This guy is based Being and Time isn't even that hard if

>>9497845
You've probably consistently misunderstood him.

>>9497858
What makes you say that?

>>9497882
Because he is unanimously considered hard by the academic comunity in its entirety.
If you really think he's easy to understand, and that you need no prior knowledge of philosophy, chances are that you've just misinterpreted him.

>>9497910
>and that you need no prior knowledge of philosophy
I didn't say that. Have you read him?
The first time I jumped into his work I just dived into it and ended up really confused, but as I said, if you take your time and take notes, it is possible to hold all the concepts. Once you get used to the way he talks it really isnt that hard, just slow.

>>9497927
Although he is concieving a new philosophical system and method, he absolutely prescribe deep erudition in pre and post Socratic philosophy. To say otherwise would mean that you think that Heidegger's opinion itself is worth discarding.

Being and Time is written for academics, not random readers.

>>9497940
>To say otherwise would mean that you think that Heidegger's opinion itself is worth discarding.
Why?
A deep erudition as an absolute prescribe would reduce the reach of his work inmensaly and that doesn't seem to fit with the whole propose of his philosophy. An understanding of them (pre-socratic and the bases of post-socratic) without his thought in mind would only lead to what he is criticizing.

>Being and Time is written for academics, not random readers.
There is a documentary about him in which academics are interviewed, some who even attended his classes, and their attitude conception towards him and his work don't really fit with what you are saying
Also
Not being an academic makes you automatically a "random" reader?
You are making some pretty big claims without really explaining them.

Levinas was working in the wake of Heidegger's phenomenology/ontology and gives a pretty good critique in his own book Totality & Infinity. It's not any easier to understand, but gives another perspective on the notion of Being and serious fault with Dasein.

>>9498020
Not that anon, but please keep going, I want to hear your opinion on the book.

>>9497845
Not reading him because I'm tackling things chronologically. I should arrive at him sometime this summer.

>>9499027
My opinion on the book is what I've already posted. I still havent finished it. I was trying to promote it's reading, I don't see much discussion on it, and I think it should be more discussed because it is known to be one of the most important works of philosophy.

>>9499068
What are you currently reading?

>>9498020
>A deep erudition as an absolute prescribe would reduce the reach of his work inmensaly and that doesn't seem to fit with the whole propose of his philosophy.

Too bad that this is literally what he asked from his students.

>An understanding of them (pre-socratic and the bases of post-socratic) without his thought in mind would only lead to what he is criticizing.
In philosophy disagreement is as important as agreement. Reading the Greeks does not mean that you will get brainwash, in this case it will just mean that you will actually be able to have the same point of view Heidegger had on his own philosophy: in Being and Time there are many specific responses to millenary problems, you are supposed to know these stances before seeing this antithesis, and Heidegger was very aware of it.

>There is a documentary about him in which academics are interviewed, some who even attended his classes, and their attitude conception towards him and his work don't really fit with what you are saying
So a documentary is more important than what Heidegger actually thought and required from both his readers and his students?

>Not being an academic makes you automatically a "random" reader?
By academic I at the very least imply a formal, structured and deliberate education (which can be self-imparted) that is necessary to understand, analyze and internalize certain philosophical works. In his own case, Heidegger prescribed to most of his reader a decade-long study of Aristotle before approaching both him and Nietzsche: this is necessar to understand in what regards his philosophy is going on a different way, and what are his responses to certain stances that have already been thoroughly examined.
It's like reading Kant without having read Hume, or reading Nietzsche without having any notion of the pre-Socratics and the German Idealists. You may get something from it, but the entire picture is not there for you.

>You are making some pretty big claims without really explaining them.
To know the very first thing about the context in which this book was written and placed by Heidegger himself is to make a pretty big claim? Nice anti-intellectualism you've got there.

>>9499027
He clearly does not have the method necessary to form one's own, informed opinion. He will never get past his ''I really like this!'' stance: this is the best he can achieve with his current tools.

>>9497910

No. You have no idea what you're talking about. The more philosophy you've read, the more likely it is to misunderstand him. There is no philosopher you can read to understand the key concepts of Heidegger's project (unless you want to view differences or understand history of philosophy).

The best time to read Heidegger is soon after being introduced to philosophy, so you're familiar with the field and its rigor, but not after a long history of philosophical "indoctrination", so you do your best to consider Heidegger at his word and understand the revolutionary shift in philosophical priorities that Heidegger is trying to justify.

>>9497940

>pre-Socratics

Heidegger tells you all that you have to know.

>post-Socratics

Only the ones Heidegger is refuting. With the slight exception of anxiety, which is similar to Kierkegaard's angst. Maybe Aristotle and Brentano but without any of the metaphysical baggage. And once again, Heidegger sets up everything that you need to know.

