Scan barcode
jacksezerhga's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
This book was almost impossible to complete but I have finally finished. This book needs to be read with either a commentary or some YouTube videos for each chapter. This books impact on Philosophy and ontology is evident while reading. If you can’t understand, don’t beat yourself up.. almost anyone saying they do understand it is lying!!!
brienoch's review against another edition
3.0
Took forever to get through because it was so mind numbingly hard to read, although I think that has more to do with the translation I read than the work itself. It is a magnum opus, so it's very long and tedious, most of what I read was just word vomit (in my opinion) but there are a few lines of solid gold in there that illuminated my understanding of certain concepts, especially those regarding time. I particularly enjoyed his ruminations on the death of Dasein and what it means, when considered in terms of the meaning of being of Dasein. Wouldn't recommend to anyone unless they are well read in philosophy.
quinnkiernan's review against another edition
Do you think you just fell out of a coconut tree?????? You exist in the context. Of all in which you live and what came before you.
pascalibrary's review against another edition
4.0
4/5. Being and Time was a fantastic but thoroughly frustrating read. Despite how tough it is, along with its other problems, Martin Heidegger's thoughts were so incredible that I can't help but love the book.
Being and Time was a serious challenge for me. It tested every intellectual limit I have, yet the allure of profound and hidden knowledge kept me going through even the toughest passages. Was it worth it? Without a doubt.
I want to first address the possible future reader of Being and Time. If you are anything like me, you are probably wondering if the legends of the difficulty and obscurity of this book are true. If you look online, people will recommend an entire Bachelor's degree in philosophy just to sift through this tome. I think that is quite stupid. I have a (sadly) superficial background in philosophy, and I was able to make it through. Would prior knowledge increase my depth of understanding? Of course! Heidegger explicitly responds to Descartes, Kant, Aristotle, and Hegel, but these passages and sections are absolutely not necessary to understanding the book! I think you can get by with watching a few youtube videos on these figures, but you don't even need to do that. Everyone can get something out of this book as long as they are patient.
Heidegger is a notoriously . . . intense writer. His language is dense, poorly explained, and very abstract. On one hand, I completely understand why this is how it is. Being and Time is a work of fundamental ontology and hermeneutic phenomenology. It's absolutely not going to read like a novel. Plus, Heidegger wants to shed the fat from all of philosophical history, so he invents his own terminology. On the other hand, there are sections in this book that are completely incomprehensible no matter how knowledgeable you are. I read this book with extreme care and delicacy, yet I am convinced that Being and Time is a work to be picked and chosen from.
Before I go on with this, I will say that if you're interested in Heidegger's philosophy, just read the book. No secondary source will give you a great idea of what his thought is. I consumed countless videos, articles, and sections from secondary books that distorted his views, either by omission or straight up misrepresentation. The best source is probably At The Existentialist Café, but again you are better off just reading the book.
In Being and Time, Heidegger is trying to understand the meaning of Being. He thinks this topic has been thoroughly unexplored, and that his revelations will undermine the history of philosophy. For Heidegger, when Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", he only told half the story by completely ignoring the "I am" part. M.H. even compares his task to a relativity or quantum mechanics style revolution. He planned to write another volume where he would use his newfound knowledge to deconstruct all of philosophy. This part was never written.
How do you even approach the question of Being? For him, you interrogate the only entity that makes an issue out of its Being, a human. But no, Heidegger can't call it a human, he calls it Dasein, or Being-in-the-world. While these terms mean slightly different things, he uses them interchangeably. This usage is an explicit rejection of Cartesian philosophy. In Cartesianism, the world is mathematically ordered, like on graph paper. Humans doing philosophy take an alien, abstract view from nowhere to scientifically and thematically study objects. They can look at things in an unfamiliar fashion, free of biases and prior knowledge. It's like we are separate from the world.
