About to start this in English, it's the third edition according to the translator's preface

About to start this in English, it's the third edition according to the translator's preface.
What should i expect?
>pic very related

>in English

no fucking english class ever assigns Heidegger.
Admit you bought it because it's been infamous for being dense and impenetrable to feed your ego.

Not OP but I assume they meant the language, not the class, project harder m8

>projecting

You know where you are, m8? 90% of us are young males with inferiority complexes who read for their egos.

Well on the contrary, I received it as a christmas gift from a friend. I originally asked for Being and Nothingness by Sartre, but they confused the titles. Although even if i had bought it for myself, i cant quite see what would boost my ego around the fact that i may be incapable of understanding the core components of his writing.

Okie, so anyone wanna discuss this with me?

one of the greatest mindhacks ever written. i was totally convinced. it's only dense and impenetrable until you start to understand how he thinks. then you'll see the metaphysics of production everywhere. everywhere

get used to being one of those guys who namedrops heidegger, life will be tough for your normie friends afterwards

soon you won't have any friends tho, fair warning. but it's fun to read these books for the first time

>using the term "mindhack"

Expect a fuckload of new terminology and contrived sentences with the form of "Being being in the way of aprehending the Being". I hope you are familiar with previous philosophical writings because this is not an easy read.

Heidegger is trying to criticise the philosophy of consciousness and traditional epistemology, he says that the disctinction Subject-Object is flawed because it considers each as a separate sphere, but never shows how they interact with eachother. Phenomenology shows that "being conscious" is always "being conscious of (something)" so the subject is an objectivized conscience, but this somehow magically ignores HOW are we capable of joining this object and our consciousness, since they are separated.

Now, Heidegger proposes the structure DASEIN-WORLD-ENTITY vs. the traditional SUBJECT-OBJECT. There is no real equivalent for "world" in the philosophy of consciousness, where world is the totality of objects. Now (and here is when we get weird) for Heidegger the world is what determines the entities in a way that they can only "come to meet" the Dasein (subject, which is also in the world). In this way the world constitutes a third sphere where subject and object can meet. It also determines how we understand these entities, the Dasein is itself inside a symbollically structured world, and this structure is what allows to understand the mode of being of entities as well as itself.

Ultimately his whole project was a failure and he later recognized it, because he was not paying enough attention to language and its function of as "world opener". It is language what symbollically structures the world, and thus constitutes the "regional ontologies". The Sinn/Bedeutung (Sense/Reference) dichotomy is what ultimately causes the ontological difference between entity and being.

Thank you desu, it is always fun to embrace a literary/philosophical challenge, if i dont understand it the first time, i will continue to find other resources until i do.

Oh buddy, that caused me to cold sweat for a while, because i do not possess any of his other works or have read much into him. However, instead of driving me away, it paradoxically pulls me closer, as i truly would like to see how this gentleman thinks. I also feel a tad bit disappointed that the project turned sour, does this error negate any reasons for reading it now?

It's a lot easier to understand if you have a basic knowledge of phenomenology - by basic I mean you've dipped into phenomenology enough that you've had the "click" moment of "ohhhh, that's what they're getting at."

That moment came for me when I read some of Bortoft's stuff. Ironically, Husserl was impenetrable to me until AFTER I read Heidegger. It also helped me that I had already had a similar click before reading Heidegger about Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic, as well as hermeneutics (the hermeneutic circle) and bits of Gadamer. As Bortoft says, hermeneutics is very close to phenomenology.

To give a phenomenological explanation of how they helped me, it was because I had lots of experience concretely picturing things in dialectical relationships, teaching my mind how to picture "the constitution/unfolding of the object in relation to the subject."

I'd recommend you google Dreyfus' Heidegger course from Berkeley. The mp3s should be available from archive.org, and the syllabus is available on Berkeley's course website if you google for that. He recommends a lot of good secondary materials, like Blattner and Guignon, and his own book. Also EXTREMELY helpful is that he points out the places in Heidegger's 1920s philosophy lectures (History of the Concept of Time, What is Metaphysics, etc.) that overlap with Being & Time's passages - because he was teaching the former before/while he wrote the latter, which is much more condensed and abstruse as a result.

Absolutely read Gadamer after Heidegger. Ricoeur possibly, but absolutely Gadamer. Another interesting thing to check out after you read Heidegger is Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. It's just bizarre and kind of terrifying how close they came to one another in certain ways.

Oh my god, shut up.

Not really. Being and Time is his first book though, I meant that I hope you're at least familiar with other philosphical traditions that he will be referencing.

