Im about to read the most influential philosophy

It's very good but hard. Good luck.

incoherence

>>8531547
A book you can't understand without Greeks, Scholastics, Rationalists, German Idealists, and Husserl.

>>8531571
>retard alert

no for real though, it is quite a hard work...its not Hegel level hard, but its probably harder than any other 20th century book out there

>>8531586
why is it hard to understand

>>8531592
because it draws on the concepts expounded upon throughout the history of western philosophy

>>8531592
There's a lot of trying to get to talking about what 'is' is.

>>8531547
youre about to take the redpill

hope you're ready, anon

File: B&T1.gif (9KB, 576x752px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 576x752px

You'll need to take notes obviously and know all of his terminology. The intro will need to be read several times. You'll realize quickly that he shines light through the work backwards as in if you keep going forward things previously incoherent become available. It isn't really all that hard once you see what he's doing but getting to that point requires time and effort. Keep in mind that he investigates concepts not categories.

>>8531652
He should also read his essay "What is Metaphysics?" before he starts reading Being and Time tbhdesufamalamadingdong.

I don't get philosophy desu. It's just people asking in 100 different ways what is "x"

In this case "x" is being and time.

>>8531694
You could say the same about anything dude.

Football is also just hitting a ball with your foot 100 different ways.

>>8531694
you are exactly the type of person who should read being and time since what you said is exactly what Heidegger is rallying against in the work

>>8531737
I get your point but the football metaphor is very poor

t. football fan (both of them)

>>8531772
thank you for this comment. I'll read it after my current book and see for myself.

>>8531586
I think that just with some basic understanding of those and their terminology you can jump into being and time.
At times, Heidegger almost feels kinda pedagogic about them.
>>8531652
This guy gets it
Im on my second reread of the intro
jdimsa

What are some critics to B&T?
In another thread some anon called heidegger ontology garbage or bullshit, something like that.
What was his endgame?

Why would you read any existencialist aside from Nietzsche

>>8531906
Most early analytic philosophers thought it was garbage because it is too obscure or is just the explication of some linguistic nightmare that we should try to avoid; basically what he is doing is impossible and it end up running linguistic circles around itself. It generally isn't respected by people who like concrete facts which is pretty reasonable I guess. Heidegger's reply was that nothing is truly intelligible anyway, especially when working in the largest of scopes as he is. His endgame is pretty simple in that he wanted to find a meaning to the word Being. Traditional ontology went about the problem by being explaining Being (in all sense of the word) by theoretical or scientific functions. Heidegger sees Being as transcending anything science or traditional ontology can offer and the fact that the word exists gives rise to its philosophical importance. Basically we have some tacit understanding of what it is to be in whatever this is and Being and Time is trying to figure this meaning by investigating the preconceived notions of our tacit conceptual understanding of Being. Heidegger sees "Time" as the limit for our understanding of how and what it is To Be. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Are there any parallels between Heidegger's ontology/metaphysics and that of Deleuze/Guattari? It seems that they deal with similar ideas in similar ways, but I haven't delved far enough into either to note any distinct connections.

>>8531945
he explains that just in the intro (which i havent even finished)
what hell am I in for in the rest of the book

>>8531945
if that really is the way in which analytic philosophers think they are fucking retarded

>>8531603
I'm not super knowledgeable and have only read a single book on philosophy so far but "the cave and the light" by Arthur Herman was a pretty good introduction and walkthrough through philosophy through the ages and how it shaped western civilization

>>8531973
that + /lit/ memes and you are pretty much ready to go lad
just be aware of >>8531652

>>8531972
its more complicated than that, my version is the bastardization of everything so don't look to me as any sort of authority.
>>8531965
well he goes over every imaginable nuance of each word he uses, this is why a lot of people don't think its valuable because he has to keep inventing these very very strange words to describe his investigation. The best way to put Division 1 is Heidegger going over how we interact in our day to day lives to see how we interact with entities and how concepts of being come about and so on and he devotes a lot of time to definitions of equipment, and things, and different ways we use the word "world" and self and this is all in service of showing the vast networks of the world as being and the instability of self. Division 2 I'm not sure if I can explain in any intelligible way, not even a crude understanding as I'm still working on it. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can say it better.

>>8532026
you seem like you actualy read and understand the book, weird thing to see on /lit/, how much time did it take you? did you use some secondary material or something?
are you a philosohy major?

