Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
I am reading Joan Stambaugh's translation as main and backed by Macquarie & Robinson's, both are ebooks.
I understand I can get to it in time if I continue to read BT together with secondary sources but I will probably have to spent months or even a year++ to comprehend BT fully.
I don't see BT is as difficult as Kant's Critique where one full sentence can stretch to half a page. I had spent 3 years+ on a full time basis covering Kant's Critique and his other books. But I am trying to avoid spending too much time on Heidegger like I did with Kant.
I have established some techniques myself to speed up the learning process but still it is slow moving.
Anyone has any tips and shortcuts to understand Heidegger's BT fully [note fully not partially]?
For example techniques and methods of reading and researching that will expedite and accelerate the learning process in grasping Being and Time fully.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
I admit that the material is often too difficult for me, although it's at least less intimidating than algebraic classical logic!
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
Spectrum,
Why are you so keen to read "Being and Time", the whole thesis was a total, complete and utter philosophical failure. Heideggar's express purpose in BT was to pin down the nature of human being (dasein) but he didn't even get close - not once (!)
Give it a swerve, brother; it's not worth wasting your time trying to trudge through BT's ridiculously dense, technical, jargonistic prose style and it's countless tedious/irritating neologisms.
Regards
Dachshund
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
I have to agree with you, one has to be a super nerd [philosophical not otherwise] to study the works of notable German philosophers as I had experienced with reading Schopenhauer, Hegel [brushed through], Kant, Heidegger [brushed tru earlier] now cutting through the thickets.Greta wrote: ↑April 28th, 2018, 1:17 am Fans of German existentialists are necessarily super nerds (you have to be to handle the impenetrable language). Since existentialism is so out of favour today there's many explanations and extrapolations online for free. Even on this forum, Hereandnow has posted plenty of thought-provoking posts influenced by Heidegger and Husserl that may help explain some of those difficult concepts.
I admit that the material is often too difficult for me, although it's at least less intimidating than algebraic classical logic!
Noted Hereandnow is into Heidegger, I got some H's books from him.
I have searched the internet re Heidegger and has downloaded tons of materials especially those that give a summary, comments and explanations for each of the 83 sections of the book. These are good but not good enough when precision is necessary.
Re the OP I am more interested in effective and efficient techniques/methods learning of reading the book.
For example, with such a tough book I don't read it from the printed book, physically or electronically.
What I do is to download the PDF file and convert from PDF to Microsoft Words so that I can work more easily on it. The additional manual editing is a very tedious process itself.
With the Word file I break up each paragraph into sub-paragraphs by making each sentence stand on its own as a sub-paragraph. This way I can chew slowly on each sentence thoroughly to avoid glancing over it and miss any nuance to the point.
The contents itself is almost 5 pages and I had condensed them into a table into one page so I can see the whole more easily.
Because of the many neologisms, we need a dictionary for the book itself. I cannot find one good one so I have to compile one by myself from the lexicon.
While reading, I will draw up a flowchart for the whole treatise, summary for each chapter and each section [83 in all].
There are many other techniques I used to make it easier to understand and grasp the full book within my fingers.
One tip I noted is Heidegger at the end of each chapter listed down what to look for in the next chapter and in the beginning of each chapter he provided a summary of the previous chapter. This is very useful especially when the contents in the chapters are SO dense. By the end of the day I can feel that my brain is like a soggy and muschy lump of material.
I believe when others are reading Being and Time they may have their own learning techniques, tricks, hacks and various ways to facilitate understanding.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
It is the term 'Dasein' that is used everywhere in various Philosophical community and forum. Earlier I had a go at Heidegger's BT [brushed through] together with many other secondary sources. Thereafter whenever and wherever the term 'Dasein' turned up I am still not able to get a good grasp of it to offer any effective views or counter on it. So I decided to put in a serious effort to get a full grasp [hopefully] of BT. Then I note to get a full grasp will take lots of time, thus my looking for shortcuts. Since I have already put one foot into it, I do not want to stop and waste the efforts already put in.Dachshund wrote: ↑April 28th, 2018, 2:48 amSpectrum,
Why are you so keen to read "Being and Time", the whole thesis was a total, complete and utter philosophical failure. Heideggar's express purpose in BT was to pin down the nature of human being (dasein) but he didn't even get close - not once (!)
Give it a swerve, brother; it's not worth wasting your time trying to trudge through BT's ridiculously dense, technical, jargonistic prose style and it's countless tedious/irritating neologisms.
Regards
Dachshund
Putting aside the 'Nazi' issue and that I do not agree with everything in BT [so far understood], there are lots of good philosophical ideas within BT. One good idea is the Concept of Death within Being-toward-death and the related Angst which is a very good support for the "existential crisis" [existential dilemma] I have been throwing around very often in relation to religion and its evils and violence.
Even if someone do not agree with everything within BT, one can be in awe of Heidegger's deep thinking ability, which is really super, super, duper.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
My approach is to break down each paragraph as a sub-paragraph but I do read the paragraph as a whole before dealing with each sentence in detail.A final note and personal tip on reading Heidegger: Do not immediately treat the sentences atomically. Rather than trying to make sense of each sentence, plow on and read the entire paragraph first. If your mind wanders or is lost in the process before finishing the paragraph, just finish it anyway before starting over.
Link
Another tip is to create a sub-title for each paragraph or significant point within each section/chapter. Then compile all the sub-points and list them at the beginning of each chapter.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
Back when I was roped into doing a graduate qualification by my boss there were reams of incredibly boring reading to cover, and most of it I already understood through work experience. So I concerted the scans to searchable OCR PDFs. Then all I'd need to do is think of the concept I was after and the kinds of language used, search - instant references without the slog! You need a decent handle on the subject matter via prior informal learning to do that, though.Spectrum wrote: ↑April 28th, 2018, 9:46 pmRe the OP I am more interested in effective and efficient techniques/methods learning of reading the book.
For example, with such a tough book I don't read it from the printed book, physically or electronically.
What I do is to download the PDF file and convert from PDF to Microsoft Words so that I can work more easily on it. The additional manual editing is a very tedious process itself.
With the Word file I break up each paragraph into sub-paragraphs by making each sentence stand on its own as a sub-paragraph. This way I can chew slowly on each sentence thoroughly to avoid glancing over it and miss any nuance to the point.
The contents itself is almost 5 pages and I had condensed them into a table into one page so I can see the whole more easily.
This was necessary for me because I am on the spectrum and simply cannot work through vast tracts of heavy text unless captivated. That's why I am on forums rather than slogging through the work of the greats, which is not quite ideal but them's the breaks :)
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
Each of us needs to figure out what works best for us, but I cannot recommend your approach. Even a paragraph at a time might bog you down and prevent you from seeing where he is going and how the paragraph fits into the larger scheme of things.My approach is to break down each paragraph as a sub-paragraph but I do read the paragraph as a whole before dealing with each sentence in detail.
Another tip is to create a sub-title for each paragraph or significant point within each section/chapter. Then compile all the sub-points and list them at the beginning of each chapter.
My own habit of reading difficult material, it is not systematic enough to call it a method, it to read forward and backward. Read a bit, make note of what appear to be key terms and concepts, and then look back to see how the argument developed and how concepts, ideas, and themes are connected. The same process is repeated in expanding circles.
Sometimes, however, it is necessary to gain some distance. It is easy to become too focused on something that only makes sense when one is able to see it in a larger perspective of other issues in the text. Jumping ahead for a while can help. Leaving the text to come back to it later with fresh eyes can also be helpful.