It is worth reading of course, he did not do a 180 degree turn in the Kehre. The problems that he treated in Being and Time are still there, he just approaches them in a different way.

cool, good luck user. I have to say I'm kind of jealous that you get to read B&T for the first time. one of maybe two or three texts that really blew my mind and changed the way I looked at everything. have a good read and enjoy watching technological thought get BTFOd

>Another interesting thing to check out after you read Heidegger is Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. It's just bizarre and kind of terrifying how close they came to one another in certain ways.
Care to elaborate? I never read Wittgenstein, is he any close to Austin?

Oh ok, yes unfortunately i am novice-tier in regards to this tradition or other schools of thought he references. But now that i am aware of the necessity of having some form of previous experience or background info into these references before setting sail, i will take the names others have mentioned above and learn more.

Heidegger has an odd way of explaining things. He will give the explanation first, then the word and it's introduction.

This will throw you off. He will all of sudden be using words he hasnt defined and you will think you missed something. You havent, keep reading forward when you feel this and in a few pages he will define the word and the last few pages will make sense.

Good luck mein Dasein

Well after digesting all of what you and another user have described to me, I can without a doubt totally admit that I may be in a bit over my head by trudging into this unarmed as I am, but the subject matter of his writings enthrall me. I will definitely enjoy reading this i can tell, but im certain that if i really desire to understand this, i will broaden my resources and read other works and references which will aid in my own understanding of the book.

Thank you kindly sir, I thoroughly enjoy philosophical enigmas

Use a secondary text, I can not recommend you one because I the one I used is in Spanish but it helped me tremendously. If you are not familiar with phenomenology and whatnot you should get the relevant bits from said secondary text.
>Heidegger has an odd way of explaining things. He will give the explanation first, then the word and it's introduction
This is very true and broke my balls so much

I'm not super familiar with Austin, but to my meagre understanding he's a lot closer to Austin than other analytics, even Ryle, in that he focuses on the ambiguity and complexity of meaning - "grammar" (meant in a very deep sense) for Wittgenstein precedes logic, makes the logic of propositions possible. I think Wittgenstein says somewhere that all logic is tautological.

Where he comes closest to Heidegger is his fundamental ontology. Heidegger's "ontology" and Wittgenstein's "grammar" overlap downright eerily at parts. (This is through the reading of Wittgenstein given by the "New Wittgenstein" school of figures like Garver, Diamond, Conant. Other interpretations, not so much.) They come close on the rejection of logicism. Overall what strikes me, at least, is the general attitude toward not privileging any "local" ontology/grammar as having privileged access to reality - what has access to reality is our ontological capacity itself, Dasein, in language.

Frankly I'm struggling to put it into words carefully enough without being sloppy, because one of my biggest stumbling blocks in reading Wittgenstein was too readily assimilating him into German idealist, phenomenological, and hermeneutic ways of thinking, so I don't want to lead you astray. But this is my feeling about it.

It's good to be cautious, but don't beat yourself up either. You should definitely be familiar with philosophy before Heidegger, but frankly it's nothing that a lot of general reading and secondary materials can't help you with. You will claw your way toward understanding it, and chunks will illuminate other chunks as you go.

Don't look at it like a monolithic mountain of books you have to read before you can ascend the peak. Phenomenology is a way of thinking, a "way of seeing," and once it clicks it clicks.

Dreyfus in his Berkeley course (seriously, use Dreyfus' lectures! He's one of the world's biggest Heidegger scholars) gives a good skim of secondary materials - his own, Guignon, and Blattner are the main ones.

>DUDE 'IS'-ING LMAO

Why is this guy taken seriously again?

I quickly glanced over the comment section and saw someone mention it but do yourself a favor and read the commentaries by Dreyfus or Blattner. You won't get it right away but once you understand his vocab things will move much more quickly. Kant says in the first line of CPR "That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt." Heidegger's purpose is to investigate the question before this question.

I will go search for one, maybe a book specifically about how to read it lol.

Ok, that does make me feel quite a bit more confident now that im not viewing it as a massive hill to climb, im pretty good about staying diligent with my readings, so give it some time and im sure ill be all over this like maggots on Infinite Jest.

Oh my hella, f*ckin' epic.

>>>/reddit/

No one cares.

>(...) the one I used is in Spanish (...)
Spanish speaker here, care to name-drop? I'm highly interested in the works of Heidegger and I've no idea where to ask for secondary texts/ companions (in Spanish) about things in general so, you lending a hand would be appreciated, honestly so. Thanks in advance.