What are prerequisites to read Heidegger?

Intelligence. Better luck in the next life OP

Know a german or swedish

>tfw only german, swedish, greek and hindi are authentic languages
>feels good, man

>implying that most of the history of philosophy is not "and that's what that cuck said"

no descartes? pretty important if you want to get into Husserl

The only thing you need to understand Heidegger, on paper, is the ability to read philosophical work without getting lost.

Nietzsche would do fuck all to help you understand Heidegger. He doesn't even build upon Nietzsche. Husserl is a deceptive friend but it's really not useful because Heidegger is a dramatic departure from Husserl, attempting to describe the things-in-itself as they manifest for everyone from entirely different grounds.

People who would help? Brentano. Aristotle. Augustine. Kierkegaard. Descartes. Kant. But that would only help you make distinctions from their work, since Heidegger often critiques them more often than he builds from them. I've heard Heidegger described as an attempt to understand phenomenon by combining Aristotle and Augustine but stripping God and metaphysics as much as possible.

The thing is, most people don't have simple understanding of philosophical areas or figures, they have general understanding and familiarity built on years of dabbling in it. It's easy to read Heidegger (with effort) if you have been dabbling semi-seriously in random crap for a long time, but it's hard to get up to that level. It's also hard to describe how to get to that level, because there's no one way to do it, most of it is haphazard and even casual, etc.

It doesn't really mean anything to say "read Aristotle and these six other guys and you can understand Heidegger." Everyone will give you a different list and it'll be equally meaningless because what it really means is "dabble with these until you have basic philosophical water legs."

For example I'd probably say "get a general knowledge of pre-Kantian philosophy, then read Kant and Hegel, Dilthey, and Moran's introductory book on phenomenology!" but hey guess what, I've never read Kant in any depth because I hate him, I've read Hegel but 95% of my understanding of him is due to failing to understand him and having tackled him from ten different angles over half a decade, you probably only need the gist of Dilthey, not his long and complicated career, to understand why Dilthey is relevant, AND I read Heidegger way before I understood a fucking thing about the Husserlian kind of phenomenology. So my recommendation would have made no goddamn sense, or at least been dishonest.

t live in a cabin

Which Aristotle works are best to read before Heidegger?

I jumped straight into Being and time. Read it in Swedish, which works fine. I've read the first four chapters only, but it works fine for me. My two cents:

>don't read it to meet a deadline
>realize that sometimes the explanation comes a couple of pages later, or even in another chapter, meaning you have to read the whole book to understand the parts
>that being said, don't be afraid to go back an re-read parts. You're taking in a system, not an argument.

Organon and Metaphysics

Really? I never thought Heidegger used Aristotelian logic.

>Get really, really high
>Decide I want to try reading Heidegger
>It makes no sense
I don't know what I expected.

Definitely metaphysics. Heidegger also has his own commentary and lectures on metaphysics, which you can find, although you need a decent understanding of Aristotele to get the points he is trying to make.

Volkisch spirit

Heidegger: "From all that has here been suggested, it should be clear
that one cannot read Nietzsche in a haphazard way; that
each one of his writings has its own character and limits;
and that the most important works and labors of his
thought, which are contained in his posthumous writings,
make demands to which we are not equal. It is advisable,
therefore, that you postpone reading Nietzsche for the
time being, and first study Aristotle for ten to fifteen years." What is Called Thinking, p. 73.

I wish. Just how the fuck can you do that in this day and age? We have too many building regulations and rules around planning permission for that to be possible in my country (England).

Just read his essay "What is Metaphysics?" first, and then read a bit about Heideggerian terminology, and you're pretty much good to go tbqh.

You will miss all the important points of "What is Metaphysics" without a decent understanding of Aristotele though.

Maybe. Perhaps reading On The Soul and Metaphysics is a good idea before that then.

No, you retarded pseud, you don't need to study Descartes thoroughly in order to understand Husserl. For Husserl's phenomenology the only relevat part of Descartes' philosophy is the main idea of the meditations - deeming all knowledge suspicious. Furthermore, Husserl rejects Descartes' conclusion that the cogito is the firm ground upon which proper epistemology (doubtless knowledge) can be built. Husserl starts with the single cogitatios (the very observation of a phenomena, for instance the red color). That is Husserl's ground zero from which he (attempts to) derive everything else. Also, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between early Husserl (logical investigtions) and late Husserl (starting with the short work "idea of phenomenology" and culminating in the crisis of European sciences). Late Husserl took a "turn" to transcendental subjectivity, although not in a Kantian sense.

I despise imbeciles like you who talk about things they have no clue about, apart from articles on wikipedia and r/philosophy.

>Nietzsche would do fuck all to help you understand Heidegger. He doesn't even build upon Nietzsche.

how is it not helpful to witness a stranger talk about a familiar topic? he had an original attitude towards nietzsche, motivated by his own project. the "nietzsche 1&2" lectures are a good entrypoint.