These overviews and summaries might be helpful but I have not looked at it carefully enough at them to endorse any of them:
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80254 ... rview.html
[url]file:///C:/Users/Andy/Downloads/Tietz_Heidegger_ccl.pdf[/url]
http://www.academia.edu/25678505/BEING_ ... _A_SUMMARY
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspre ... qtvjcq.pdf
A video with an old teacher of mine (who is much older in the video then when I took a class with him):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7XkaC6LVU
I have not watched this one, but others in the series that I have watched were good. I jumped around watching bits and pieces. It might be of interest with regard to the connection with other influential thinkers after him such as Gadamer, Leo Strauss, Hans Jonas, and Jacob Klein. Names that may or may be known to you depending on your interests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS9WAOmDoO8
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
Thanks for the links. I had downloaded the one by Tiez and Cavalier. Will listen to the video. I have also downloaded many other outlines and summary and had skim through them but will definitely get back to them again after I have flowcharted the whole of BT's sections and general whole.
I agree with the above 'method' and I have done the same reading forward and backward. Generally what is stated in the earlier pages of BT are grounds for later concepts and then most of the later pages are grounds [care, anticipatory resoluteness, temporality] for the earlier concepts of Being.My own habit of reading difficult material, it is not systematic enough to call it a method, it to read forward and backward. Read a bit, make note of what appear to be key terms and concepts, and then look back to see how the argument developed and how concepts, ideas, and themes are connected. The same process is repeated in expanding circles.
Sometimes, however, it is necessary to gain some distance. It is easy to become too focused on something that only makes sense when one is able to see it in a larger perspective of other issues in the text. Jumping ahead for a while can help. Leaving the text to come back to it later with fresh eyes can also be helpful.
This is actually the problem with dealing with large paragraph. Problem is at times when we need to pause to think about a point within the paragraph or refer to a dictionary or other pages, there is a problem of getting back to where in the para we had stopped the last time. Sometimes we have to spent >5 minutes or more to find the meaning to a new term from within the book, dictionary or from the internet.Each of us needs to figure out what works best for us, but I cannot recommend your approach. Even a paragraph at a time might bog you down and prevent you from seeing where he is going and how the paragraph fits into the larger scheme of things.
With Words I can put a temporary 'bookmark' [e.g. LastRead] and get back to it easily.
Example of a large para [contents not important for this case],
The above paragraph is too 'massive.' To read and manage the above mentally is crazy especially with Heidegger's neologisms, complicated thoughts, etc. After conversion from PDF to Words I can break it down to the following and 'chew' on it slowly [adding highlights, bolding, colors, etc.];As an existential, "being with" the world never means anything like the being-objectively-present-together of things that occur. There is no such thing as the "being next to each other" of a being called "Dasein" with another being called "world." It is true that, at times, we are accustomed to express linguistically the being together of two objectively present things in such a manner: "The table stands 'next to' the door," "The chair 'touches' the wall." Strictly speaking, we can never talk about "touching," not because in the last analysis we can always find a space between the chair and the wall by examining it more closely, but because in principle the chair can never touch the wall, even if the space between them amounted to nothing. The presupposition for this would be that the wall could be encountered "by" the chair. A being can only touch an objectively present being within the world if it fundamentally has the kind of being of being-in-only if with its Da-sein something like world is already discovered in terms of which beings can reveal themselves through touch and thus become accessible in their objective presence. Two beings which are objectively present within the world and are, moreover, worldless in themselves, can never "touch" each other, neither can "be" "together with" the other. The supplement "which are moreover worldless" must not be left out, because those beings which are not worldless, for example Da-sein itself, are objectively present "in" the world, too. More precisely, they can be understood within certain limits and with a certain justification as something merely objectively present. To do this, one must completely disregard or just not see the existential constitution of being-in. But with this possible understanding of "Da-sein" as something objectively present, and only objectively present, we may not attribute to Da-sein its own kind of "objective presence." This objective presence does not become accessible by disregarding the specific structures of Da-sein, but only in a previous understanding of them. Dasein understands its ownmost being in the 56 sense of a certain "factual objective presence."2 And yet the "factuality" of the fact of one's own Da-sein is ontologically totally different from the factual occurrence of a kind of stone. The factuality of the fact Da-sein, as the way in which every Da-sein actually is, we call its facticity. The complicated structure of this determination of being is itself comprehensible as a problem only in the light of the existential fundamental constitutions of Da-sein which we have already worked out. The concept of facticity implies that an "innerworldly" being has being-in-the-world in such a way that it can understand itself as bound up in its "destiny" with the being of those beings which it encounters within its own world.
-BT pg 55/56 -trans by Stambaugh
There are pros and cons of breaking up the para, for me the pros outweigh the cons.As an existential [existentiale], "being with" the world never means anything like the being-objectively-present-together of things that occur.
There is no such thing as the "being next to each other" of a being called "Da-sein" with another being called "world."
It is true that, at times, we are accustomed to express linguistically the being together of two objectively present things in such a manner: "The table stands 'next to' the door," "The chair 'touches' the wall."
Strictly speaking, we can never talk about "touching," not because in the last analysis we can always find a space between the chair and the wall by examining it more closely, but because in principle the chair can never touch the wall, even if the space between them amounted to nothing.
The presupposition for this would be that the wall could be encountered "by" the chair.
A being [entity] can only touch an objectively present being within the world if it fundamentally has the kind of being of being-in - only if with its Da-sein something like world is already discovered in terms of which beings[entities] can reveal themselves through touch and thus become accessible in their objective presence [presence-at-hand].
Two beings[entities] which are objectively present within the world and are, moreover, worldless in themselves, can never "touch" each other, neither can "be" "together with" the other.
- [Note: An entity present-at-hand within the world can be touched by another entity only if by its very nature the latter entity has Being-in as its own kind of Being--only if, with its Being-there [Da-sein], something like the world is already revealed to it, so that from out of that world another entity can manifest itself in touching, and thus become accessible in its Being-present-at-hand. – Mc&R p81]
The supplement "which are moreover worldless" must not be left out, because those beings[entities] which are not worldless, for example Da-sein itself, are objectively present "in" the world, too.
More precisely, they can be understood within certain limits and with a certain justification as something merely objectively present.
To do this, one must completely disregard or just not see the existential constitution of being-in.
But with this possible understanding of "Da-sein" as something objectively present, and only objectively present, we may not attribute to Da-sein its own kind of "objective presence [presence-at-hand] ."
This objective presence [presence-at-hand] does not become accessible by disregarding the specific structures of Da-sein, but only in a previous understanding of them. 56
Da-sein understands its own most being in the sense of a certain "factual objective presence [presence-at-hand] ."2
And yet the "factuality" of the fact of one's own Da-sein is ontologically totally different from the factual occurrence of a kind of stone.
The factuality of the fact Da-sein, as the way in which every Da-sein actually is, we call its facticity.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
Good move, German existentialists were self indulgent. It calls to mind the first sentence/paragraph of Hesse's Narziss and Goldmund. I consider it to be ineffective communication, like a showoffy musician who clutters a piece with too many virtuosic notes. I recall Vonnegut's writing advice: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/01/1 ... -vonnegut/Spectrum wrote: ↑April 30th, 2018, 11:16 pmThe above paragraph is too 'massive.' To read and manage the above mentally is crazy especially with Heidegger's neologisms, complicated thoughts, etc. After conversion from PDF to Words I can break it down to the following and 'chew' on it slowly [adding highlights, bolding, colors, etc.]
In a sense the existentialists brought their own demise upon themselves through obtuseness. Would it be fair to say that the applied solipsism of the works' form seemingly echoed the limitations of their content? Insularity would seem most healthful when used as a retreat rather than a modus operandi.So this discussion must finally acknowledge that our stylistic options as writers are neither numerous nor glamorous, since our readers are bound to be such imperfect artists. Our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify, whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales.
