This is on my list of books to buy. I'm working through some of the philosophers before him before I read it though.
What exactly is it about? I heard an occultist professor say that this book proved the existence of the paranormal through philosophy.
Other urls found in this thread:
bump
just read sartre
It's about how people are shaped by their environment, and never arrive upon pure truths or nature as it is, since they are conditioned by all of the stuff they've come into contact before.
Gadamer's Truth and Method explains much of the same stuff as Heidegger's Being and Time, but without the excessively complex neologisms, vague phrasing, or feeling of social anxiety.
That's what you get for listening to an occultist professor lol.
I think it's about being and time.
Actually it's about beans and thyme.
Actually, it's about means and crime.
Actually, it's about teen and vine.
Actually, it's about rhythm and rhyme.
>mfw thingliness
Actually, it's about hiding eggs.
then It must be epic
Your occultist professor was right. Heidegger was an initiate of the mysteries of the cosmogenic eros revitalized by Klages.
Gadamer was a cuck, buddy.
Gadamer is a scholar's scholar.
A fucking leaf
Everdayness
How the fuyck was being and time about that. Motherfucker it was about how to be authentic in your being as you are in the world. At least that was an aspect of it.
This might help:
>this book proved the existence
Philosophers haven't proved the existence of anything, why would this book be any different
You are all right.
Yikes. Perhaps you might be more at home on /sci/
Bildungsroman about a fellow named Dasein who takes a terrible fall and anxiously has to try and get back up and make his life authentic
Sartre is discount Heidegger
Inasmuch as people have based their academic research and careers on his work because they couldn't hack reading the big bad Heidegger.
Philosophy springs eternal. It's a take down of the enlightenment idea that we are in some way of one mind, we think and therefore philosophise differently depending on a kind of praxis-situational thingy to do with existing. Takes everything right back to BEFORE SOCRATES which is super scary for western philosophers.
who would win in a fistfight?
martin "hide egger" heidegger or ludwig "jeepers" wittgenstein?
THEN WHO WAS DASEIN
Depends on context. If it were in Nazi Germany, Heidegger because he'd have sex with Wittgenstein then sell him out to Witty's old school chum Adolf.
>collapses your dichotomies
Scientists have never proven anything either, you dumb faggot. Not accepting philosophy has no necessary correlation with being a slave to scientific consensus.
Wow. Someone write this now.