Please learn me about Heidegger.

why?! lets have a rounded summary of heidegger, and if that includes nazis the so be it.

haha i have still never got past page ONE of "being and time"

my copy is 20 yrs old and uncreased

hey, I made it to page TEN. any advances?

Amateurist Berkeley Philosophy professor Hubert Dreyfus has an entire series of his lectures on
Being and Time on-line.

has anyone read adorno on heidegger.

That should have read "Amateurist, Berkeley Philosophy professor Hubert Dreyfus" just in case the very learned prof. Dreyfus stumbles ever across this thread and sues for defamation.

I must say I'm impressed. When I hear that name all I can think "Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar." Blame it on Monty Python.

The important point is surely that he had the same first name as me.

Also something about Existentialism, unfortunately. Major work: Being And Time, 1927. My Oxford Companion To Philosophy goes on about him for 6 pages of small print. (I'm also in correspondence with a woman contacted via a web dating site: she teaches philosophy and Heidegger is her favourite.)

Heidegger was a phenomena. Oh and apparently he was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

Heidegger rules, if only for three things; a; booze; 2; dasein, and thirdly; authenticity. I'd need to check more about him before I go on at length, plus at home and not work means limited net-time.

Man does this mean I'll actually have to take a book out of the library or something?

i am taking a graduate seminar on Being and Time this semester and i am quite fearful about it. i can say i have made it to page 20 without a brain hemorrhage--it's not TOO bad...yet.

why he is important and what he had to say: obviously my answer is provisional at this point, but he was concerned with the question of 'being'--he feels this question has been ignored even tho it is the central question of philosophy. in some ways he seems to be getting at the difference between something and nothing--what does it mean for something to "be"? (this is, i figure where time will figure in)

he uses the words "fundamental ontology"--which if you understand those words makes more sense than what i wrote above. furthermore, he feels that you cannot undertake a fundamental ontology without recourse to analyzing Dasein (basically being-in-the-world, or beings with some sort of conception of their own being--ok it gets hazy here!)

yeah so basically "what is being?" and "being can only be understood through Dasein".

that's what i got from the first 20 pages of Being and Time anyway!

"We have already intimated that Dasein has a pre-ontological Being as its ontically constitutive state. Dasein is in such a way as to be something which understands somethings like Being. Keeping this interconnection firmly in mind, we shall show that whenever Dasein tacitly understands and interprets something like Being, it does so with time as its standpoint."

I've been reading Selected Writings very, very slowly and there are vast stretches that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Big problem: I'm reading "On the Essence of Truth," minding my own business, and then he'll drop a term like "comportment" unnannounced and from then everything afterwards is completely opaque.

I get still have the nagging sense that some of his terms (like "Ek-sistent," say) ultimately translate into concepts about as fuzzy as "that feeling," as in "you know that feeling you sometimes have when you feel, I dunno, kinda strange and lost BUT YOU STILL KNOW WHERE YOU ARE, like that one time at the mall and its was a Saturday...you know?"