I feel like I have a concrete understanding of existentialism, and I want to move onto another branch of philosophy...

Three words.

MUH FACTICITY

MUH DASEIN

MUH Being

MUH beings

MUH being

Being and Time is fundamental for contemporary philosophy in general, not just existentialism or phenomenology. Modern Hermenutics stems from there, via Gadamer, Derrida wouldn't have been Derrida without it.
Too bad he went full mystic later on.

>Too bad he went full mystic later on.

You talking about Derrida or what?

Because he is legitimately one of the French so-called philosophers who actually is full of shit, as opposed to Bataille or Foucault.

No I'm talking about Heidegger, and his etimological inquiries on being.

The key to Derrida is to read him in context, he can't simply write "X is Y", and this choice of "style" is philosophically grounded (in Heidegger).It would take too much time here but I'm willing discuss, hopefully without stubborn analyics, in another thread.

>Too bad he went full mystic later on

How common is this? Jung, A.R.Wallace, Newton?

>I feel like I have a concrete understanding of existensialism, and I want to move onto another branch of philosophy
Calm down there. Heidegger's thought is profoundly existential. Being and Time is a masterpiece, everyone interested in philosophy should read it. Phenomenology is really a reaction to what Nietzsche brings into the twentieth century, with anti-existentialist/anti-metaphysical thought. People who don't like Heidegger/Phenomenology/Continental thought in general are more likely to have commitments to more traditional essentialism or realism. Maybe find out where you fall on that topic, and that will help you decide if you want to get into phenomenology

You're legitimately not well-read then

I'm not well-read with Derrida, I'll freely admit, but I am with Heidegger.

And Heidegger is very dense and hard to read, but it is at least comprehensible, when you understand the terminology.

Derrida seems to me to be someone who got infatuated with being obtuse for the sake of being it, at least the little I have read.

>Heidegger
>Philosophy

Purchase supplementary materials along with it. Otherwise, you will not understand it. It's a hard read, so dont expect to be able to flip through it on the toilet; you'll need a highlighter and shit

/disc

Kan/Hegel/Heidegger fall into the 'If I can make the most incomprehensible sentences imaginable, people will think I'm smart!' camp

if you can't write like a normal person, then stfu
Decartes, Hume, Schopenhauer etc all managed to write deep philosophy without putting verbal diarrhea to paper

retard

nope

>Kan
;^)

>One of the most intelligent philosophers of all time writes on one of the most difficult subjects with an audience in mind of other top academics and the rest of history that will follow
>b...but why can't I just pick it up and understand everything?

I'm not the biggest expert but I translated quite a bit of Heidegger and Husserl for a friend. Believe me, if you don't speak German, you won't get it 100% because these guys use an incredible difficult language (especially Heidi with his made up words and meanings) that doesn't translate well.

>tfw spic
>tfw the being and time spanish translation is like rubbing your eyes with cactus
How hard is it to learn german?

How do I into Existentialism? Fiction or should I just dive into the big texts? Everywhere I look it seems I need to start with someone else.

Because you can start with basically anyone.

Chronological is good, or you can skip Kierkegaard and go straight in to big D and Nietzsche and then continue chronologically.

Or you can start with Sartre and Camus and go backward, which might be good too.

I personally went chronologically and couldn't get much out of Sartre and the frenchies in the end because they felt like reading Heidegger with training wheels on.

Where's a good place to start with Kierkegaard if I know absolutely nothing ?

Is the George Steiner book on Heidegger a good introduction to his philosophy?

V good book.

Most juicy bit for me:

Discussing angst/death as the possibility of impossibility.

Levinas reverses this point and it makes for an interesting contemplation.

Nice piece on this topic: unm.edu/~ithomson/LevHeidDeath.pdf

It's not like it's different in German. He's basically creating new words left and right.

I say start with either an anthology, for exemple The Essential Kierkegaard, or a companion type book like the Oxford Companion to Kierkegaard. Both of those will give you a wide and fairly deep overview of hia thought, which isn't really fully captured by any single one of his works.

If you wanna start with primary sources, maybe look into some of his shorter essays like Two Ages or the discourses on the lillies and the birds. As far as books go, Either/or is a decent starting point, albeit a pretty long and sometimes meandering one.

Or you could just skip Kierkegaard entirely, he might be an existentialist but his work is the furthest thing from straightforward, although it is quite fascinating if you have the patience for it. His pseudonymous and signed works are quite different both in tone and subject matter, they also interact in some ways. He was, at different times, concerned with theology, aesthetics and literary/cultural criticism, critiquing Hegel, interpreting Socrates and ethics.

How familiar are you with the canon of philosophy OP?

You don't need it, but Aristotle and Kant would be very helpful.

Heidegger is good. He is not as hard as everyone makes him out to be, however he is odd.

He has a notorious habit of explaining a concept through it's intricacies and relationships before naming (yes, naming) and defining the concept. What this means is that if you get lost push forward. In a few pages the concept will be summarized and made easier to understand. You can then go back to the previous material and skim to gather what you missed. Not that hard really, just imagine reading an essay with no introduction.

I enjoy phenomenology quite a bit, I did research on it as a undergrad. However now I study Analytic philosophy and I can see the limits of Heidegger.

Do.Not.Read. Later Heidegger. Stop with Being and Time and be happy, mein Dasein.

I don't agree with this user about the later Heidegger, but he's spot on with the way Heidegger introduces concepts in B&T. The advice to push on is good. One thing that's nice about heideggers writing in BT is he summarizes alot; he'll stop and say "so far I've explained x, but y is still unclear so I need to xyz". Some things are deliberately left unclear for a while, but if you keep going, he always comes back to it.

Also out of curiosity, what do you see as some of the limits? And what have you studied as a grad that's showed you them?