>>9499400
This seems like good advice. Heidegger was the first philosopher I read primary sources (Besides Plato and Meditations) for and in hindsight I'm glad because he really does kind of forge his own path (and intellectualize mysticism).

>>9499400
Naw dawg u have to read aristotle for 39 years before reading the first sentence of being and time, then 10 more years of aristotle to read the rest of the book

File: 1450516903588.png (322KB, 416x431px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 416x431px

>>9498242
I read a bit of his work on human rights and it was just absolute garbage. Is all of his work that theistic in nature? The fact that the existence of a very specific deity seems to be a necessary condition for his theory of the Other, made me constantly think pic related.

I was big into Heidegger for a while, after I had finished my bachelor's.

Then I started studying him in grad school and quickly realized that most Heidegger scholars are insufferably pedantic about his work. I mean, there will be arguments about whether or not a word should be translated into english that last YEARS.

It's pretty sad actually. The only academic I've seen that "gets it" is Richard Polt. He has written a couple books on Heidegger, and they're the bee's knees. Wonderful writing, a joy to read, gets to the meaningful issues and avoids pedantry.

Over all, at this point, I'm not convinced Heidegger made much of an important contribution other than pseudo-mysticism. His middle work is pretty fun (contributions, mindfulness, etc), but Being and Time is a dead end. Honestly, I think you'd be better off spending your time reading Hegel. The insights you'll gain will be a lot more enduring.

>>9498242
>Levinas
Levinas has a cool philosophy of his own, but I'm not convinced he understood any of the philosophers he wrote about. Seemed to follow the modern tradition of intentionally misunderstanding other philosophers in order to break out on one's own. His understanding of Heidegger and Husserl is pretty good, but his understanding of Hegel, Plotinus, and Plato is VERY weak.

His work is similar to Buber's but more academic, and less fun.

Also Levinas promotes masochism. So there's that.

Totality and Infinity can be a life-changing experience, if it doesn't turn you into an obnoxious intellectual policeman. What usually seems to happen is that everything turns into:

>Why aren't others respecting the other?? I must remind them. Also, muh race theory and feminism.

>>9501640
I'm this anon >>9501105
Would you agree that Levinas needs the divine?
Some grad student explained - IIRC - the encounter with the Other as follows:
(I don't know how the jargon is usually translated in English. I hope you'll understand it)
The face of the Other does a call on me that obligates on me, because there's a trace of God in the unicity of the Other.
Does that (roughly) make sense? If it does, can Levinas be read without the wonky devine elements?

>>9501868

For Levinas, God is the Other. God is beyond Being. That's how I read him, anyway. I mean, can you find something infinite that is not sacred? I hope not.

>>9501900
>God is beyond Being.
That has to do with his Jewish notion of God, isn't it? Levinas' god 'holds its breath' and only manifest itself, indirectly, through the Other.
>I mean, can you find something infinite that is not sacred? I hope not.
That doesn't seem to be too hard. How about Aleph-naught for example?

>>9502189
>Levinas' god 'holds its breath' and only manifest itself, indirectly, through the Other.

Well, Otherness cannot manifest, by its very nature. Forms/archetypes are the pinnacle of manifestation, and Levinas seems to want to avoid that.

>That doesn't seem to be too hard. How about Aleph-naught for example?

Hm, I don't know if infinity can be countable, or a set. We can talk about a hypothetically infinite set, but I think in this case we're closer to the indefinite than the infinite in that case.

A single number or equation can have infinite meaning or be infinitely valid, but an unbounded set cannot be said to be infinite precisely because it is unbounded. We can only guess about what goes beyond our understanding.

>>9497940
This is a pretty elitist view to be honest, I think you're just trying to cover up your own insecurity

>wh-what is this uppity upstart doing, reading Being and Time dry? m-my phd in philosophy has to be worth SOMETHING ...

>>9502270
In what sense is the sacred infinite in that case?
Our infinite debt to the Other seems to be infinite in the same way that most mathematical infinities are: inexhaustible.

>>9497845
>What are your thoughts on his work?
His aesthetics are tip top tier desu.

>>9503295
>This is a pretty elitist view to be honest
Different anon, but that "elitist" (which is really a demand for rigor) is *Heidegger's* own elitist view.

>I think you're just trying to cover up your own insecurity
Pot, kettle, etc.

>>9497940
I would disagree most philosophy majors are really mediocre intellects, this is even more true for literature and sub disciplines. So in a way acdemic experiance/ scolarship can help you to read and understand something, but it isn't a guarantee. Maybe he has understood it, for some extremly intellegent people Kant, Whitehead, Wittgenstein or Heidegger are almost immediately accessable.