I always have the impression when trying to tackle such existentialism that the writers are on the verge of cracking the hard problem - but they never seem to do it. It's almost as if they arrive at a philosophical event horizon into which they either burn up or disappear :)
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
The worst are those writings of Kant [not an existentialist, Heidegger denounce the label] where one sentence can be more than half a page long .Greta wrote: ↑May 1st, 2018, 12:54 amGood move, German existentialists were self indulgent. It calls to mind the first sentence/paragraph of Hesse's Narziss and Goldmund. I consider it to be ineffective communication, like a showoffy musician who clutters a piece with too many virtuosic notes. I recall Vonnegut's writing advice: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/01/1 ... -vonnegut/Spectrum wrote: ↑April 30th, 2018, 11:16 pmThe above paragraph is too 'massive.' To read and manage the above mentally is crazy especially with Heidegger's neologisms, complicated thoughts, etc. After conversion from PDF to Words I can break it down to the following and 'chew' on it slowly [adding highlights, bolding, colors, etc.]In a sense the existentialists brought their own demise upon themselves through obtuseness. Would it be fair to say that the applied solipsism of the works' form seemingly echoed the limitations of their content? Insularity would seem most healthful when used as a retreat rather than a modus operandi.So this discussion must finally acknowledge that our stylistic options as writers are neither numerous nor glamorous, since our readers are bound to be such imperfect artists. Our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify, whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales.
I always have the impression when trying to tackle such existentialism that the writers are on the verge of cracking the hard problem - but they never seem to do it. It's almost as if they arrive at a philosophical event horizon into which they either burn up or disappear
Being aware of what is in it, the dilemma is there are reasonable amounts of gold nuggets and diamonds within that big mountain/pile of words and sentences. For me there is no choice but to dig in and sieve out whatever good ideas there in. However I do not agree with Heidegger totally.
I noted at present Heidegger's basic philosophy is getting very popular and applied in many fields of knowledge, e.g. existentialism, cognitive science, psychology, architecture, nursing [even this?], teaching, education, leftist politics [not Nazism], etc. etc. I believe such popularity could be due to some tangential interpretations of Heidegger's views, e.g. on authentic versus inauthentic, thrownness, being oneself, etc.. I will research into these later.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
To write clearly does not necessarily imply clarity of thought. Rather, those philosophers who are easy in their use of words betray their unawareness of the role language has in shaping our thoughts. Language can and does create philosophical problems - pseudo problems - to reveal these obliges us to re-frame language in unfamiliar ways. We have been aware of this ever since Wittgenstein.Greta wrote: ↑May 1st, 2018, 12:54 amGood move, German existentialists were self indulgent. It calls to mind the first sentence/paragraph of Hesse's Narziss and Goldmund. I consider it to be ineffective communication, like a showoffy musician who clutters a piece with too many virtuosic notes. I recall Vonnegut's writing advice: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/01/1 ... -vonnegut/Spectrum wrote: ↑April 30th, 2018, 11:16 pmThe above paragraph is too 'massive.' To read and manage the above mentally is crazy especially with Heidegger's neologisms, complicated thoughts, etc. After conversion from PDF to Words I can break it down to the following and 'chew' on it slowly [adding highlights, bolding, colors, etc.]In a sense the existentialists brought their own demise upon themselves through obtuseness. Would it be fair to say that the applied solipsism of the works' form seemingly echoed the limitations of their content? Insularity would seem most healthful when used as a retreat rather than a modus operandi.So this discussion must finally acknowledge that our stylistic options as writers are neither numerous nor glamorous, since our readers are bound to be such imperfect artists. Our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify, whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales.
