I am new to philosophy, can I start with this?

see not meme'ing on you, you need to understand the basis of Ontology and Epistemology or you will not be capable of discoursing with the Enlightenment thinkers or the modernist niggers like Nietzsche and Heidegger

You mean Sophist
In theory you can if you only want to grasp aspects of his ontology, but this is for recreation and the fun in Heidegger is seeing him break from phil history
Also its incredibly difficult

I'm interested in the possibility of someone's introduction to philosophical discussion on metaphysics to come from Heidegger instead of Plato, but Being and Time seems like a tall order.

Don't fall for the greek meme, OP.
Phenomenology of the Spirit is where you want to start, followed by the New Science.

Why are the greeks a meme?
From what I am hearing in this thread, reading the book would be pointless as it would go completely over my head.
Never thought you were memeing me, perhaps I am oblivious.

Plato:
>Five Dialogues
>Republic
>Symposium and Phaedrus

Aristotle:
>Nic. Ethics
>Metaphysics

Descartes:
>Meditations
>Principles of Philosophy

Locke:
>Essay concerning Human Understanding

Leibniz:
>Discourse on Metaphysics

Berkeley:
>Treatise
>Three Dialogues

Hume:
>Treatise

Kant:
>Critique of Pure Reason
>Groundwork

Hegel:
>Phenomenology

Kierkegaard:
>Concluding Unscientific Postscripts
>The Sickness Unto Death

Schoppy:
>World as Will and Representation

Nietzsche:
>Birth of Tragedy
>Geneaology
>BG&E

Dude, have fun. Mark your books in pencil, write in the margins. Philosophy's a hell of a drug.

Okay here's what you want to do, OP.
1. Read the Enneads by Plotinus
2. Read some German medieval literature to get a sense of what German Idealism is based off of
3. Jump straight into Phenomenology of the Spirit (at this point you may want to learn an ancient language since a lot of it is used, preferably Gaelic)
4. Move onto the existentialist, Neitzche, Kierkegaard, Wolfe and Kant (read Cicero as a complementary text).
5. Now that you've mastered German Idealism move onto the big baddie Giambattista Vico, and when you've conquered him read Oswald Spengler
You now have introductory knowledge to philosophy. The Greek meme is shit Veeky Forums made up to waste newfags time, ignore them.

>marking up your books with your pseud thoughts before you understood what you've looked at

"
The central problem of Heidegger's philosophy is the "Problem of Being". In his early work the investigation of Being is inseparably tied to Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, though the differences between student and teacher were sufficient to cause uncomfortable friction between them. In his later work the problem of Being, although never openly theological, becomes increasingly tied to religious themes. It is the earlier work, particularly Being and Time, that influenced Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, etc. There, the investigation of Being begins with the study of "human Being" - "Da-sein," or "Being-in-the-world". Unlike Sartre, Heidegger does not begin his investigation with human consciousness, and the hyphenated "Being-in-the-world" is intended to warn us against "detaching" Da-sein from the world in which it finds itself. Neither does Heidegger have sympathy for the Cartesian Ego and the Cartesian separation of subject and object. The Ego, he argues, is “a merely formal indicator,” and the dualism of subject-object wrongly supposes that our “commerce” with the world is first of all to know it rather than to live in it.

Accordingly, the identity of each Casein (“the ‘who’ of Da-sein”) is to be found in a collective “they” (das Man) engaged in joint endeavors in the world rather than in the solipsistic Cartesian cogito. Da-sein consists of both its facticity (its being “thrown” into the world at this place at this tine) and Existenz (possibilities for personal choice). Da-sein can be 'authentic' insofar as it breaks away from the “they” to seek its own possibilities, of which the most necessary is death. In 'inauthenticity', Da-sein falls back to the “they,” identifies itself with its facticity and ignores the possibility of its own death. In inauthenticity or fallenness, the search for authentic understanding becomes mere curiosity; philosophical discourse, mere idle talk; thinking, mere calculation. Heidegger often insists that authenticity and inauthenticity are not ethical notions. (They are “ontological” or “descriptive”.) Yet Heidegger also insists that there is an intimate connection between how we describe ourselves (our ontology) and who we are (our ontic character). He say, for example, “Granted that we cannot do anything with philosophy, but might not philosophy . . . do something with us?’Heidegger has indeed avoided both ethical and political involvement, his apparent excursions into either as much a product of interpretation as intention.
"

I'll be honest with you, OP. Don't bother with the continental tradition; you'll regret in the long run.

>not actively engaging with the text
>marking in delible pencil
baka

I have an inner space you mong I don't need to write everything down so it can be lost to time you insect

>I have an inner space you mong I don't need to write everything down so it can be lost to time you insect

>lost to time

Have not read Eco yet have you?