>>8532047
I am very far from understanding this book trust me. And yea I am a philosophy major (and math) going through this book in a class taught by a guy who was taught by the guy who wrote the introduction to the macquarrie/robinson translation so I'm pretty lucky. We're skimming through it as the class is part of a larger study of continental phil. but I'm working through it individually and can't see myself taking less than two months on it. I use this when I get confused but i try to force myself to understand it on Heidegger's terms.

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80254/Heidegger/introductions/Overview.html but

>>8532084
nice
are your reading any other books at the time or are you devoting just to b&t right now?

>>8532107
being and time is definitely the primary book right now so what I do is dabble in poetry and Kafka since the work is short. I just got two early Delillos in the mail but I'm not sure when I'll get to them. Are you splicing it with anything else? I think it may be necessary.

>>8532141
What do you mean by splicing?
You mean if i have complementary material to the book?
Nope

>>8532174
no I want to know if you're reading something for fun along with it

Daily reminder: http://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/08/paradigm-heidegger-sheehan-070815/ and that

"Nobody seems to know what Being means.”

I think it is time. I think it is time to join and embrace Analytic Philosophy once and for all. No more vagueness, no more dubious interpretations in the pool of all possible interpretations that are all inconsistent with each other. Just say "no" to obscurantism and purposeful deceiving and corrupting of the youth.

The time has come, my friends. Borrow that daunting book of Mathematical Logic from that friend of yours you so secretly admire and let your all subsequent judgements and beliefs be derived from a set of undeniable and evident truths.

Now, more than ever before, you will see reality for what it really is.

>>8532186

How long is your penis?

>>8531588
IMO it's more difficult than Hegel.

>>8532185
Yeah I started brothers karamazov today
faux pas since is longer than I thought and I dont think I have the brains to keep up with both
but I dont want to drop any of them since I finally felt like I was gettin b&t "rythm" and BK is tons of fun.

>>8532186
Never
I bet you are one of those guys who think music is just applied math
Suck my continental cock

>>8532204
We get it you suck at mathematical logic so you became a continental

>>8532204
The notion of applied math is pretty vague though it is commonly take to be a set of techniques in the form of formulae. To think that this notion and what it stands for can be equated with the notion of music and what *it* stands for, is absurd. The latter can be usefully described by the former to such a degree that it is capable of revealing interesting structural properties of some musical piece that could not have been detected by ear alone. Such techniques and the data that's inferred from applying them can furnish our understanding about the very thing we're so interested in listening.

>>8532225
Holy,,,..,, I want more

>>8531547
Being...being just is, mang. And "is" is everything, otherwise it wouldn't be. There isn't anything that isn't. Like this contractor I used to work with, a really nice middle aged lady but she would drive me out of my mind sometimes, regularly in fact, whenever she delivered something that wasn't quite up to what I needed, and she bloody well knew it, milk-blooded, mild-mannered witch that she was, both cougary and motherly, she used to say with a sort of wistful, subtle sigh, she knew I never could and I never did get mad, she used to remember my birthday and she'd say, she was like a deranged auntie, you know, you just know she's an alcoholic or is cheating on her husband with underage nigger thugs or is doing something else that's really depraved and you just know she's playing everybody along, but she says you're her favourite and you're such a handsome boy and she brews you coffee sweeter than tea and you can never get mad at her, and this lady would say, her husband was, like, a low-level local politician and they didn't have kids and she'd say: "it is what it is". Yeah. It is what it is. "Is" is what is. "Is" is. It's all there is to it. It's all there is.

Is this what Heidegger is saying? Am I ready for him, /lit/?

>>8532369
This reads like a discount pynchon.

>>8531547
Honestly, the work is one big vortex. I dont think you really need so much of a 'background' in philosophy, like some are saying itt.. First of all because he explains the most relevant material with direct references (eg. to Descartes, Parmenides) in key passages. Secondly, the work is insanely self-referential. A lot of it is just churning the concept of Dasein over and over into new perspectives (martin calls this 'interpretation')

>>8531652
This.. Just keep reading, underlining key sentences as you go. Tho i dont think understanding his terminology is as important as what martin is doing, his method, his goal, etc. Dont expect to feel super oriented as you begin, but by the time you get to the influential 'They' chapter you should have a some kind of a handle on what exactly is going on.

