/lit/ - Literature

>>6592031
I'm
>>6592616
>Is Heidegger basically arguing for a dissolution of the categories of existence and essence? Or rather, claiming that essence and existence are themselves identical to one another?

You could put it that way if it helps you grapple with what he is saying. However

>Probably not given that that would still be playing the game of metaphysics.
>I was never very clear on what metaphysics was for Heidegger. Any clarification?

BandT is still metaphysics Is not true 100%. Read just the beginning of Being and Time where Heidegger defends the project of Being and Time. It is the very first thing in the book and he clearly defines the difference he sees between the metaphysics of the past and the current ontology he is trying to explain. Really, you can just read that part and not the whole thing and a lot will become clearer, far more than what people here could say about it. It is not that long, the defense, read it.

>I think Heidegger is just attempting to formulate an ontological analytic of Being in such a way that avoids categories like essence/existence or substance.

You should just read Being and Time.

>>6592062
You are correct. Being means "to care" about Being. That is really the short answer of it. The fact that Dasein wonders about its own existence allows for this. Things are not just outside of us, an exterior. They are a part of us.

Think about his hammer example. A hammer is not some exterior to analyze for a carpenter. Maybe if a hammer was put in a museum of art it would be, but not for the carpenter. It is a tool that he will not consider at all while hammering. When it breaks, malfunctions, whatever, the hammer becomes a very different thing to us, it breaks the not-distantness it once head when the carpenter was really going at it and could work very fluidly. If the hammer head falls off, it no longer is ready-to-hand but rather something to fix, something that is still not present-at-hand.

>>6592077
Being is not God.

>>6592111
You've got it right

>>6592114
You're not quite right. You are mixing up "human point of view" with B-being of Dasein which is...well human point of view is some vague thing, I don't know what you mean by it.

You have it right though.

>>6592125
Nice.

>>6592148
It makes them intelligible in a certain way, yes. However a fox can certainly make sense, or find intelligible, the snake crossing its path. The way we deal with beings however will be very different from how the fox deals with beings because we are Dasein, which means we consider and struggle with Being.

>>6506084
nice

Haven't read this book and can't contribute but /lit/ needs more posters like you OP.

Hills like White Elephants by Hemingway
The baby is the main character in the background ba dum pishhh

No but seriously.

Salinger's short stories revolving around the glass family.

DFW's short stories in Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. Specifically “On His Deathbed, Holding Your Hand, The Acclaimed New Young Off-Broadway Playwright’s Father Begs a Boon.” WITH "Suicide as a sort of Present"

I will say no more but those two stories are exactly what you are looking for.

Enjoy

>>5806262
>the point of the story, and the relation to Wallace altogether

This is what I want you to elaborate upon. If it is that obvious it should be easy enough to explain.

>>5388532
No its reversed at one point and then looped, so the animation comes off funny.

Its ok that you're stupid.

>>4237085
>>4237093
The scene always struck me as Hamlet acting the fool. Ophelia is there in the room, he just supposedly doesnt notice until the end. Difficult to tell

>>4237053
OP, its the best ghost story I've ever read, and probably my favorite of Shakespeare's

>>4203160
Dont worry anon, he hasnt read the book. Anyone who read the intro would know what you are saying. See?
>>4203157

>>4203162
Thats what I did and at the time I wasnt that familiar with Aristotle. My best advice is to push through Heidegger even if you arent completely set on whats going on with the philosophy. Heidegger has this annoying way of revealing information. Not all the time, but a good amount of the time he will begin discussing something new without declaring it, and then at the end he declares what this is, or to put it another way, he puts his thesis at the end. Youll hit a lot of moments where you wont understand something for a couple pages, and then hell just blatantly tell you, this is this, and youll go "FUCKING OF COURSE", only later though will you realize that he simply waited to give you the thesis at the end rather than the beginning. This isnt that big of a deal however, since after this reveal hell continually use the language and youll start picking up how to use the language simply by watching him.

He doesnt do this for big ideas, but youll see what I mean. Good luck