I stopped studying Heidegger as an undergrad, I haven't studied anything continental as a grad.

With B&T Heidegger had courage and persistence to tackle ontology in a unique way. He is rigorous and honest.

With his later works he loses focus. He takes language as the house of meaning down a regrettable path and nearly becomes a mystic. He is far too poetic and vague. Specifically he thinks he can go beyond Dasein and get at Being in another way which I disagree with.

This is why the translations of both Heidegger and Husserl are heavily annotated with extensive forewords from the translators and why most people seek these out rather than asking their German-speaking butt buddy to garble out a few paragraphs for them.

it's a fucking Heidegger general thread.
There are "general" threads on here all the time idiot.

>Decartes...managed to write deep philosophy
top kek

>I stopped studying Heidegger as an undergrad
why?

I realized the reason I liked Heidegger was because of his attitude and want to get at the core of things. His focus on language specifically.

I realized later that I liked this part of him because I love logic and language, which is what I am studying now.

that animu looks like a dude

How the fuck do you feel analytics get to the core of things better than continentals? Analytics are playing semantic parlour games for eternity.

Whatever it is it's pretty.

At the core of things is ambiguous and vague, I wasn't being specific. Most philosophers probably think they and they alone are getting at the core of things.

The way I see it, I am a human and I have to use what I have to get to the truth. To me the tools I have are logic and language, and so the core of things is just that, logic and language.

If I want to talk about ontology, ethics, epistemology, etc., logic and language will always be guiding me. If I don't know logic and language, I probably will be lost and not know it.

People say Analytics play semantic games in the same way that people say Continentals are frauds; like bumper stickers.

Didn't fully answer your question.

Continental philosophy rubs me the wrong way. They seem to be unclear in a malicious way, whereas Analytic philosophy bends over backwardsto make sure you get what they mean.

One reminds me of Socrates begging for someone to be more wise than him. The other feels like Euthyphro or the like.

>They seem to be unclear in a malicious way
this is honestly the dumbest and most naive criticism of continental philosophy, just a meme spread from the idiot cambridge philosophers to the next generation and on
continental philosophy requires knowledge of traditional philosophy, if you have this knowledge almost all continental philosophy becomes easier to understand than analytical philosophy.

Explain to me why Foucault talked about Ancient Greek words then.

He literally didn't know the language and got it flat, utterly, full stop wrong multiple times.

I'd also like to point out that I've heard your response just as many times as Analytic philosophy is semantic games. Just more bumper stickers.

Do you want to explain how clear Frege will be without Aristotle or Kant?

this analytic autist is depressing me about going into analytic philosophy

keep posting anime pics man

Why am I depressing you?

He's an antisemitic Nazi cunt. Congratulations, you've been memed.

Please leave.

absolute madman
how do you even read it then?
What did he mean by this?

>Analytic philosophy bends over backwardsto make sure you get what they mean
see this is what I get from Being and Time though, Heidegger is trying to explain as thoroughly as he can what he's saying, but to do so requires a specialized terminology that may seem obscurant but is actually quite lucid once you get the hang of it it.

It would be interesting to hear what your favorite movies are.

Nigga Quine Wittgenstein and all this analytic niggers alike speak of equally complex shit but u can tell they aint trying to bullshit people. Heidehgwer reeks of bullshit and unecessary obscurantism.

It's not a Heidegger general thread, it's an arrogant novice tries to antagonize actually knowledgeable people to ease his malaise and fill some inner emptiness thread.

Veeky Forums is a high IQ board

There are wayy too many leftists on this board for it to be high IQ

Quine tries to bullshit people all the time. He has plenty of vague positions that he has shifted on over the course of several decades, in order to keep intact his initial "gut feeling" on the subject. The Duhem-Quine thesis is a perfect example.

Wittgenstein is notoriously impossible to pin down. It took analytic philosophers like 2-3 generations to start approaching his real work, instead of wallowing in a misreading of the Tractatus, and even now appreciation of Wittgeinstein is still riven by ambiguities and lack of consensus on what he really "meant," because he only expressed this or that aphoristically. Wittgenstein is far more a touchstone for insights among analytics than a systematic thinker.

so it's like every thread on lit?
why are you so butthurt about this one?

i've said it before, i'll say it again, analytics and continentals (i.e. Heidegger and Wittgenstein) are saying basically the same thing

They really aren't. This is such an uniformed hot meme in philosophy today though. There's a reason why people like Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, deleuze etc. didn't write in response to Quine, Russell, Witty, etc. and vice versa. Sure there's overlap, but to say its the same thing is not even close

>but to do so requires a specialized terminology
What philosophy doesn't require this

Again I don't think that Heidegger is that hard to read. His introduction on why he is writing B&T in the first place is in my opinion the gold standard of introductions to philosophical works. However the tone and structure of the introduction is not carried over throughout the rest of the work. He starts to do that thing I mentioned before, where he doesn't introduce concepts before he starts explaining them.

I have no idea why he did that and it only makes the work artificially more difficult. It can't even be attributed to translation since it is whole paragraphs that seem out of order.

However, his style does create ah-ha! moments frequently.

End of Eva
Ikiru
Tokyo Story
The Trial

You don't get it. You have to feel the language and not read about what someone got out of the text after he read the book and tried to put that into words (in another language).

>u mad

And on it goes.

We'll hang ourselves tomorrow.

>I have no idea why he did that
my understanding of why he did that was to try and get you to think about a common place concept in a manner that was divorced from the "idle talk" meaning of the concept.
so by describing an idea before naming it, he lets you enter the analysis without the everyday interpretation of the concept.

I'd like to think it isn't that

Avataring is against the rules.

>do not read late heidegger
stay autistic analytics

Fuck the rules nigga