/lit/ - Literature

>>14958587

>>14958587
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/maha-prajnaparamita-sastra

Nagarjuna

>>14958587
meditations by marcus aurelius

Heidegger is fundamentally a Nietzschean. His writings are severely idiosyncratic, meaning that he expects you to virtually become his follower in order to "understand" him. It's a very arrogant and sneaky approach, because it's based on creating an aura of truth rather than rational persuasion.

>>14959079
Phenomenology is fundamentally irrational

>>14958587
>>14959079
>>14959110
What did Heidegger think of the neoplatonists?

Especially in relation to the history of metaphysics.

>>14958587

The more you read Heidegger the less difficult he becomes. I read 'being and time' first then a lot of his lectures and essays. When I re-read 'being and time' it's far less obscure than before. The thing about it all is that the time spent reading him is not really worth it imo.

Read the Stambaugh version of 'being and time' if you read it in English though.

>>14959128

Heidegger wrote a lot, but the problem is that he tends to twist everything is the favor of his method. So when you read his "Nietzsche" you're learning next to nothing about N.; instead, you're stuck for almost 1000 pages of pure Heidegger. The same goes with his stuff on Parmenides / Heraclitus: under the thin veil of writing about history of philosophy he just rambles on about his stuff. So whatever he wrote about neo-platonists (provided that he wrote anything at all) it should first and foremost be read as yet another installment in the Great Book of Wisdom of Heidegger the Oracle of Truth.

Importantly enough, this method of his of "tribute through betrayal" was ad nauseum replicated in XX century "philosophy" in authors like Derrida, Althusser, Adorno, Foucault, Deleuze. So you may think you're reading about Marx in Althusser but actually, it's pure Althusser... I think it's kinda pathetic.

>>14959068
this. took me almost 2 months to read

>>14959058
Nagarjuna moar liek narijuana

>>14958587
Don't dive alone in the deep part of the pool. Read secondary literature first.

>>14959350
Heidegger's S&Z feels like Kierkegaardian existentialism/angst wrapped together with Post-Kantian terminology.

me

Do i have to read Sein und Zeit Before I read Heidegger's Kantbuch?

>>14959600
chad

>>14959350
Thank god I was drawn to Nietszche first and didn't become a fucking lunatic.

>>14959110
lol no

>>14959550
>Post-Kantian terminology
what even is this suppsoed to mean?
do you perhaps mean Neo-kantian terminology?

>>14959667

Nietzsche has been the by default philosopher for decades. The end result is that everybody thinks that he/she is some kind of rebel, that he has to face virtually insurmountable struggles etc.

>>14959705

You could say that what Nietzsche did is to take the epic pathos of the "starry heavens" bit and transpose it to many other aspects of life.

>>14959667

Nietzsche has been the by default philosopher for decades. The end result is that everybody thinks that he/she is some kind of dangerous rebel, that he/she has to face virtually insurmountable struggles etc. All this leads to plenty of entitlement, reliance on the victim narrative, having a grandiose self-image as well as being very much self-absorbed.

Not a creative response, but it's gotta be Hegel? Who else could it be? Derrida? With Derrida you know going in there's no there's nothing to get. With other French pomos they're only hard if you don't have the background.
But Georg "You have to grasp the whole system to understand the parts; sorry that's just the nature of spirit, not my fault you need the retrospective position, muh seriousness suffering patience and labor of the negative" Hegel? I fucking think okay this won't be that hard I got through CPR, and then approximately one sentence per paragraph of PoS makes sense, feels very profound, I can vaguely string it together, but when you step back it's like "what the fuck did I just read. The introduction isn't that hard and then you get to force and the understanding. And you need this guy to get Kierkegaard and Marx. Fuck. I took a class with a famous analytic Hegelian on the phenomenology and we didn't get past the fucking self consciousness chapter. How am I supposed to ever reach absolute knowledge?

>>14959350
“How, indeed, can Philosophy be learned ? Every philosophical thinker builds his own work on the ruins, so to speak, of another ; but nothing has ever been built that could be permanent in all its parts. It is, therefore, impossible to learn philosophy, even for this reason, that it does not yet exist. But even supposing that there were a philosophy actually existing, yet no one who learned it could say of himself that he was a philosopher, for his knowledge of it would still be only subjectively historical.” Kant, Notes on Logic

>>14960160

By understanding that Hegel is only verbosely articulating truths than can be easily simplified and practiced with real rewards. Unironically, read the Qur'an.

>>14959058
>Nagarjuna

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

>>14958587
>Heraclitus
>strife is the father of all
Saturn once possessed this gegenstand denotation of opposing force, friction . . . 'adversary' ect.

>>14959350
This happens with literally every philosopher ever, its unavoidable.

>>14961275

I deeply disagree. Philosophical knowledge can be transmitted despite a given philosopher's bias. Reading Plato informs us quite a bit about say Parmenides. Reading St Thomas can teach us about Aristotle. The same goes with many others. However, with what we may call the post-Nietzscheans the transmission of philosophical knowledge has been limited to the personality of the transmitter: so Althusser subverts Marx, Deleuze subverts Leibniz, Zizek subverts Hegel. This passably interesting dada-like gesture does little to push things forward.

>>14961319
Have you even read Aquinas? Aristotle is subsumed under Thomism in the same way as Kant is under Heideggers Phenomenology. Aquinas bends Aristotle to fit into his own thought. The only exceptions might be commentaries (different from lectures like Heidegger's) but even here Aquinas has radically different approaches to Averroes and Avicenna for example.

>>14959350
It's like I'm reading nothing about Heidegger from this post.

>>14960160
>How am I supposed to ever reach absolute knowledge?

Damn maybe if you actually read Derrida

>>14961332

My remarks were quite general. Yet in response you're forcing me to big through my notes on "Summa contra gentiles". That's rude!

>>14961332

My remarks were quite general. Yet in response you're forcing me to dig through my notes on "Summa contra gentiles". That's rude!

>>14959079
Heidegger starts dropping the neologisms in his later writings although those are sometimes less lucid for other reasons. He is trying to develop a new language for discussing the world in a way that is divested from the metaphysical baggage of our ordinary conceptions of things (which are fundamentally framed by Cartesianism and not at all absolute categories for organizing the world beyond any argument or reproach). Sure a lot of his writing is a bit pompous any pseudo-prophetic rhetorically but if you claim there is no argument or rationality going on there whatsoever it's just proof that you haven't understood whatever you read of him.

let me hijack this and ask: what are good books to get started with philosophy?

>>14963392
Just read the collected works of Plato. Literally everyone starts there. The Apology of Socrates is like babbys first philosophy for good reason

>>14960279
Daaaamn... BTFO

>>14959058
I can't find any relationship between Nagarjuna and Heidegger, please explain.

>>14963771
Who connects Heidegger with Buddhism without explaining and leaves is gay. This happens all the time.

>>14958587
Good luck but it won't be enough.