/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19280250]

Is there anyone like Heidegger but much easier to read? I love the little snippets I get from secondary sources but he is impenetrable for my midwit brain. I've read philosophers that people said were similar to him but he has I don't know what you would call it optimistic? romantic? view of the world that I don't get from the other existentialist philosophers who are much more pessimistic, depressing. and soulless about the world

[Anonymous No.19280281]

chains of conclusions, far removed from judgements about real life concepts, will always have this effect on most readers. the worst about heidegger are those reflexive or even triple reflexive constucts like "beingness of being". schopenhauer specifically requested the opposite of this.

[Anonymous No.19280283]

me but I will NOT share my writings

[Anonymous No.19280287]

>>19280281
Schopenhauer and Heidegger are so antithetical it is of no value to use one’s criticism to destruct the other

[Anonymous No.19280295]

>>19280250
>h-he-he I'm too stupid! sorry, Heidegger is too intelligent for me. I'm stupid, guys, I know it, ok
Jesus, man up, get some confidence, ya little weak bitch. If you don't "get" an author do not assume you're dumb, assume they are instead. Laugh at their inability to convey their simplistic thoughts through written language. Get some self-esteem

[Anonymous No.19280300]

>>19280287
S offers an explanation why op will never find what he seeks, because it's inherent to the thinking style of H and the other H.
if it's not true, go ahead, fulfill op's request.

[Anonymous No.19280327]

>>19280300
The step from Schopenhauer to Heidegger is through Nietzsche.
When understanding how Nietzsche attacks even S epistemology any of his “arguments” are sublated and Heideggers orpheic mysticism reveals itself as actual epistemology unfettered by any retro active arguments.

I will not be elaborating further on this.

[Anonymous No.19280331]

unrelated but what should I read/have a basic knowledge of before reading Husserl?

[Anonymous No.19280341]

>>19280250
Go for Hubert Dreyfus, my friend! Start by watching his bits on youtube, and afterwards go for his books and/or lectures on Heidegger. Technically Hiedegger secondary source, but Dreyfus has his original ways (which also include his syncretic analysis of Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and so on...)

[Anonymous No.19280431]

>>19280250
>Is there anyone like Heidegger but much easier to read?
Depends on what you're interested in? His existentialism or ontology? Max Scheler, Nietzsche for the grandeur, Graham Harman the guy that wrote OOO explains very well some aspects of Heidegger's ontology and builds on that, Kierkegaard, Husserl, I'd even say Carl Jung when it comes to stuff like authenticity
Karl Jaspers is like a weak Heidegger when it comes to existentialism

I found Being and Time to be really easy to read, and What is Metaphysics? so maybe start there.

[Anonymous No.19280432]

>>19280250
Nietzsche
Karl Jaspers

Heidegger’s philosophical language is an artwork in itself, so spending some time with is recommended

[Anonymous No.19280486]

>>19280250
Jaspers, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Levinas

[Anonymous No.19280640]

>>19280250
Jung. Both Heidegger and Jung followed extremely close lines of 20th century thinking, giving encompassing retrospectives of the Western tradition with an especially germophile tinge, but from wildly different directions.

Psychology is empirical, starting with Schopenhauer as Jung did, but closer to Fichte in essence, and who contrary to Jung, was a systematic and completely anti-empirical thinker, just like Heidegger. Some would even go so far, in the metaphysical treatment of his psychology (inverting his psychological treatment of metaphysics), that his psychology was 'poorly suited' to a Cartesian framework. The similarities and comparisons between Jung and Heidegger are endless.

>These two aspects became overwhelmingly clear to me as I read this admirable study of Fichte's psychology: on the one hand the apparent carelessness and vagueness of my own concepts when it comes to systematic formulation, and on the other the precision and clarity of a philosophical system which is singularly unencumbered by empirical impedimenta.
>The strange but undeniable analogy between two points of view derived from totally different sources certainly gives one food for thought.

This 'vagueness' is not derogatory of course, it is a necessity for a psychology, likewise Fichte does not hold up to an empiricist frame.

https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/09/30/carl-jung-foreword-to-mehlich-fichtes-psychology-and-its-relation-to-the-present/#.YXVxVBpBzIX
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/05/18/carl-jung-on-georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel-anthology/#.YXVxihpBzIU

[Anonymous No.19281019]

bump

[Anonymous No.19281028]

>>19280640
I wish Jung could have read Husserl. I'd love to see how phenomenological depth psychology would look like.

[Anonymous No.19282332]

bump

[Anonymous No.19282355]

>>19280250
This ugly boy

[Anonymous No.19282382]

>>19280250
>Maurice Blanchot