I began reading Being and Time recently. It is, obviously, very complex. I usually read the same phrase from 3 to 10 times to make sure I completely understand it, then if he explains a new concept I write it down to remember it. I believe I am not misunderstanding him, but I might be. Here is what I understood of his concepts until now, please point it out if I misunderstood anything.
Being - It's all that exists, including abstract concepts such as virtues, feelings, the state, etc.
Dasein - It's a being that has in itself the capability of questioning its being, and is aware of its absolute and immediate presence.
Existenz - the being which the Dasein relates with. Basically Existenz is whether the Dasein accepts or not its way of being, how it handles his being.
I really wonder how they translate Sein und Wesen. "Being" = something that "is" ?
Anyway, regarding Existenz, if it's the latin word existentia, then it's the 'old' way of understanding existence. Like an abstract, poor category, that applies to all things that happen to be there. If I remember, he tries to show how the notion of "existentia" is unable to correctly unveil the Dasein.
Nice thing you're doing. I think it's worth it and rewarding.
Mason Myers
Some scaffolding might help: plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#BeiTim
Isaac Evans
The preface is notoriously way more difficult than the book, if that's giving you trouble. It actually gets easier after the first 60 pages.
>Being - It's all that exists, including abstract concepts such as virtues, feelings, the state, etc. No that's beings. Being isn't all the beings. Being/sein is the infinitive of am, are, is etc. Beings are those things you said. It says in the preface that the being of beings is not itself a being.
Adrian White
I haven't read being and time in a while but here is what seems to be happening. You're confusing beings with Being. Everything thats is in the universe is a being but not everything is a Being. Beings have Dasein which I think is defined as those entities which have Being as its central problem. Basically life is something which contains choices which are unavoidable for humans alone, not that only humans choose but the types of choices only considered as human. So Heidegger is getting at the fact that existence is something which can be forged or let go of, but ine can't ever escape this if they contain dasein. However some choices arent reflected on by categorizing their minutia, this is his problem with the history of philosophy: most of life isnt lived in reflective isolation; there are multitudes of other factors and etc... which are central to each thing. Im kind of rambling now but this will become clearer in the Das Man section. But basically you cant accept nor reject existence, but you can choose a way of life and choose not to choose as well
Leo Richardson
I'm reading a translated portuguese version, and here we have two words: "ente" and "ser". In my first definition, I wrote being in the sense of "ente". It is somewhat hard to explain, but basically "ente" is related to ontic, and "ser" is related to ontologic.
I might have actually misunderstood it as you said, but I believe it is just a mistranslation.
Zachary Adams
Currently in a class on Being and Time, and have studied a bit of Heidegger before. Being is what determines entities as entities, alternative that in virtue of which beings are beings. The important thing is to distinguish being from beings, that's the ontological difference he keeps harping on. The whole book's task is to clarify the meaning of being, and most of it is spent just trying to clarify what the question of the meaning of being even is.
Dasein is the being that takes a stand on its being. It's us, basically, considered in that capacity.
Existence is the mode of being that Dasein has. This distinguishes Dasein from mere things, whose mode of being is either readiness-to-hand or presence-at-hand.
Read the introductory stuff in the book after finishing the book, since that's when it was written, after he had already developed all of his vocabulary and concepts.
Joseph Bennett
>Basically life is something which contains choices which are unavoidable for humans alone, not that only humans choose but the types of choices only considered as human. The insistence on choices sounds more like Sartre, not Heidegger. Heidegger's notion of authenticity is something like 'being drawn by the claims the world makes on you without respect of the general social practices,' instead of 'taking responsibility for your free decisions instead of following the herd.' This reversal of intentionality is one of the weirder aspects of B&T.
Lucas Bailey
Heidegger is based. Just look at this Goy right here, nigga is legit redpill and fashy, Based Heidegger is gonna cleanse Western Thought from all foul traces of Jewishness. Hail Victory! Hail Pepe! May the cucks tremble before our memes!
Ryder Rogers
yet the ol' nazi gave birth to the entire postwar continental french jewish marxist connection
Jonathan Perry
If I wanted to get into Heiddeger and other difficult philosophers, what should I do? How does one prepare? I can't help but feel that I'm a little to slow to really grasp what they're discussing.
Isaac Adams
that was Kojeve's fault, not Heidegger's
Dominic Barnes
there's not much preparatory work that will help a lot for Heidegger knowledge of the western philosophical and theological traditions will be helpful, but nothing in particular will be *very* helpful read it along with something like Dreyfus's commentary, but don't be afraid to disagree with his interpretations
Tyler Parker
Okay. Is it normal to feel a little stupid reading these guys. I read Kant last summer, or, rather, I read half of A Critique on Pure Reason because I found it exceedingly dense.
