Reading Heidegger

[Anonymous No.15869865]

To anon who created the thread on whether he can still read Heidegger despite not having read philosophy before,

Yes!

You can read Heidegger blind. It will not be so difficult because you will not find his terminology obscure, or different to what you are used to (since you're not well read in philosophy). Heidegger is approaching the question of being that he argues is a FORGOTTEN question. It is a a question that has been forgotten since the time of the Greeks. While much of philosophy is a theory of cognition, psychologism, and so on, Heidegger is trying to ground philosophy in an understanding of the concept of being. So while reading Kant or Hegel will always help in general, given the nature of Heidegger's project it is by no means essential to have a firm grasp of Kant, Hegel, or even Husserl to understand Being and Time. In fact, I think if you "waste" time on these thinkers you will never get around to reading Heidegger, which is the most important thing.

Heidegger is a very clear writer, you just have to read him very slowly. He takes great pains to make it simple for readers, and explains every term he uses. The problem is that people read too fast, and so skip over essential sections. If you skip over his distinctions and definitions i.e existential, existentiell, existentiale; present-at-hand, ready-at-hand; ontic, ontological etc. then you will end up reading a passage later on and thinking it's complete gibberish.

My advice to you is read Heidegger. Not only should you read Heidegger, but you should closely study Heidegger with the aid of secondary literature and lectures. You can probably find a lecture series on Being and Time to help you.

Heidegger is perhaps the most important, most sublime, and most relevant philosopher after Kant. You should spend many months in study, you should read Heidegger!

Best,

Me

[Anonymous No.15869978]

It's so weird that there are even published books on Kant with the Jacobi picture as their cover. The real Kant looked so different.

[Anonymous No.15871036]

Agreed

[Anonymous No.15871055]

>>15869865
>existential, existentiell, existentiale; present-at-hand, ready-at-hand; ontic, ontological
Thanks for the heads up so I never read this autismlord

[Anonymous No.15871083]

>>15869865
>Heidegger is perhaps the most important, most sublime, and most relevant philosopher after Kant. You should spend many months in study, you should read Heidegger!
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Kant
4. Heidegger

Or would it be turned on its head and be:

1. Heidegger
2. Kant
3. Plato
4. Aristotle

???

[Anonymous No.15871109]

>>15869865
>>15869865
As Jacobi starts with the doctrine that thought is partial and limited, applicable only to connect facts, but incapable of explaining their existence, it is evident that for him any demonstrative system of metaphysic which should attempt to subject all existence to the principle of logical ground must be repulsive. Now in modern philosophy the first and greatest demonstrative system of metaphysic is that of Spinoza[citation needed]; it is, therefore, sensible that upon Spinoza's system Jacobi should first direct his criticism. A summary of the results of his examination is thus presented (Werke, i. 216-223):

>1 Spinozism is atheism;
>2 the Kabbalistic philosophy, insofar as it is philosophy, is nothing but undeveloped or confused Spinozism;
>3 the philosophy of Leibniz and Wolff is not less fatalistic than that of Spinoza, and carries a resolute thinker to the very principles of Spinoza;
>4 every demonstrative method ends in fatalism (nihilism);
we can demonstrate only similarities (agreements, truths conditionally necessary), proceeding always in identical propositions; every proof presupposes something already proved, the principle of which is immediately given (Offenbarung, revelation, is the term here employed by Jacobi, as by many later writers, e.g. Lotze, to denote the peculiar character of an immediate, unproved, given truth);
>5 the keystone (Element) of all human knowledge and activity is belief (Glaube, or "faith").

Based.

[Anonymous No.15871117]

>>15869865
Good post.

[Anonymous No.15871129]

>>15871083
They all say the same stuff in the end. Plato is the best cause he was also the wisest

[Anonymous No.15871146]

>>15871083
Does it even matter? Why the obsession with the rankings?

[Anonymous No.15871148]

>>15869865
>I believe it may have to do with the English Wikipedia article on Kant. Back in January 2017, someone changed one of the actual depictions of Kant, the one functioning as the main image, to one of Jacobi because it was “more formal (and better quality)”. Sadly, this person did not check whether s/he changed it to an actual image of Kant.

Imagine being the chad who confused an entire generation of limp dicked philosophers that Jacobi was Kant.

[Anonymous No.15871174]

>>15871109
wasn't he against pantheism?

[Anonymous No.15871197]

>>15871174
He was accused of it, but disagreed.

[Anonymous No.15871246]

The being-there of Dasein in the sense of objective presence is a Dasein that eats and defecates. However, sometimes the Dasein does not defecate and this is Dasein in the sense of a privation. For the possibility of Dasein to be privative in the sense of not-shitting, Dasein must be in its essential nature taking-a-dump; that is, the positive taking-a-dump or privative being-there-dumpless is grounded in a Being (Sein) that is essentially dumping. The ontological, that is, a priori structure of essential Dasein in its Being-dumping grounds the ontic Dasein in its in-the-bathroom present as a being (seiende), as objective presence. Whether or not Dasein as objective presence, as a being (seiende), is defecating or not is ontologically rooted in this Dasein as essentially being-dumping.

[Anonymous No.15871287]

>>15871246
page number?

[Anonymous No.15871316]

>>15871246
*this is of course the being-dumping of the Other, an existential or a priori structure of being-in-the-world. The defecation can be either authentic or inauthentic for a being that is the there, which is what specializes the being-in-the-world. Here we refer to the peculiar conscience that arises when a particular Dasein says to itself, "I should not have ate that." This "not-ought-to" is grounded in that Dasein's conscience that also conceals a structure where the Dasein becomes itself and can no longer speak of a world but of an experience.

[Anonymous No.15871355]

bump for actually Being a good thred
side question, can I read The World as Will & Representation blind, or do I to read Kant first

[Anonymous No.15871402]

>>15871355
Schopenhauer can be read blind, with Stanford Encyclopedia knowledge of Kant. Read secondary literature on Kant on the Internet before.

[Anonymous No.15871473]

>>15871355
But Kant is the best moder philosopher so you should read Kant before the rest of the midwittery

[Anonymous No.15871517]

>>15871355
I've got sad new that if my sources are correct, Heidegger didn't even consider Schopenhauer a philosopher, irrespective of the similarities between Schopes and Martin.