I have read a considerate amount of philosophy, but I find it

I don't know anything about podcasts and videos because I was taught philosophy by a real professor but here's a hint: the reason why Heidegger is so complicated and jargon-y is because he's trying to avoid all of the Cartesian problems (mind/body dichotomy, how individuals interact with the world, etc) while still talking about humans in the world

you can find Hubert Dreyfus's Heidegger lectures on Youtube, so that's a good starting point. If you're looking for a book, the Cambridge Companion to Heidegger is excellent as well.

As long as you don't dismiss Heidy outright, then he's one of the most rewarding philosophers. The jargon is daunting at first, but once you understand what he's going for it's easy to get acquainted with all the terms. Remember, Being and Time is a systematic work. Every term is introduced and explained somewhere, so whenever you see him define a new term, make a note in the margins so you can easily refer back to it. He's not trying to confuse you, but he's trusting that you slowly follow him along as he builds new concepts until you can intuit the system of perception that he's trying to describe.

>>9048620
Heidegger is like a snapping crab, who says something profound then backs off snapping at you. Professional philosophers also find him opaque. Still, his philosophy is genius.

There's like a billion resources on Kant. Make sure you have the blue Cambridge edition, read slowly and google stuff you don't get.

Hegel is, well, if you really want to understand the Phenomenology of Spirit, try Gregory Sadler's reading of it on Youtube.

>>9048830
Thanks for the post. Not OP but very informative. I've heard people say once familiar with Heidegger, it becomes difficult to see outside of Heidegger's perspective. Why do you think this is?

Also, I'm not sure if this is for you to answer but I've not the chance to ask someone familiar with phenomenology this, but does Reinhold's positioning of representation as being distinguished and related *before* it enters consciousness related to the phenomenological view of Being? That is, there is Being; man is a being who isn't *in* Being, but is rather OPENED to Being, the latter would not be a being itself.

What translation do you have? Why even read a massive work like B&T if you don't even bother buying a halfway decent translation? Every important philosophical work has a companion reader to it, just get that. I'd recommend buying Heidegger's essays like The Origin of the Work of Art and The Question Concerning Technology, and watch Gregory Sadler's videos on them.

>>9048620
If you don't mind Marxist terminology I found György Lukács' The Young Hegel to give a pretty good explanation of the aim of Hegel's philosophy in general and the general context in which Hegel's absolute idealism developed starting from Kant.

>>9048842
To answer your first question, I'd say that Heidegger has the interesting property of being a philosopher whose thinking is applicable to many different areas of life while also leaving a lot up to the individual's interpretation. Heidegger has been criticized before for never really defining "Being," but ultimately I think his body of work defines it by circuitously describing things that Being does, what it feels like, etc, in the hope that the reader will basically intuit the conception of Being that Heidegger has in mind. Similar to Wittgenstein saying that his philosophy was an attempt to discuss something outside of language and the best he could do was lead the reader in the right direction, ultimately tossing the ladder aside.

In terms of my own experience with Heidegger, I think like him during any period that I read a lot of his works, but I wouldn't say his philosophy has latched itself onto my brain to the extent that I now have difficulty empathizing with other ontologies. While Heidegger was my philosophical darling for the past two years, recently I've been diving into Deleuze, whose ontology is as compelling and original as Heidegger's. Despite this, in terms of describing everyday life, there is simply no better philosopher than old Heidy. Other ontologies offer better explanations for other fields of thinking (for instance, Deleuze's is wondrous in exploring politics and history), but the thrill of Heidegger is that you can see his philosophy at work every day as you go about your life.

I'd love to answer your second question, but unfortunately I am unfamiliar with Reinhold. I'll see if I can find a good summary of his ideas and get back to you.

>>9048842
>>9048901
OK, the take a stab at your second question, I'm going off the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Reinhold. It seems to me that there are some pretty distinct similarities between Reinhold and Heidegger, but ultimately Reinhold is within the framework of Kantian thinking that H argues against on the ground of rejecting the subject-object distinction. Heidegger would agree that Being is "distinguished and related before it enters consciousness" as you put it, but he would deny that in order to do so Being needs a representational property that Reinhold posits is the mediator between subject and object. Instead, for Heidegger, the deepest property of Being is "Aletheia" (Uncoveredness/Disclosedness/Dis-coverableness), ie the fact that a thing can show and become meaningful in a world projected by Dasein. So in that sense it is inherently distinguished, regardless of whether a conscious being exists to see it. While Reinhold's model is tripartite, Heidegger's is singular: Being-in-the-world. So man is *in* Being insofar as he ontologically exists, and is *opened* to Being insofar as he has perception, can project a "world," can discuss beings, etc. I suppose the distinction between *in* and *opened* is that Being-in-the-world is a matter of activity, while being open is a matter of consciousness (though Heidegger tends to avoid this word for fear of falling back into subject-object thinking).

Otherwise, however, Reinhold seems to prefigure the phenomenological way of looking at the world. His "first principle" strikes me as similar to bracketing in the sense that it starts with the experience of thought as the fundamental starting point and then works to construct systems from there. As I said, Heidegger would argue that the first principle is really Aletheia (or in his earlier writings he might say it's Dasein), which in itself precludes the "universality" that Reinhold seems to have in mind, but H would at least agree that what Reinhold constructs is a logically valid and useful philosophy, even if it fails to be universal.

Hope I at least somewhat answered your question. Apologies for any misinterpretations of Reinhold, as this is the first I've heard of him.

>>9048901
>>9048991
This was very informative. Great posts, thank you so much!

>>9048644
I was only taught philosophy in high school by a really shit teacher.
Sartre said once in one of his books that you can either write in a complex and almost unintelligible way, which will lead to only philosophy experts to understand and you won't have to be concerned with people misunterstanding it. Or you can write in a simple way, leading to tons of retards who don't know shit about philosophy misunderstanding all you wrote (Nietzsche, for example).

>>9048830
I hear many good things about his philosophy, but I fear that I could misunderstand him. I'll take a look about Dreyfus's lectures, thanks.

>>9048840
English isn't my first language, so I'll try to find something similar to the Cambridge editions in my language.

>>9048853
I had a pdf version, but now I'll actually buy the book

>>9048857
I really dislike marxist philosophers because they are always trying to push their ideology down your throat even when talking about something completely different. But I might give it a look.

>>9048644
>>9048830
>>9048840
One more thing: As I said, I haven't read any of the three (just small bits), but I want to start with Heidegger. Will I have big problems with him if I haven't read Kant or Hegel?

>>9049119
>Will I have big problems with him if I haven't read Kant or Hegel?

Not at all. The good thing about Heidegger is that he's one of the most self-contained philosophers there is. He thinks that Western philosophy has been mistaken since Plato, so while he does occasionally reference other thinkers, he usually does it to contrast them to his own philosophies, so it's not like other theories are essential to understanding him. Kant in a way can be useful for context since he's basically the anti-Heidegger, the epitome of the "subject-object" way of thinking that Heidegger is trying to think past, but it's not like you need to know Kant before embarking on Heidy. Out of the three you listed, he'll be the easiest to read on his own.

>>9049154
Thanks, I always thought his philosophy sounded quite interesting, plus almost all philosophers that lived after him were inspired by his works. I just bought Being and Time

>>9048620
heidegger is fucking babytalk
hegel's easy
kant's easy

ur stupid lol

>>9048620
youtube channel philosophical overdose. Partially examined life for the ELI5 edition of pretty much every famous philosopher you can think of.

>>9048620
Heidegger expands the bucket, he not go drip drip drip. you won't get it until the day you do