At first youre kind of confused because you feel like an idea is going somewhere, and then it just stops... And then you see the same principles repeated over and over to justify just about everything he says, which slows you down significantly when you dont recognize these. Eventually you learn to focus on the juicy stuff and hover past the priestly-monotone incantations.

But essentially, i think, what people dont understand, and what is truly difficult abt this book, is that hes obsessively trying to get at some kind of purity.. Really polishing and sharpening the finest kind of gem. He wants to give you DIRECT, unfiltered access to being, but this requires breaking up a lot of mirrors set up in between. Its a violent process, marked by a lot of self-lacerating repetition, but the flip side is that at some point it begins to make sense as a whole. Once you "release" yourself into being, its entirety comes pouring through with no longer any tools left to hold back. Literally, content pours out into the form, which explains why his language cant maintain a simplicity: It is reflecting the very specific, construed, painful process of singling out, filtering the 'being' out of the grand total of varied phenomena in our experience.

It IS very purely metaphysical, precisely because it is so focused on this deconstructive process. Personally I think there's something very cruel about it, and indicative of a darker nature within philosophy. In view of this, his own history does not seem to be much of a coincidence to me (sorry).

>>8532402
Just to clarify my last objection there..
What absurd freak of nature would want to single the 'is' out of a sentence? Where is the beauty or purpose in such a dissective, visceral action? Being isnt a substance but a harmony..

Martin loved poetry, right? His work was inspired by it and all that. Poetry (along with discursive silence) is supposedly constitutive of AUTHENTIC discourse, one of Daseins modes - He doesnt really expand much on the topic of 'poetry as discourse' tho.. and his section on authentic discourse in Part II is virtually empty.

Whats that latin poem/folk tale he 'interprets' in the section on Care? In any case, what he does to that poor poem is perverted. First he addresses it as some kind of an anthropological 'document', wherein Dasein comes to a primitive understanding of itself. He says he will demonstrate this value via his intepretative method. He then simply EXTRACTS from it the personified concepts (Earth-Goddess, Human, Death, and I think Jupiter?) which are relevant to B&T, imposes on them his own framework, and says "voila"! What a SICKO! This is your revelation? The secret behind authentic discourse? Wheres the cultural context, the mythos and artistry which created the poem in the first place? An absolute circus mess.

>mfw Heideggerians can't distinguish between "is" the existential quantifier, and "is" of predication.

>>8532468
How is that distinction at all relevant to heideggers entreprise lol

>>8532468
He obviously incorporates both, having been profoundly influenced by Husserl as well as by the everyday experience mirrored in the predicative 'is', but the Being he comes up with is a completely different beast altogether.. Both are just as relevant as they are irrelevant

>>8531547
That's not the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

>>8532460
deal with it faggot

>reading infulential works just because they are influential

>>8531547
Your intuition is correct. Philosophy is examined life, and defining x just gives you a particular approach. >>8531694 isn't wrong, in that Heidegger is trying to bring 'x' to life rather than the other way around. But he is the first to do so in our nihilistic times and the attempt is something akin to Frankenstein's.

>>8533498
I meant to reply to
>>8531694
And then quote
>>8531772

>>8533488
Why should one read martin-kun then, anon?

>>8533466
Bich byyyeee

>>8533466
came here to post this. my dubs will confirm. of my final 7.

>>8533560
*or

>>8533488
>reading at all

>>8533705
>reading at all
>not just being in time :^)

File: (JPEG Image, 259 × 195 pixels).jpg (14KB, 259x195px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 259x195px

>>8533705
>not reading all

>>8533945
you have to go back

>>8531547
a bunch of useless bullshit

>>8533962
Yeah OP... Why dont you read some a book about REAL stuff, like The Art of the Deal by Donald J. Trump?
#Make/lit/GreatAgain

>>8534111
at least Trump cares about the white man unlike Heidegger

>>8534123
Heidegger was literally part of the OG national socialistic party

File: 243685.jpg (34KB, 304x475px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 304x475px

might as well post this here
Is this an ok introduction point to philosophy?

>>8534433
Sure

probably nothing because reading a book and comprehending it are two different things

File: 1474158107019.jpg (72KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x667px

>>8531547
I hope you speak Gerry.

>>8534253
oh yeah

>>8534433
Not at all