Heidegger rejects this view completely. He thinks that, in our everyday life, we are completely familiar with the world. Even unknown objects or phenomenon still have a place or reference in our world. They are 'ready-to-hand'. This is Heidegger's term for objects that have significations and places. Like a hammer is for hammering and is on the desk, which hangs up a mirror on our bathroom wall, which is for reflecting the other side of the bathroom, which is for dressing ourselves, etc. Everything fundamentally has these involvements, and Heidegger thinks that this is what constitutes a world. Its an interconnected web of involvements. We encounter these items without a second thought. It's like we incorporate them into our very Being. Think of how you don't notice the car when you're driving, or can effortlessly operate any household appliance. It's like you are on autopilot. He calls this circumspective concern. Unaware awareness. We lead most of our lives in this way fashion.
Scientific or thematic study arises out of this way of interacting with things, usually when something doesn't quite fit in. Maybe its too heavy, or missing, or broken. These phenomenon introduce the 'present-at-hand', and this state is more in-line with the Cartesian view. If I pick up a hammer and it's too heavy, I'm aware of its weight, then the force of gravity, and so on. This kind of thing makes pretty much every scientific field of study come about.
For scientific study, the world becomes an aggregate of the present-at-hand, and mostly eschews the involvements. As Heidegger points out, though, even scientific study requires ready-to-hand equipment, like a pencil or paper. It also quite unnatural to put our minds into that framework, which makes us create ready-to-hand instruments that do the work for us. And for things like economics or history, the discipline explicitly deals with the ready-to-hand as objects. Basically, you can never be completely alien and devoid of presuppositions, completely Cartesian. How does all of this relate to Dasein? Well, Dasein is thrown into the world. We are abandoned into a specific context or situation. For instance, I was born in the eastern United States about 20 years ago into a middle-class family. I can't shed these factors, they have inevitably influenced the person that I am. From this environment of abandon, we submit to the world and go about our days in concernful dealings with the ready-to-hand.
One of the main points of this book is an exploration of Authenticity and Inauthenticity. This is the part that I was mostly interested in. Inauthenticity, in this book, is characterized as a fleeing from one's own self, usually into the public, everyday 'self' of the 'they'. He calls this falling, or fleeing. 'They' aren't anyone in particular. The term is pretty much the same as how it gets used generally, like if someone said "They say you can't do that!" It's a nebulous term, not referring to anyone or even to everyone. It's the concept that breeds conformity.
'They' tend to distract any particular Dasein from his/her own most self. They take away responsibility, convincing Dasein that it couldn't have done any different. They speak idly and ambiguously, never truly fostering any kind of understanding. They distort concepts like death and time. They are never satisfied, always seeking novelty after novelty. I think about Twitter or Tik Tok for this concept, specifically the mobs that leap onto topic after topic, gossip after gossip. They never linger to make sure of any developments to the story, because it was already too old for them. An Inauthentic life is one of superficiality.
Heidegger's concept of Authenticity is mostly described negatively, or in terms of what it isn't. This makes it hard to try and apply it, especially because Heidegger really only characterizes Authenticity in fundamental, ontological terms. Being Authentically is hardly something one can choose to be. I disagree with this, though he does point out that it's largely impossible to always be Authentic, which I do agree with.
Generally, it amounts to a couple things. For one, you need to own your death as the end of Yourself. You don't need to brood on it, or contemplate it, just own it as yours and anticipate it, know that it is always a possibility. Don't think of it in terms of chance or probability, only possibility. It can't be an actual event that you can forever defer into the future. It is a looming, omnipresent possibility. This will lead you to face the finitude of your life.
Anxiety is a good thing for Heidegger. It causes us to be aware of the uncanniness of the world, and it individualizes us. It brings us back from our lostness in the 'they'. This can lead us to embrace our guiltiness, which is our utter and complete responsibility for our future. From this, we have a moment of vision and can authentically project into the future. This can only be done if we recognize our situation for what it is, learn from it, and embrace it.
