/lit/ - Literature

>>10743112
Descartes' "Meditations" (or just the usually anthologized bits will) is essential, and as much Kant as you can muster will help.

There are also many guided reading texts for B&T specifically that will help you with context, sequence, foreshadowing arguments etc. I picked up Richard Polt's "Heidegger: An Introduction" and Richard Sembera's "Rephrasing Heidegger: a Companion to Being and Time" from the uni library to read in sequence with B&T my first time through and would recommend them both, especially the Polt (which focuses extensively on B&T specifically but also touches on the rest of Heidegger's oeuvre).

>>10743167
Really? Just Descartes and Kant? No other German idealists? No existentialists?

>>10744105

Kierkegaard, Augustine, Luther, Aristotle, etc.

The list goes on and on.

If Heidegger is what interests you, read Heidegger first. You won't understand everything, but that's ok. You can start looking at the philosophers he draws on and those he attacks after.

You'll be reading Being and Time again and again, why worry about having read the hundreds of works that influenced it before even touching it?

>>10744105
Required reading for stupid people: Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, Heraclitus and Parmenides, Nietzsche that's it. You don't need to know anything else
>>10744140
shut the fuck up you fucking idiot

>>10744185
>shut the fuck up you fucking idiot

If you don't really care about Heidegger, you don't need to do any background reading.

If you do care about him, you'll start looking at the figures he cites, but this need not be done before even reading the man.

Why does this approach offend you?

>Want to read a work of contemporary philosophy
>Assume you need to read two thousand years of philosophy first

You guys are deeply troubled

>>10744221
Do you listen to audiobooks by just jumping to random time codes because you like the numbers? No because there's a set order to the story/work. Likewise philosophy is a dialectic spread across thousands of years of many thinkers responding to people way before them and others coming along and responding to those responses. No thinker is able to succinctly layout all the background required for understanding what they're discussing; there's always a certain expected level of familiarity.

>>10744185
Kant will probably be the most annoying figure to read. At least Descartes can be skimmed through because of his style. Thanks anon!

>>10744305

>No thinker is able to succinctly layout all the background required for understanding what they're discussing; there's always a certain expected level of familiarity.

The familiarity of which you speak is to be gained over a lifetime. It should not be seen as a mandatory prerequisite to be gained whole-cloth by going through some rigid pre-determined checklist.

>Do you listen to audiobooks by just jumping to random time codes because you like the numbers? No because there's a set order to the story/work.

One might think of philosophy as a puzzle. All the pieces fit together, and many pieces need to be connected before you get a glimpse of the big picture, but the order in which the pieces are placed isn't set in stone--though it might make sense to tackle the border first etc..

>>10744201
>Luther, Augustine, Kierkegaard
people who contributed nothing

>>10744307
>God it's so annoying to read this guy who was right about 95% of what he wrote about
>>10744389
wrong

>>10744221

In that he's responding to the course of metaphysics and ontology throughout history and trying to reconstruct ontology based on where he think they went wrong, it would probably be good to have some idea about what he's responding to.

>>10744396
Christianity is an abomination, i like what kierkegaard had to say about the Individual but Faith is repulsive, God is a lie and anyone whose ideology is predicated on that lie is worthless

>>10744403
*tips*

>>10744396
I just despise the eternal teuton outside of a couple niche thinkers. But Kant really is the height of Teutonic insidiousness

>>10745731

I used to hate Kant, but he's such a wide-ranging figure. It's hard not to start liking certain aspects of his thought after prolonged exposure.

>>10745742
Philosophical Stockholm syndrome. Sad, many such cases.

>>10743112
>being
look at your hands to tackle being

>time
try any book about special relativity to tackle the basics of time

>>10743112
Parmenides
Aristotle
Descartes

>>10745789
Which parts of Aristotle? He's so much more ubiquitous than the others.

>>10743112
Just read it its not hard

>>10743112
Maybe take a philosophy 101 course
I'd just start reading and watch some lectures online, most profs explain shit like their talking to uniformed teenagers (because they often are).
I started with his and Gadamer's hermeneutics and it seemed to help elucidate the rest of his ideas.

>>10744396
Kant was wrong about everything tho

>>10744389
Heidegger is well-versed in Luther and Augustine you fucking mongoloid. Holy shit, just die now.
>>10744305
Nope. Try again, Hegelian subhuman.
You rationalist turdmonglers will never understand Heidegger.

>>10744396
Sorry honey, Kant was wrong about everything. Try again, sweetie.
>>10744403
f'dora

>>10744221
It’s pretty easy to argue Kant is the more important thinker. To understand any philosophy post-Kant you need to have read Kant; like tinkers post-plato. He’s just that important.

>>10745781
He literally doesnt even get to time, the work was left unfinished. Go post on /tv/ or something.

>>10746485
Didnt he do it in his other works?

>>10745781
>STEMsperg time
Try again.

>>10745781
>look at your hands to tackle being
It was so simple all along!

>>10746504
He later said that he thought the project couldn’t actually be followed through to the end, which is why he didn’t say it back up, I believe

>>10746460
You're the literal subhuman if you think philosophy is anything other than an extended dialogue of recorded words.

>>10744307
>skimming philosophy

You really don't care about philosophy, do you? Being and Time just sounded cool and you want to enjoy it without putting any effort into it? Fuck you, you'll never understand it.

>>10745781
Special Relativity makes good predictions, but it doesn't really tell us anything about how to interpret its results

>>10743112
no one in this thread seems to have mentioned Husserl yet, who is essential to know for Heidegger's phenomenological project

>>10746813
More that I've read and understood Descartes before so it'd just be a refresher, as opposed to Heidegger who I expressly struggled to understand hence why I'm trying to go back to what he draws from.

>>10746632
>he thinks he look at his hands free from the "as"
heh, nice try kid

>>10746477
Nope, wrong.

>>10746788
Nope. Sorry, STEMsperg.

>>10746821
Not really. Nietzsche is far more important.
Husserl is a Kantian, Heidegger is not. If you know what phenomenology is, you don't need to even look at Husserl.

>>10743112
I would read his Basic Writings (edited by David Krell) first. Being and Time was early Heidegger and it was never even finished.

But you can read the intro to being and time and get a good summary of his whole philosophy without knowing much at all about Descartes or Kant. It helps to be familiar with them though.

If you are reading him because he was a nazi and you want justification for your ideology i think you are going to be disappointed.

>>10747534
But can you really know what phenomenology is without touching on Husserl

>>10744221
>the western canon is arbitrarily arranged
This is why no one talks to you anon.

>>10748387
Yes. Husserl is bad phenomenology.

Leibniz, Bohme and Dilthey also highly recommended

>>10747864
On the contrary I read sections of it in various courses in uni, though I always struggled with Heidegger in particular and I'm hoping to have better luck reading it all in context.

Can someone give me a good second hand source on Kant? I really don't want to slog through that suit again

>>10749439
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant