im just reading an introductory book to the philosophy of martin

>im just reading an introductory book to the philosophy of martin heidegger ?

Really makes you think

>>8399674
damn...

>>8399674
sorry that question mark was a typo

>>8399683
You're a typo.

>>8399648
>is it just due to the abbreviated nature of an introduction that his thaught seems like arational mystical storytelling ?
Both? Heidegger's thought undergoes some pretty dramatic changes from the 30s on, a good deal of which is some pretty incredible wrestling with the ramifications of historicism, as well as how poetry and myth function to express anything at all.

With respect to Being and Time itself, apart from any introduction, it does feel quite often at times that there's been a leap in reasoning, which is frustrating, but which has its basis in working out arguments and details in his 20s lecture courses (which is also frustrating, since it kind of means that the argumentative dimension looks like it's missing from B&T when it's based on a lot of very interesting analyses of Greek philosophy, philology, and Husserlian concepts and methods).

>or is this a general problem of continental philosophy ?
Sometimes it definitely is, though there is a basis for it, also dependent on the insight into historicism. Depends on the philosopher. Derrida, for example, at least in his earlier works, offers a lot of interesting close readings and insights into whatever work he's commenting on, even when it seems he's too partial in privileging some elements over others with no explanation (and a bad tendency to cite Heidegger's observations about Being understood as Presence as if it were a scientific fact instead of something to grapple with and question).

>and could you list some entry-level works of continental philosophy that dont totally lack small argumentative steps towards formulating a position ?
If you don't mind something not especially recent, and, uh, definitely not entry level, maybe Kant's first critique? It's impeccably argued, even to the point of being fucking mind-numbing if you're not in the state of mind to work through it, but it's pretty important to almost every subsequent continental philosopher. Heidegger and Husserl are in certain ways both founded upon Kantianism, even with their definite differences.

If you don't mind having to read a bunch of other shit to go with it, Heidegger's lecture course on Plato's Sophist is really good, both for incidentally detailing a lot of great (and also some very questionable) insights into both Plato and Aristotle, and you also get to see a big part of how Heidegger develops Being and Time. On the downside, you're also reading Plato's Sophist, and portions of Aristotle's Ethics and Metaphysics, which may well be far more than you want.