I really (really) want to read and UNDERSTAND picrelated. What should I do?

Read it

read it

>I find him too eager to dismiss the scientific project, even the genuinely useful/revealing aspects of it.
That's fair enough. But I don't see how his ontological project relies on any convictions about the regional ontologies of science. He's talking about care, temporality, existential structures, etc, none of which rely on anything given by ontic science. His analyses of concernful dealing with equipment in Division I are also pre-"technological" in a real sense.

it does take some time and commitment. it's not a "Hard book" to be honest and you don't need prior philo readings. What you will need is a grasp of Heideggerese. get an online glossary for his concepts.

He's very structured in his ideas and the chapters do build one after another. I read it over five ish months, on and off and was reading other stuff as well.

The way I went about it:
1. Wikipedia/ read glossaries on his basic concepts
2. Got interested. (unrelatedly, managed to read a part of Gadamer's Being and Method which draws heavily from this book)
3. Read more on stanford and other secondary literature, essays
4. Decided I had the time and inclination to take this on.
5. Read it

I found it a rewarding read, user.

>4. Nothing written against a cheap and Manufactured Affectivity
is that not exactly what he discusses in the passages on inauthentic moods such as fear, awaiting, curiosity?

I'm slightly skeptical of the phenomenological project altogether. I feel you can go only so far without science without deluding yourself.

Scientific facts will have a bearing on ontological considerations. The way I understand it, there are some ontic facts behind this 'concernful dealing' and subjective experience in general and we should be open to understanding it in whatever way possible, not dismissing it.

If you dismiss the facts and information revealed by science for more subjective considerations and authenticity, I feel you're just going to very coherent and reasonable for very long.

Online encyclopedias and YouTube videos can help. Sadler is pretty based, even with his meme reputation on here.

I should have been more clear, I feel even the sense of 'concernful' dealing, or awe at the Being question are fundamentally ungrounded and so prioritizing affect, for me seems to be, without any necessary outside constraints. My fear is that there is no check for whether you are deluding yourself when you've cut yourself away from the 'They'.

youtu.be/KR1TJERFzp0

Attached: blackpantherwomen-600x338.jpg (600x338, 59K)

What would the 'destruction' of the history of ontology entail? What needs to be reframed when taking on the new perspective of understanding Dasein? I'm only about to get to the section on "assertion", but still feel like I'm in the camp of the introductory presuppositions that suggest "Being" as self-evident, (willfully?) ignoring its 'enigmatic' a priori significance.

Same thing here, I am reading Being And Time since December.

Heidegger: An Introduction is a solid work that will walk you through B&T without assuming any prior knowledge, although sometimes the liberal bias of the author should be disregarded

Attached: APTOPIX-Mideast-Israe_Webf-20.jpg (1200x676, 111K)

Heidegger is Nietzsche for the volk.

Pleb take. Heidegger fundamentally disagrees with Nietzsche, and sees the Will to Power as predicated on the world as object upon which Will is exerted on, which ties into science and technology raping being

Attached: 1556575872044.jpg (546x767, 59K)

>Heidegger fundamentally disagrees with Nietzsche
Because he was a retard who didn't understand him and then turned around and aped some of his metaphysical underpinnings to appear smarter than he was.

What is Metaphysics? is a nice short essay that introduces you to him. Poetry, Language, and Thought has some comfy essays too. Has anyone read Philosophy of the Event?

His 'destruction', the way I understand it, is just a overlooking of more anal/autistic interpretations of texts and events towards a more affective and involved ontological interpretation, always keeping Dasein's issue with being in view.

>Because he was a retard who didn't understand him

Lol stop

>and aped some of his metaphysical underpinnings to appear smarter than he was.

Both thinkers challenged the very notion of metaphysics

Attached: 1511702836532.jpg (369x363, 21K)

I really really like husserl but do I really need to study Heidegger? I’m interested in Derrida and deleuze but from the little I’ve read it seems like Heidegger is largely responsible for phenomenology deviating from the direction husserl wanted.
Could I just read ponty and some Edith Stein and skip him? Or am I underselling Heidegger?

Can you provide examples? I'm having difficulty determining the 'weight' of his perspective

Read it, read requirements, read it again, read some more requirements, read it again, re-read some requirements, read it again... Take notes and compare them.

Attached: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is Only 'Joint' in NameThe ___.jpg (1280x575, 106K)

Heidegger is important to Kojeve and Lacan and Badiou and Zizek.

Attached: 51HE58KF3PL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 45K)

:)

I was going to put a nice edition of it in a glass case like Umberto Eco has and then say Fuck you over and over to everyone who comes in

Attached: CC0B0591-2E5F-44E1-90CB-B12741469412.jpg (3225x2398, 2.73M)

It's difficult to give examples. Simply put, I feel he's saying that philosophers and scientists since plato in their investigations about the world have forgotten to keep in view the overarching question : why is there something as opposed to nothing? Parmenides first raised this question, but later it was always sort of in the background or explained away.

So the role of philosophers is essentially to refocus and think about What the local/particular thing researched about have to do with the most important question of all, (what he calls the on ontological issue) that of being and time.

So the 'weight' is essentially this foregrounding of lived experience, 'being' and our subjective sense of 'time' in trying to make sense of the world rather than scientific facts or information.

His later essays

Heidegger is one of those inexhaustible thinkers. You just gotta start and you’ll, hopefully, get a good grasp. But there’s no “getting it”, there no “point” to the book, in fact, that kind of thinking is exactly what he deconstructing. The book is a prelude to a project he admittedly never completed, he just laid the ground work. A monk actually interviewed him on TV it’s up on YouTube start there goodluck

The suggestion is that, for example, views that have developed historically regarding concepts like essence, causation, autonomy, or the will all need to be reconsidered with respect to the proposed overlooked nature of Being, if I understand correctly. Is this something Heidegger ever attempted, or anyone else afterward? Did other major issues arise to prevent anything like this from occurring? How seriously is all of this taken?

Heidegger thinks that Being has been concealed since the Greeks. Being became metaphysics with Plato and metaphysics ended with Nietzsche according to Heidegger.

Heidegger wants to think about Beyng (the difference between beings and Being) from a new beginning or radical break from metaphyical thinking. It's all dishonest to me personally.

Attached: 1555766227277.jpg (2079x1041, 488K)

>How Seriously?
It depends on how you look at it. Continental Philo is still heavily indebted to Heidegger. And this sort of phenomenological/existential/hermeneutic project has many takers and does provide a new and interesting perspective especially for humanities and talking about subjectivity in general.

Could someone explain this Guenon meme on this board. Are you a single poster or are there many people interested in this guy? are you the guy who posts on eastern philo here as well?

It's a start