Heidegger

> hardly the most esteemed
On Veeky Forums and in analytic philosophy maybe.

> or the most difficult to read
If you read some texts about Nietzsche (Heidegger and Deleuze especially, Klossowski works as well) you'll see that the problems raised by Nietzsche are difficult if they are worked through. Style does not always translate into difficulty.

Well, believe it or not, I'm not stupid. I want to understand this, and I have done my research. Never read Hegel, Kant, Aristotle, Aquinas or Husserl, but I've got the general gist of their respective philosophies, and am doing fine as of now.

I guess I'll consult a secondary source of it becomes too difficult. It's difficult now, but I feel like I can do it on my own.

this modulation of existing words had been regular style in 18th century but gradually vanished from german language for the sake of brevity.

Cool, bro.

>I'm not stupid
I don't mean to give the impression but being smart isn't by itself enough.
Considering that people with PhD's have pretty strong disagreements about how to properly understanding Heidegger should hopefully give you some pause. Sartre, a very intelligent man, far more well read in philosophy than anyone on this board will ever be, completely misunderstood Heidegger on a fundamental level getting pretty much everything wrong.

> I want to understand this
>but I feel like I can do it on my own
The one biggest difference I notice between talking to post-grad philosophy students and autodidacts is that the autodidact simply reads that text and does their best to understand it, where post-grads not only had have to have their ideas formally tested by are constantly engaged in competitive disagreements with their peers. This last thing is crucial. Your mind is an echo chamber. You can spend weeks working on a pet theory only for someone to poke a hole into before you even finish your second sentence due to what should have been an obvious logical leap. The difference between thinking you understand something well enough to finish a text and having a strong understanding of something that can be clearly articulated and defended is a very different thing. If you finish this text by yourself with no discussion, with no other texts and with a weak knowledge of the important issues preceding Heidegger you will have an understanding of his thought, but a very idiosyncratic and warped understanding.
If you are serious about understanding this serious difficult text you will need to test that what you understanding is correct. For someone with no contact with people in a uni setting secondary resources are the easiest way.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but you are one the expressing a desire to have a good understanding of this text and I think you are underestimating it and overestimating yourself. They don't normally teach this text (unless perhaps as a very brief overview) at universities until post-grad for a reason.

You know, I think that you're probably right. Maybe I did get overconfident when I read some of it and understood it. I think I will definitely consider some secondary sources, but probably after I finish the whole thing. Or should I just read some supplementary text side by side?

I would suggest reading a secondary text in conjunction, but if you want a good understanding it is the sort of text that will need to be reread, so there is no problem with reading it first and then taking up a secondary text to see the major mistakes you have made before rereading at some later date. Make sure whatever secondary texts you use are pretty basic. To be honest it really comes down to how serious you were when you said you wanted to understand this and how concrete you wanted that understanding to be. If you just read it without anything else and you think you understood it you will know Heidegger better than 99% of people who think they do.
I don't really think there is a reason not to though. The time you spend in secondary sources will make your reading of Being and Time itself move along faster so you probably won't end up spending much more time and energy than if you had read it alone.

reading philosophy without a companion is retarded. What kind of ego do you need to think you'll get anywhere near the heart of being and time without help? His whole purpose of the work is to reinvent philosophy and you don't even know anything about philosophy as it is. Just because it has a grandiloquent name doesn't mean its contents will blow your mind.

>I have only read a single philosopher that is related to Heidegger
Nietzsche and Sartre are both very related to him

OP, Heidegger is not that difficult. He has a habit of introducing a new term mid sentence and then explaining it after a few pages which is pretty infuriating, but other than that try to follow and understand his etymologic method. Use secondary literature as needed ofc.

I have not read Sein und Zeit, but his later thought is incredibly interesting. He is definetly worth the effort

>Heidegger is not that difficult
>his later thought is incredibly interesting
>I have not read Sein und Zeit

lol

Are these the only philosophers you've read? Have you any knowledge on works prior? This list of yours seems rather arbitrary.

>the quality of a philosopher's writing is based on how difficult it is for me to read..

You are retard if you think Nietzsche is a hack or any less than Heidegger. Nietzsche is easily one of the most intelligent philosophers to ever live. Get your shit together before jumping into Heidegger.

To OP, you 100% need secondary literature, heaps of it. It's not about being smart or dumb, it's just that Heideggers whole project is based on the metaphysical tradition. For the all the reacting against it the dude was seriously well read in the tradition of metaphysics, especially the greeks. If you haven't read any of that you need someone to tell you the underlying motives and debates behind his work, otherwise you will miss all the important bits.