Rating: 
Summary: Do not be afraid!
Review: I had initially avoided reading Heidegger because I had been told that his work was unreadable. I believe this is both true and untrue. It is certainly a difficult book. You will have to make a serious commitment if you are going to get through it. However, Heidegger does an incredible job of leading you through the argument. He is constantly summarizing the argument and pulling the pieces together into a coherent whole. This is something that many fail to do.
If you are interested in hermeneutic philosophy, I would highly reccommend that you read Being and Time. You will be glad you invested the time and energy.
An amazing piece of work.
Rating: 
Summary: For a little light reading
Review: "Being and Time" will make you laugh, and it will make you cry. But mostly, it will make you feel good all over. Also, try Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music," for soothing, spiritual, coffee-time music.
Rating: 
Summary: original and insightful, but suspect philosophically
Review: "Being and Time", is without a doubt an incredibly original philosophical doctrine. Heidegger bends language in unique ways, taking common terms such as "care" and giving them very special meanings. Granted, I am sure that the full effect of Heidegger's word-genius is lost in the translation, however, much still shines through in english. However, despite the strikingly originality, philosophically Heidegger is suspect. His prime assumption is that "Being" is primordial to beings (echoed in "What is Metaphysics" in which he argues that "Nothing" is primordial to "the not"). That is, rather than discussing only individuals beings with their unique Being, Heidegger believes that there is a grand Being that includes all beings and thier invidual Being. Although this is not a philosophy forum, this assumption is highly suspect; all of this talk of Being and Nothing, to sound clever, might just be a lot of nothing.To analyze Being, Heidegger calls into question the being for which Being is a concern, namely, the human. Heidegger calls the human "Dasein". This is another example of Heidegger using a common term and giving it a special meaning. "Dasein" literally means "being-there". Thus, we are "the being there". Although there are many interpretations of what Heidegger means by this (assuming that even HE knew, which i sometimes doubt), "being-there" can be used to express what Heidegger feels to be some of the basic states of Being of the human, one of which is "care". By this, Heidegger means that we are always "in the world", we put ourselves "there". For example, in "caring" about the table in front of me, i put myself "there". Furthermore, "care" is intimately linked with the element of "anticipation". Thus, we are always "there" both spatial and temporaly (we are "in the future" in anticipation, roughly); we are always outside of ourselves. Remember, though, Heidegger's task was to explain Being. Instead, he has assumed that by examining the being for whom Being is in question, Da-sein, he can in turn gain knowledge of Being in general (This same formula is used in terms of "Nothing", especially in "What is Metaphysics": By coming to terms with our own nothing [death], we can understand Nothing in general). However, this is another assumption that i believe is suspect; and, if correct, although Heidegger may have revealed several meaningful insights into the being for whom Being is a concern, he fails to really explain Being in general, assuming also that the very question of Being in general is a meaningful question, which is also suspect. As we are always "there" in the sense of outside of ourselves, "worlded", Heidegger believes that through death, by confronting our own "nothing", we can attain what he calls "authentic existence". That is, he believes that it is death, and ONLY death, that is individuating. Although his language is as always complicated and obscure, basically, he believes that because nobody can die for me, death is always "my" possibility, the "possibility of no more possibilities", and thus individuates me from "the Other". As with the other claims of Heidegger that i have presented, this is another argument that is highly suspect as Sartre points out in "Being and Nothingness": in the sense in which Heidegger says that nobody can die for me, nobody can love for me, etc. Overall, this is a book that provides much food for thought. However, the "food" isn't always presented in the most digestable manner in that the writing is difficult; and, despite Heidegger's ability to approproiate common words to special uses, he really isnt much of a writer. Finally, although Heidegger does give many important insights into human existence (such as the necessity to think of ourselves as "in a world" and in constant interaction with this world), between these insights many of his claims are worthy of being suspected to be jargon, and one wonders whether the questions he poses, namely the question of Being in general, is really a question at all, and if so, if Being in general can be understood by understanding the being for whome Being is a concern. Thus, if you have the time and energy to read a highly original 500+ page book written in convoluted and difficult language that is full of interesting insights, then i would reccomend this book to you. However, many of these insights might be answers to nonsensical questions.
