Martin Heidegger.
Of course it helps. And of course you should read them. But you can dive in, just like that. Applies for majority of philosophy that is not retarded post-modernism fused with marxist socialism

>>10022054
And that was exactly what I was saying. Saying you need to have read Critique of Reason to understand Heidegger is like saying [...] etc.
It's a ridiculous claim.

>>10019523

So what is Heidegger's conception of truth, my man?

>>10019523
>ywn experience this power level
hold me, bros...

The Dutch translation of Sein und Zeit doesnt contain a glossary of the terms used in the book. Is that really a problem?

>>10022542
Heidegger explains them. But yeah is a little problem
I have the Rivera spanish translation and he goes explaining in detail what the concepts mean and what they don't mean in the notes, which are a lot (footnotes and backnotes)
If I was you I would try to get another translation or secondary material.

>>10022066

The second division of Being and Time specifically deals with questions of the form of space and time in the transcendental aesthetic of the CPR and chapters 4-10 of book 4 of aristotle's metaphysics. Do people just stare slack-jawed at these sections when they reach them? Or do they just say "oh wow time is great"? How the fuck do you read Being and Time meaningfully without knowing what the fourth antimony is? The whole point of the book is the second division. Literally the whole point of Being and Time is to affirm time as the Ungrund and people are saying you don't need to read Kant or Aristotle? Anyone can read Being and Time; is your desire to understand it or just to be mystified?

>>10022542
I think the translator references this lack somewhere, explaining it to be because Heidegger usually explains the terms he uses, or has lengthy footnotes explaining them (or both). You could keep track of them yourself by making notes though.