A consequence of this is our freedom, which is what Sartre really takes from this book. As I mentioned above, we are radically free and responsible for our own lives. But Heidegger is always very careful to point out how context-dependent your life is. Remember, we are thrown into the world, a specific culture and genetic makeup and family and class. You can't be responsible for not becoming the President of the United States if you were born in India. Your freedom for these possibilities inevitably stems from what your situation and past dictate. Only within these boundaries are we free.
Time is a huge part of this book, but it's also described even more negatively than authenticity. I can absolutely tell you what it's not (a series of endless 'nows'), but as far as what it is . . . Generally, he speaks of time in terms of Dasein's fundamental temporality, of which there are three parts. The past, the present, and the future. The ordinary conception of time arises from these facets. Being authentic requires you to embrace all three. You need to be aware of your past, own it. You need to seize the moment and be resolute. You need to look to the future and your own death. Don't await or expect the future. Don't flee your death or responsibility. Don't forget your past. Anticipate the future, be resolute for it now, and conversate with your past. Own yourself. Basically, if you can make your life resemble a developed and cohesive story rather than a series of unconnected scenes, then you are probably doing pretty well.
There is a really cool part where Heidegger actually makes a logically developed argument about how the ordinary conception of time arises from our primordial temporality, and I have to say that this was very cool to read. Unfortunately, knowing how capable he is of this style of philosophy made the rest of the book look way worse.
As far as critiques, I mentioned already that his language is not great. His style of philosophy wasn't that interesting to me, despite how much I loved the concepts. He mostly just says things are such and such way, and doesn't offer much in terms of logical development. Sometimes he seems to contradict himself, especially when he speaks of Authenticity and Inauthenticity. I get the sense that he was unclear on most of the topics himself, which is why he preferred to only speak negatively. In the end, he only made it seem like authenticity is impossible.
Regardless, I am absolutely glad that I read this book. I will certainly be returning to Being and Time, because I think it will be even better once I understand more philosophy. If you are interested in existentialism, philosophy, ontology, self-help, or whatever, read this book. Just be prepared to get frustrated. Funnily enough, I don't feel like I finished this book. It feels like something I survived. All the more reason to return to it!
Being and Time was a serious challenge for me. It tested every intellectual limit I have, yet the allure of profound and hidden knowledge kept me going through even the toughest passages. Was it worth it? Without a doubt.
I want to first address the possible future reader of Being and Time. If you are anything like me, you are probably wondering if the legends of the difficulty and obscurity of this book are true. If you look online, people will recommend an entire Bachelor's degree in philosophy just to sift through this tome. I think that is quite stupid. I have a (sadly) superficial background in philosophy, and I was able to make it through. Would prior knowledge increase my depth of understanding? Of course! Heidegger explicitly responds to Descartes, Kant, Aristotle, and Hegel, but these passages and sections are absolutely not necessary to understanding the book! I think you can get by with watching a few youtube videos on these figures, but you don't even need to do that. Everyone can get something out of this book as long as they are patient.
Heidegger is a notoriously . . . intense writer. His language is dense, poorly explained, and very abstract. On one hand, I completely understand why this is how it is. Being and Time is a work of fundamental ontology and hermeneutic phenomenology. It's absolutely not going to read like a novel. Plus, Heidegger wants to shed the fat from all of philosophical history, so he invents his own terminology. On the other hand, there are sections in this book that are completely incomprehensible no matter how knowledgeable you are. I read this book with extreme care and delicacy, yet I am convinced that Being and Time is a work to be picked and chosen from.
Before I go on with this, I will say that if you're interested in Heidegger's philosophy, just read the book. No secondary source will give you a great idea of what his thought is. I consumed countless videos, articles, and sections from secondary books that distorted his views, either by omission or straight up misrepresentation. The best source is probably At The Existentialist Café, but again you are better off just reading the book.
In Being and Time, Heidegger is trying to understand the meaning of Being. He thinks this topic has been thoroughly unexplored, and that his revelations will undermine the history of philosophy. For Heidegger, when Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", he only told half the story by completely ignoring the "I am" part. M.H. even compares his task to a relativity or quantum mechanics style revolution. He planned to write another volume where he would use his newfound knowledge to deconstruct all of philosophy. This part was never written.