Rating:
Summary: Wow
Review: After studying philosophy, with a focus on the Germans, for four years, this book still blew me away. It is a complete revolution, in that it returns to the heart of existence as we know it, which is being. To dismiss it because of the outside circumstances of the life of the author is completely unfair. With the proper guidance and dedication, any reasonable person can immerse herself into this work and emerge with a new pair or eyes, for better or worse. If everyone had the time, patience, and intellect to read/grasp this incredible work or art, we would live in a better place. I realize my review sounds entirely biased and overly enthusiastic, but my emotions stem from the experience of taking in this book, digesting it, and using it to see the world into which I have been thrown. I reccommend it whole-heartedly to anyone with an open/functioning mind. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Those Crazy Germans Part I
Review: As an accessible piece of pop philosophy, you will be sadly disappointed. This Husserl-heretic was less concerned with answering any phenomenological questions as asking the overlooked question of philosophy: What is being? This unfinished masterpiece of existensial gloom looms lofty in the air of twentieth century study of ..., for we find ourselves always in a state of being in time. Spawning Sartre and existensialists from the other side of the Death Camps of WWII, Martin Heidegger displays the warmth of barbwire and liquid nitrogen but this is nonetheless one of the greatest philisophical works of the twentieth century, even if it leaves the masses in utter confusion (like this reviewer). Heil Hitler! disclaimer: the words "Heil Hitler" in no way reflect my political beliefs or religious views. In fact, I wouldn't even trust the four-star rating for this review, considering that I've only slogged my way through the first 150 pages (80 of which the professor glossed over in one lecture so we could get at the "real" meat of the subject matter), and barely understood a word (if it weren't for the actual lectures, I don't know how insane with angst-ridden-confusion I'd be-ing ... (BWHAHAHAHAHA). Carry on Carry on, MN
Rating:
Summary: As with so much academic philosophy...
Review: As with so much academic philosophy, there's very little to say. It's a landmark book. You can't understand modern critical theory or philosophy without it. Yeah, it's hard. Harder than Kant, even. I don't see why this is a bad thing. It's not a book for hobbyists, or for armchair philosophers. It's an academic text, and laypeople would probably be a lot happier with their lives were they to accept that academic philosophy is hard, and that they're no more likely to understand it than they are to understand a major work in computer science, chemistry, or any other technical field. For those that are in the field, of course, you don't need a review - it's a landmark book, you should own it and read it, because, well, you're in the field. For everyone else, yeah, there are better uses of your money. Why this is a bad thing I'll never understand.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not WHAT you say but HOW you say it, Mr. Heidegger!
Review: Don't buy the hype, people! Whilst containing some interesting ideas about being and time and stuff, large parts of this book are almost unreadable. The main problem is that Heidegger hasn't got a clue about pacing. He's not familiar with the golden rule of writing, which is that it's not what you say BUT HOW YOU SAY IT! His writing is far too heavy-handed and would be far more readable if he would use a little humour now and then and if he would revert to a few anecdotes to better illustrate his views. However, he NEVER does this and persists in a monotone Teutonic drone throughout the entire book. After every few pages I would stop and think, what the heck did I just read and I wouldn't be able to recall ONE witty remark or anything EVEN REMOTELY ENTERTAINING. In fact, I would just draw a complete blank! Heidegger does have some interesting ideas about being and time and stuff but some of the ideas are too far-fetched and because of the monotone style of writing Heiddeger is never able to achieve sufficient suspension of disbelief. So If you are looking for an exciting read about being and time and stuff I would NOT recommend this book and I would suggest that you check out a well-paced, exciting book like "The sum of all fears" by Tom Clancy (five stars out of five), a master craftsman who is far more entertaining. I give "Being and time" three stars out of five, but only for content and certainly NOT for style.