I always have the impression when trying to tackle such existentialism that the writers are on the verge of cracking the hard problem - but they never seem to do it. It's almost as if they arrive at a philosophical event horizon into which they either burn up or disappear
In the case of Heidegger, and later existentialists and phenomenologists, they are trying to describe things that are pre-linguistic. Necessarily, that is going to be difficult using words. Things have to be approached obliquely. You cannot find the right word to describe something that pre-figures words. Rather, the process is descriptive; you have to paint a series of views. No view is in itself the truth, in fact (necessarily) any particular view cannot be the truth. That is not something new or peculiar to existentialism etc. Do we also ask why poets cannot simply say whatever they have to say plainly? So why expect it in serious philosophy?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
It's not about me or what I expect, it's about the fact that existentialists painted themselves into a corner of their own design and they made their work so difficult to approach that it's now fading away. If the ideas are just a game, then no problem.Londoner wrote: ↑May 1st, 2018, 7:29 amTo write clearly does not necessarily imply clarity of thought. Rather, those philosophers who are easy in their use of words betray their unawareness of the role language has in shaping our thoughts. Language can and does create philosophical problems - pseudo problems - to reveal these obliges us to re-frame language in unfamiliar ways. We have been aware of this ever since Wittgenstein.Greta wrote: ↑May 1st, 2018, 12:54 am
Good move, German existentialists were self indulgent. It calls to mind the first sentence/paragraph of Hesse's Narziss and Goldmund. I consider it to be ineffective communication, like a showoffy musician who clutters a piece with too many virtuosic notes. I recall Vonnegut's writing advice: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/01/1 ... -vonnegut/
In a sense the existentialists brought their own demise upon themselves through obtuseness. Would it be fair to say that the applied solipsism of the works' form seemingly echoed the limitations of their content? Insularity would seem most healthful when used as a retreat rather than a modus operandi.
I always have the impression when trying to tackle such existentialism that the writers are on the verge of cracking the hard problem - but they never seem to do it. It's almost as if they arrive at a philosophical event horizon into which they either burn up or disappear :)
In the case of Heidegger, and later existentialists and phenomenologists, they are trying to describe things that are pre-linguistic. Necessarily, that is going to be difficult using words. Things have to be approached obliquely. You cannot find the right word to describe something that pre-figures words. Rather, the process is descriptive; you have to paint a series of views. No view is in itself the truth, in fact (necessarily) any particular view cannot be the truth. That is not something new or peculiar to existentialism etc. Do we also ask why poets cannot simply say whatever they have to say plainly? So why expect it in serious philosophy?
However, if the ideas are deemed important, then ideally there would be an attempt to actually communicate, not simply output thoughts with such dense virtuosity that they cannot be understood enough by humans to be applied, which was perhaps the point in at least some cases, given the exchange between existentialism and Nazism at the time.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
I am not sure that a full or deep understanding is even possible but do hope that the time and energy spent is satisfying and worthwhile. There seems to be so many interpretations, it will be an individual decision as to what it might mean ?
Who knows, this process could result in another book !
I don't have any tips on reading 'Being and Time'.
I do appreciate the breaking down of big paragraphs or ideas into manageable chunks. Fascinating to find out how this is managed by serious readers. A YouTube video might be fun
When studying philosophy, some time ago, I found advice on how to read a philosophy article. OK, not the same as a heavy weight tome but if applied to a series of long paragraphs or chapters, perhaps useful ?
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidel ... ading.html
Basically, it was to identify the conclusion or view of the author, and then the supporting arguments. The special terminology - where the author explicitly states what is meant by a certain term. Possible ambiguities in interpretations. But you guys know all that.
Pretty basic, huh ?
'...In your notes, you might make a quick outline of the article's major argumentative "pieces." Draw arrows to diagram how you think those pieces fit together. If you can't do this, then you need to go back and look at the article again to get a better understanding of what the author is up to...'
I've never been able to draw these flow diagrams or do mind maps.
Perhaps it takes a certain type of brain ?
Interesting to hear that Heidegger's philosophy is getting popular.
I wonder why that is so and how it is applied ?
Any sources ?
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: Any Tips on Reading 'Being and Time' Efficiently?
Having read the above, I don't think I understand what you mean by 'existentialism'!Greta wrote: ↑May 1st, 2018, 4:40 pm It's not about me or what I expect, it's about the fact that existentialists painted themselves into a corner of their own design and they made their work so difficult to approach that it's now fading away. If the ideas are just a game, then no problem.
However, if the ideas are deemed important, then ideally there would be an attempt to actually communicate, not simply output thoughts with such dense virtuosity that they cannot be understood enough by humans to be applied, which was perhaps the point in at least some cases, given the exchange between existentialism and Nazism at the time.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023