How do you even approach the question of Being? For him, you interrogate the only entity that makes an issue out of its Being, a human. But no, Heidegger can't call it a human, he calls it Dasein, or Being-in-the-world. While these terms mean slightly different things, he uses them interchangeably. This usage is an explicit rejection of Cartesian philosophy. In Cartesianism, the world is mathematically ordered, like on graph paper. Humans doing philosophy take an alien, abstract view from nowhere to scientifically and thematically study objects. They can look at things in an unfamiliar fashion, free of biases and prior knowledge. It's like we are separate from the world.
Heidegger rejects this view completely. He thinks that, in our everyday life, we are completely familiar with the world. Even unknown objects or phenomenon still have a place or reference in our world. They are 'ready-to-hand'. This is Heidegger's term for objects that have significations and places. Like a hammer is for hammering and is on the desk, which hangs up a mirror on our bathroom wall, which is for reflecting the other side of the bathroom, which is for dressing ourselves, etc. Everything fundamentally has these involvements, and Heidegger thinks that this is what constitutes a world. Its an interconnected web of involvements. We encounter these items without a second thought. It's like we incorporate them into our very Being. Think of how you don't notice the car when you're driving, or can effortlessly operate any household appliance. It's like you are on autopilot. He calls this circumspective concern. Unaware awareness. We lead most of our lives in this way fashion.
Scientific or thematic study arises out of this way of interacting with things, usually when something doesn't quite fit in. Maybe its too heavy, or missing, or broken. These phenomenon introduce the 'present-at-hand', and this state is more in-line with the Cartesian view. If I pick up a hammer and it's too heavy, I'm aware of its weight, then the force of gravity, and so on. This kind of thing makes pretty much every scientific field of study come about.
For scientific study, the world becomes an aggregate of the present-at-hand, and mostly eschews the involvements. As Heidegger points out, though, even scientific study requires ready-to-hand equipment, like a pencil or paper. It also quite unnatural to put our minds into that framework, which makes us create ready-to-hand instruments that do the work for us. And for things like economics or history, the discipline explicitly deals with the ready-to-hand as objects. Basically, you can never be completely alien and devoid of presuppositions, completely Cartesian. How does all of this relate to Dasein? Well, Dasein is thrown into the world. We are abandoned into a specific context or situation. For instance, I was born in the eastern United States about 20 years ago into a middle-class family. I can't shed these factors, they have inevitably influenced the person that I am. From this environment of abandon, we submit to the world and go about our days in concernful dealings with the ready-to-hand.
One of the main points of this book is an exploration of Authenticity and Inauthenticity. This is the part that I was mostly interested in. Inauthenticity, in this book, is characterized as a fleeing from one's own self, usually into the public, everyday 'self' of the 'they'. He calls this falling, or fleeing. 'They' aren't anyone in particular. The term is pretty much the same as how it gets used generally, like if someone said "They say you can't do that!" It's a nebulous term, not referring to anyone or even to everyone. It's the concept that breeds conformity.
'They' tend to distract any particular Dasein from his/her own most self. They take away responsibility, convincing Dasein that it couldn't have done any different. They speak idly and ambiguously, never truly fostering any kind of understanding. They distort concepts like death and time. They are never satisfied, always seeking novelty after novelty. I think about Twitter or Tik Tok for this concept, specifically the mobs that leap onto topic after topic, gossip after gossip. They never linger to make sure of any developments to the story, because it was already too old for them. An Inauthentic life is one of superficiality.
Heidegger's concept of Authenticity is mostly described negatively, or in terms of what it isn't. This makes it hard to try and apply it, especially because Heidegger really only characterizes Authenticity in fundamental, ontological terms. Being Authentically is hardly something one can choose to be. I disagree with this, though he does point out that it's largely impossible to always be Authentic, which I do agree with.
