Uploader Comments (Professoranton)
Top Comments
-
Dreyfus encourages: those who attempt to read Being and Time should not read of the two introductions until you have read the book. These intro pages are unintelligible, and are virtually impossible to understand them upon first reading.
All Comments (14)
-
@Professoranton I have been following Dreyfus's lectures and noticed what was mentioned by others here. He is very practice or activity oriented in interpreting Heidegger. I also noticed that those he taught who are teaching now follow the same approach as he does. I started with Intro to Metaphysics then Basic Problems and now finally Being and Time, I am making slow progress, but progress none the less.
-
hyphons as existentialism? Mmmmmm, i dunno
-
Thank you Mr. Anton.
-
A challenge to you: Make a video where you explain §21 of problems of phenomenology, especially the first part -a). This part of the early Heidegger I have never managed to get a hold on. What does he mean by praesens for instance?
-
Coming back to watch this tomorrow morning...
Deadlines and Heidegger are too intense for me tonight.
My compulsive user of ellipses might be an unconscious homage to Heidegger and Husserl...
Hmmmm....
-
I too highly recommend Dreyfus lectures. I have studied Being and Time as an undergraduate, then again as a graduate student. I had also dedicated myself to much autodidactic study of his works. I wish I could have started with Dreyfus. It would have saved me much intellectual toiling.
Dreyfus does an excellent job of explaining Being and Time's first division in his lecture course. I would, however, alert listeners to the fact that he is largely promoting his own interpretation of Heidegger while ignoring others, and has his personal bone to pick with Searle and artificial intelligence. I happen to mostly agree with Dreyfus's interpretation, but it isn't the only one around.
/watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0 is a good, broad overview of Husserl and Heidegger.
SkepticalThought 2 years ago 3
I agree. He is commonly known as a "west coast Heideggerian." He is very good as Division One and the issue of background practices but not as solid on temporality and the Heidegger in the later parts of BT.
Professoranton 2 years ago