I want to go to law school so I'm going to have to get used to reading more theoretical works. That's why I'm here.
Samuel Jackson
>Is it normal to feel a little stupid reading these guys Yes, absolutely. Especially Kant and Heidegger. They had to basically invent the materials they wanted to work with, and that includes inventing a whole vocabulary and philosophical style. Heidegger in particular has little reason to be as dense and cryptic as he is. Once you learn their languages it will be much easier. Kant and Heidegger are both actually incredibly repetitive, so be aware of that. Don't be afraid of secondary literature, but don't use it as a crutch.
Kevin Cooper
I began reading Being and Time when I was three years old. Twenty years later, I finished it. I think I may be Heidegger. Ama
Julian Campbell
WHERE'S THE THIRD DIVISION, MARTIN?
Parker Johnson
I think nearly every philospher and even scientist is. They always approach the same tropics again and again. Maybe it's about giving "outsiders" several possiblities to find their entrance. To value the slight differences in their "repititions" you have to be extremly well experianced.
Kayden Jenkins
Espero que não esteja lendo a versão da Editora Vozes, se for brasileiro. É uma péssima tradução.
Parker Powell
you really need to buy the commentaries. That's the hack for reading philsoophy and no one ever discusses on lit. Most philosophy classes have more outside and secondary reading than primary. Really the only people who can say, for example, they "understand" Kant have been studying him for decades.W/r/t/ Heidegger so much of his response is regarding the greeks, kant, hegel, nietzsche, and husserl that reading chronologically to get to him is very difficult. Intro to metaphysics is a helpful place to begin. This is probably controversial but Rilke also deals with a lot of similar themes. Gass even claims that Heidegger more or less intellectually plagiarized him.
Lucas Long
What's the end of history, Martin?
Easton Gutierrez
>Being - It's all that exists, including abstract concepts such as virtues, feelings, the state, etc.
Being isn't equivalent to any particular thing or collection of things. An entity is what exists, Being is the ground of its existence. It's an ontic/ontological or empirical/transcendental distinction. So ontology studies Being in the way geometry studies shape – not any particular entities or shapes, but Being and shape as such.
>Dasein - It's a being that has in itself the capability of questioning its being, and is aware of its absolute and immediate presence.
Yes, but in layman's terms, Dasein is just a person.
>Existenz - the being which the Dasein relates with. Basically Existenz is whether the Dasein accepts or not its way of being, how it handles his being.
Existenz is the kind of Being Dasein has, as opposed to the 'categorial' being of things. Dasein is not a substance with properties, but a something that relates to itself.
Logan Rogers
Sim, é a da editora Vozes. Estou achando dificílimo, mas julguei ser problema do livro original em si e não da tradução, meu único problema foi com o fato de terem traduzido todos os termos do Heidegger. "Presença" como Dasein pode ser um pouco enganador, mas se encaixa com o significado.
Enfim, eu paguei um bom dinheiro no livro. Acha mesmo que seria melhor ler outra tradução? Qual recomenda?
Henry Scott
Was Heidegger influenced by Schopenhauer, my bros?
Aiden Cooper
Dude, he was a nazi, his writings should be banished!
Ayden Foster
Perdão, não me expressei corretamente. A Vozes na verdade publicou três versões de Ser e Tempo no Brasil: a bilíngue (alemão-português), em conjunto com a Unicamp; a versão dividida em dois tomos, de cores diferentes; e uma versão normal. Não sabia da existência da primeira e da última e nem que não possuíam os mesmos tradutores. Vou mudar o que falei: espero que não esteja lendo a versão traduzida pela Márcia Cavalcante, por serem demasiadamente tendenciosas e imprecisas. É melhor usar os termos de Heidegger no original. São em sua maioria neologismos do alemão para demonstrar a dificuldade de expressar a sua ontologia. Mas isso é para facilitar o seu estudo; não tem problema se o livro traduz os termos, desde que você os identifique. Enfim, só mude de edição se a sua for a traduzida pela Márcia. É a única realmente ruim.
Lucas Ramirez
>brazilians reading Heidegger ironic, because heidegger would have u sent to the concentration camp for being negers
Jaxon Collins
>would wow I'm terrified
Jace Rivera
No, but he was into Nietzsche so it may have been stuff from when Nietzsche was a huge Schopenhauer fanboy.
Honestly, I don't get how anyone could bother with Shopenhauer. He was quickly surpassed by everyone after him and is horribly miserable to read.
