Just started pic related. Not as hard so far as I was warned.

>>9586496
Dasein is the kind of being that we are. Dasein is the being that takes a stand on its own being. This will make more sense the further you get into the book.

No, everything that is has being, but only some beings have consciousness. Heidegger is trying to get away from the traditional treatment of human being as isolated consciousnesses, so his existential analytic does not ground itself in subjectivity or consciousness, but instead grounds them.

I can't understand your third question.

>>9586496
Have you read Aristotle and Kant, my man? You're in for a tuff time

>>9586496
start with the greeks

>>9586496
Did you read his introduction? It's important to read the author's introduction to this one.

>>9586537
NOOO, read the introduction last
it was written last and will only confound someone who doesn't already know the lay of the book

>>9586505
My third question was about how he says that we can understand the question of being by first formulating this:
"One can determine the nature of entities in their Being without necessarily having the explicit concept of being at one's disposal."

He says that this isn't circular logic but I wasn't sure how he came to this conclusion.

>>9586545
I'm reading the introduction first. I feel like I need a firm understanding of the terminology and layout of the question before diving in. Why shouldn't I?

>>9586553
Perhaps he is refering to the modes of being of entities? Like how an axe is a tool, a rock is a thing and a painting is an artwork. And we can all determine this without knowing what is to Be at all.

>>9586496
dasein = human being, but with the implication that humans just kinda pop into existence and care about their existence/world

being = existence

>>9586505
its literally wax on wax off ying yang bullshit

people who think heidegger is deep/good/correct are basically like madonna or a kardashian getting into buddhism

heideggers critique of aristotle is shit-tier

>>9586553
we can understand beings qua beings without having already explicitly articulated the meaning of being because we as Dasein already have an understanding of being

>>9586576
this gets confusing because Heidegger defines existence as the mode of being of Dasein -- I'd recommend just sticking with "being"

>>9586590
An inherent built in understanding right? This helps thanks

>>9586604
yup, it's a constitutive part of Dasein

>>9586602
whatever

he's just using language to make you think he's not reifying nothing and falling into the trap that plato said everyone would fall into when they try to talk about nothing

do what you want, but studying heidegger is a waste of time imo. Max Scheler is a criminally underrated phenomenologist who BTFO'd heidegger and heidegger just pretended like it would all go away, and stupid academics let it happen.

Stop reading Heidegger.

>>9586631
how did you manage to get a chip on your shoulder about Heidegger?

File: scheler.jpg (15KB, 400x572px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x572px

Max Scheler served Heidegger's ass to him on a platter and Heidegger literally responds with "How can my philosophy be wrong if you forgot about being?"

Heidegger, an idiot in philosophy and a coward in real life.

FUCK HEIDEGGER.

>>9586640
like 80% of academia is still jerking off to this idiot

levinas was right, we need to move the fuck on

im tired of derrida and feminist epistemologies, im tired of his radical lutheranism. academics are just lazy and see in heidegger an easy way to guarantee that they have something to publish or else they perish

>>9586650
eh I'm chilling in an American analytic department which has its own problems but at least they don't jerk off to deconstruction all day
I can see how that would get frustrating

>>9586643
where's a good place to look for Scheler's critique of Heidegger?

File: more_like_highnigger.gif (53KB, 200x280px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 200x280px

> get cucked
> raise the kid anyway
> argue philosophically that if we don't deconstruct all of western beliefs since plato, jews will win
> fuck a jewish woman anyway, every year in your little tin shack, where you say "gods also dwell"
> continue to be butthurt about jews in your diary desu
> guys like Ernst Junger, who quite literally lived life to the fullest in every respect, apparent are concealed to Being and therefore kind of a retard

Nothing pissed me off like reading the Junger/Heidegger correspondences. That condescending phenomenologist fuck. It's obvious it is HIS philosophy which is in fact detached from existence. Heidegger gets to sit on his ass in his quaint little cabin cosplaying dorky elven clothing and he's the only one who truly gets it...but everyone else, sorry no, you're totally oblivious to life, my dude- I mean, my dasein!

Do not take the Heidegger pill. He's the Nazi equivalent of Derrida eating potato chips. You were warned...

>>9586666
> those quads

I'd say Formalism in Ethics. There's some good essays floating around on the web about his specific critique of Heidegger and Husserl that I could dig up. Frings is basically THE Scheler scholar, btw.

>>9586496
1)Dasein is the way human existence is structured. Being-there, always occupied with world.

2)If anything dasein is an implicit rejection of the (kantian) concept of consciousness with his neat separation of subject and object.

3) I think you misread something here. He explicitly says we must start knowing Being by questioning the being that asks the question, us, We have embedded a precoceptual notion of being, cause we participate and through language being already manifests.

He hoped though the analysis of Dasein to reach an understanding of Being. He, doesn'. this book is an admitted failure and that's why it's unnfinished, He will then change his theorical and methodogical perspective on its head with the Kehre, ontological difference, critique of humanism and all that jazz.

File: das right.jpg (9KB, 318x159px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 318x159px

>>9586553

To understand how and why Heidegger tackles this problem, recall that the problem introduced in the Socratic dialogue Phaedo, where Socrates is challenged by the problem of knowledge. Accordingly, it seems impossible to know when one has truly learned something unless one had knowledge of that thing from the beginning. Otherwise, how would you know that 1) you've found that thing; and 2) that that thing is true? Socrates's solution is that knowledge is about remembering, and Heidegger's adaptation of that solution is to point out that Dasein already has a pre-ontological understanding of Being that we use to navigate the worlds that we've been thrown into. Heidegger then generalizes the problem of epistemology by arguing that it is a "founded-in" mode of Being, which means that epistemological certainty is predicated on how the world is metaphysically constructed. Once you know how Dasein "is" in its everydayness and in its totality, then how Dasein "knows" will become obvious in succession.

>>9586675
Have you read Vincent Bloks new book on their relationship? Seems pretty interesting

>>9586731
>Being-there, always occupied with world.
Does this mean Heidegger doesn't make a separation between subject and object?

>>9587025
There's no subject without object, no trascendental emptyness to be filled by this or that representation.

>>9586496
>not as hard as I was warned
>doesn't understand any of it

>>9586675
damn son

>>9587025

Yes and no. Being-in-the-world can be divided into "Being-in" and "the-world", but having a universal focus on how "subjects" meets "objects" detracts from how "objects" (i.e., the world) directs "subjects" (i.e., dasein) into a limited, but meaningful range of existential possibilities.