Generally, it amounts to a couple things. For one, you need to own your death as the end of Yourself. You don't need to brood on it, or contemplate it, just own it as yours and anticipate it, know that it is always a possibility. Don't think of it in terms of chance or probability, only possibility. It can't be an actual event that you can forever defer into the future. It is a looming, omnipresent possibility. This will lead you to face the finitude of your life.
Anxiety is a good thing for Heidegger. It causes us to be aware of the uncanniness of the world, and it individualizes us. It brings us back from our lostness in the 'they'. This can lead us to embrace our guiltiness, which is our utter and complete responsibility for our future. From this, we have a moment of vision and can authentically project into the future. This can only be done if we recognize our situation for what it is, learn from it, and embrace it.
A consequence of this is our freedom, which is what Sartre really takes from this book. As I mentioned above, we are radically free and responsible for our own lives. But Heidegger is always very careful to point out how context-dependent your life is. Remember, we are thrown into the world, a specific culture and genetic makeup and family and class. You can't be responsible for not becoming the President of the United States if you were born in India. Your freedom for these possibilities inevitably stems from what your situation and past dictate. Only within these boundaries are we free.
Time is a huge part of this book, but it's also described even more negatively than authenticity. I can absolutely tell you what it's not (a series of endless 'nows'), but as far as what it is . . . Generally, he speaks of time in terms of Dasein's fundamental temporality, of which there are three parts. The past, the present, and the future. The ordinary conception of time arises from these facets. Being authentic requires you to embrace all three. You need to be aware of your past, own it. You need to seize the moment and be resolute. You need to look to the future and your own death. Don't await or expect the future. Don't flee your death or responsibility. Don't forget your past. Anticipate the future, be resolute for it now, and conversate with your past. Own yourself. Basically, if you can make your life resemble a developed and cohesive story rather than a series of unconnected scenes, then you are probably doing pretty well.
There is a really cool part where Heidegger actually makes a logically developed argument about how the ordinary conception of time arises from our primordial temporality, and I have to say that this was very cool to read. Unfortunately, knowing how capable he is of this style of philosophy made the rest of the book look way worse.
As far as critiques, I mentioned already that his language is not great. His style of philosophy wasn't that interesting to me, despite how much I loved the concepts. He mostly just says things are such and such way, and doesn't offer much in terms of logical development. Sometimes he seems to contradict himself, especially when he speaks of Authenticity and Inauthenticity. I get the sense that he was unclear on most of the topics himself, which is why he preferred to only speak negatively. In the end, he only made it seem like authenticity is impossible.
Regardless, I am absolutely glad that I read this book. I will certainly be returning to Being and Time, because I think it will be even better once I understand more philosophy. If you are interested in existentialism, philosophy, ontology, self-help, or whatever, read this book. Just be prepared to get frustrated. Funnily enough, I don't feel like I finished this book. It feels like something I survived. All the more reason to return to it!
gijshuppertz's review against another edition
4.0
We only read the first part for now, but that was highly interesting and will need a review later on.
giovanni_pn's review against another edition
challenging
informative
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
opson's review against another edition
How to rate and review of a book that is notoriously difficult to understand?
However, complementing this with YouTube videos, I got a better grasp about his concepts, such as dasein, throwness, and authenticity.
Why couldn't Heidegger just adopt the more easily understandable formula content creators have taken to get his message across? Stupid stereotypical philosopher.
Together with complementary videos, it’s a rewarding read. It has changed how I conceptualize the phenomenology of being (what he calls being-in-the-world, or dasein).
Literally can’t decide what to rate it at, or if I recommend it though.
However, complementing this with YouTube videos, I got a better grasp about his concepts, such as dasein, throwness, and authenticity.
Why couldn't Heidegger just adopt the more easily understandable formula content creators have taken to get his message across? Stupid stereotypical philosopher.
Together with complementary videos, it’s a rewarding read. It has changed how I conceptualize the phenomenology of being (what he calls being-in-the-world, or dasein).
Literally can’t decide what to rate it at, or if I recommend it though.