...

The greeks meme is based on oft-repeated phrase that to understand ______ you have to "start with the greeks". This based on the interpretation of western philosophy as a long unbroken chain of people responding to one another starting with (at least) Socrates. There is a grain of truth to that but it can oftentimes be annoying to see the same phrase over and over again, or really funny depending on the mood. It's useful as a way to poke fun, tell someone to fuck off, or to make a more nuanced point about the nature of the question.

Reading Heidegger might prove fruitless, but at the same time, the stakes are incredibly low.

I'm curious what drew you to that book as the initial entry point for philosophy.

If you're really as inexperienced as you say, maybe reading books or listening to lectures about philosophers might be more valuable before reading the primary sources proper.

I'm only saying this because I just recently read At the Existentialist Café and am a little excited about it. Maybe someone here with more of a background in pedagogy or the history of philosophy might have different thoughts.

Heideggerian language can be so poetic once you've drank the Kool-aid. There's something intoxicating about it. I'm never more aware of the shape and absolute presence of being than when it's snowing or when I've just read Heidegger.

>want to get into philosophy just don't have a clue where to start
oh come on have you not even been here a week yet

I've only skirted around Heidegger since I started reading philosophy, but he's always been on the backburner. Every now and then I'll read some interpreter's notes or "On _____" books. What's nice is going back to one of these after a long while and 'Existenz' suddenly makes way more sense

>I'm curious what drew you to that book as the initial entry point for philosophy.
I love Terrence Malick movies and apparently he had his actors all read certain books before they shot the movies and one of them was Being and Time, along with Dostevsky and others.
Do you have any good lectures to listen recommend?
I used to come here a bit but I only read fiction
>Infinite Jest
>2666
>Book of The New Sun, Peace, 5th head of cerberus
>Master and Margarita
>Stoner
>The Stranger
>A Naked Singularity
>The Trial
This is a list of all the books I've read since I started reading on my own free will. I am a massive pleb I know. I am reading The Recognitions right now

start with the greeks is /thememe™/ of this board, when it comes to philosophy you always start with the greeks

For Heidegger, Hubert Dreyfuss is one of the most respected authorities.
youtube.com/watch?v=IaIWz_87Kz0

The above is about a 30 hour lecture course so if you're looking for something more casual, I think the Philosophize This podcast by Stephen West is an excellent listen. I've played episodes for people in my family on road-trips and they were able to get into it.

Don't worry about studying philosophy 'the right way'. It doesn't really matter when you're just studying in your free time. Just read, try to understand and read something new or read the same stuff again. You will have learned a lot in the end and that's all that matters. Could be useful to read into some online philosophy encyclopedias (SEP for instance) to have a general idea what the fuck you're reading before starting.

Why would anyone start his ventures into philosophy by reading those dense, primary texts?

I would really urge you (or anyone else who wants to get into philosophy for that matter) to start with Hubert Dreyfus lecture series "Existentialism in Literature and Film". (Especially if you are a big Malick Fan and interested in Dostojewski)

Look at these guys and their dreyfusses

>inner space
looks like someone hasn't read Heidegger, then

Op don't listen to this guy. Dreyfus is a dumb Anglo and is interpretation of Heidegger is considered nonsense by many.

This is correct, although it's not quite nonsense. It's just bad.

stupid bait

>but, please read Kant, Hegel and Platon first
>not diving head first into SuZ
Why not live a little bit more dangerous?

Also. I corrected Platon for you. It's spelled Plato*n*. Not Plato(h).

>analytical meme tradition
>a concept pushed by the sour WW2 winner, the eternal anglo

you're a failure

check your dunning kruger

stop posting this shitty normie meme

What if you could only read 10-15 pages an hour no matter the material. Would you still read?

>normie meme

yeah ok, faggot

start reading it in german, it almost reads itself even though you don't know the language

theres tons of open source books out there just look, google "introduction to formal logic" and you get a virus free pdf

it is a normalfag meme so is the other one

I did and i think I’m better for it.

Seriously though, I took a third year philosophy class as an elective, telling the prof that all the symbolic logic and set theory I knew from being a math major justified my admittance.

First text was Being and Time. It was brutal, gruelling and I probably put in more work into that course than any of my others that semester but after that struggle session few texts stump me with their ‘difficultly’. Also, the second text for that course? A Thousand Plateaus.

Literally how?

Yeah, actually you can, but you need a really strong determination to do it. Expect rereading and rereading sections until your head hurts. It's like learning a new language without the help of translation. However once you enter Heidegger's language it will all start to make sense and reading will become much smoother.

I should also mention that if you're going to read it in English you have the advantage of reading it in TWO different translations (Macquarrie and Robinson, as well as Stambaugh), so you can switch between them.