Rating:
Summary: an excellent translation
Review: Easily the best of the available English translations. The attention to detail and to footnoting in this text make referring back to the German text as well as translating and, therefore, transliterating Heideggerian technical language a palpable task. Philosophy frequently makes much of the loss of meaning and the loss of significance that translations affect, however, Macquarrie and Robinson do there utmost to be consistent and connected with the German without getting mired in it. Consulting the glossary and the index in the back of the book is a must for beginners in Heidegger. The translators' use of "ready-to-hand" as opposed to "present-at-hand" seems to fit better than other translations which reverse their definitions. Being and Time is, while unfinished, a stunning work that has everything to do with how modern humanity involves itself in, comports, and reveals the world. Among the book's goals are the usurping of Metaphysics and the reformulation of all that is ontological under the scope of phenomenology. While it can be argued as to how closely Being and Time comes to subjectivism, this work nevertheless has influenced the Existentialist, Hermaneutic, Deconstructionist as well as Structuralist philosophical schools and their proponents. THough this book may be designated a "woodpath," a dead end, it has certainly raised the questions of being, identity and truth in a way that post-modern thought has struggled to improve upon or overstep ever since.
Rating:
Summary: Subtitle: "Being Unintelligible"
Review: First, the petty biographic stuff: Shame on Heidegger for being a Nazi. There is no excuse. But being a Nazi doesn't have a lot to do with the ideas he may have exercised as a philosopher (is a bridge built by a Nazi engineer worse than a bridge built by a morally sound human being?). So on to the real issues... My parents were philosophy professors, so in some superficial way, Heidegger has actually been the topic of dinner conversations in my home growing up. But having the benefit of philosophers in my home as a child did not spare me for the silly, wasteful rite of reading this book in college. I agree with the reviewer that said "It is what you say, not how you say it..." If Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Bradley, Russell, Plato and Aristotle could all write very forceful and significant philosophical works without making the reader feel stupid, there is no reason why the continental philosophers (especially Heidegger) could not do the same... The problem with Heidegger is that students come to read him without a complete philosophical education under their belt. For all the harm that Bertrand Russell did to philosophy, he was right in claiming that there are a limited number of issues philosophers deal with and most philosophers' works are simply refinements and corrections of old arguments. This is what Russell's one-time collaborator, A. N. Whitehead, meant when he said the entire history of philosophy is simply a series of footnotes to Plato's dialogues. Those who have the benefit of having worked through issues like appearance vs. reality, matter, idealism, the nature of human knowledge, induction, truth vs. falsehoood, etc. as analyzed by the long line of illustrious philosophers spanning from ancient Greece to late 19th century Europe and America will find nothing new or profound in Heidegger other than his language. The issues have all been talked about before, and it becomes very hard to figure out where Heidegger stands on many issues because of this game of 'knowledge qua obscurity" that he plays. On the style note, Heidegger kicked off a whole continental tradition of philosophy-as-literary genre from which the continental learning institutions are barely beginning to recover. If you want to know the why and how of Satre, Derrida, Lyotard, and all the other trendy pop philosophers who have transformed the philosophical text into a literary genre akin to the novel or poem, Heidegger is their intellectual forefather. This explains how a lot of people come to Heidegger. They first are exposed to Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, or Deleuze, and are told to read Heidegger and Neitzche if they really want to understand these new pop philosophers. Heidegger becomes an illuminating experience for them, because they don't have the benefit of having read Kant, Hegel, Hume, Berkeley, Locke, Bradley, Russell, or the old guys, Plato and Aristotle, prior to reading Heidegger. The result is something like a school boy's first alcohol-induced intoxication, a feeling of giddiness, bewilderment, and a heightened sense of self-confidence and invincibility. For the rest of us, it is enough to know that just because we don't have the patience to finish this book or read it twice does not mean we don't have the brain power to understand this book perfectly well. Time is precious and there are so many better books out there; why waste time on this stuff?
Rating:
Summary: A Mind-Boggling Tome
Review: Heidegger has rocked my world. He is, of course, one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century. He has been much criticized for his participation in the Nazi party, and one could draw a direct connection from his politics to his philosophy of "falling into the they." We fall into the "they" to avoid the anxiety of separation. "There is no I, only the one." Human interaction usually lacks real meaning, consisting of comforting "idle talk." His critique of the Cartesian tradition of rationality mind-body dualism is beautiful, though. He wrote how rationalism is a derivative abstraction from emotion. "Being-in-the-world" ontological existence precedes ontic categories of rationalism. Rational analysis takes a back seat to something's direct usefulness "to-hand." He also gets into the nature of time and "Being-towards-Death"... People are always in the process of Becoming an ideal that is never attained; the ultimate goal of all life is Death, but we must supress this awareness in order to exist. An amazing philosophical system that challenges assumptions and shatters paradigms.
|
