With Basic Problems, as with any other Heidegger text, you don't have to
have extensive knowledge of the philosophers Heidegger discusses to do the
initial work. Of course, the more you know of the background, the more
you understand.
Kant is relevant mostly to the sections that discuss him
explicitly, although there is a Kantian cast to much of Heidegger's
thinking of this period. As for Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, it
is a highly idiosyncratic reading of Kant. I would argue that it is not a
sound interpretation, and Heidegger ties himself in knots trying to
demonstrate that what Heidegger wanted Kant to say is what Kant "wished to
say". I would not recommend reading anything but the fourth part unless
you have a strong background in the first critique.
Martin Weatherston,
Philosophy & Religious Studies Dept.,
East Stroudsburg University,
East Stroudsburg, PA 18301.
On Thu, 30 May 1996, Peter Charles Danenberg wrote:
> Complements to you all,
>
> I have heard that Kant is, if not a sine qua non prerequisite, at least HIGHLY recommended to anyone who would venture into *Basic Problems of Phenomenology*. Is there any truth to this? And, if so, would anyone recommend some propaedeutic readings in Kant?
>
> As a university freshman, I am currently reading KdrV and have progressed up through the Transcendental Deduction. As for Heidegger, besides the introduction to *Being and Time*, I have only as of yet read the first few sections of *Basic Problems*. I am extremely fascinated and excited by Heidegger's thought so far (though I hope that I am not just succumbing to the trap of "curiosity" (Neugier) as a mere *das Man*, and that, in addition, my interests are genuine).
>
> I understand H. has written a work called "Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics." Would this also be recommended for a novice like myself as a suitable initial penetration into H's thought?
>
> Peteris Danenbergs
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
have extensive knowledge of the philosophers Heidegger discusses to do the
initial work. Of course, the more you know of the background, the more
you understand.
Kant is relevant mostly to the sections that discuss him
explicitly, although there is a Kantian cast to much of Heidegger's
thinking of this period. As for Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, it
is a highly idiosyncratic reading of Kant. I would argue that it is not a
sound interpretation, and Heidegger ties himself in knots trying to
demonstrate that what Heidegger wanted Kant to say is what Kant "wished to
say". I would not recommend reading anything but the fourth part unless
you have a strong background in the first critique.
Martin Weatherston,
Philosophy & Religious Studies Dept.,
East Stroudsburg University,
East Stroudsburg, PA 18301.
On Thu, 30 May 1996, Peter Charles Danenberg wrote:
> Complements to you all,
>
> I have heard that Kant is, if not a sine qua non prerequisite, at least HIGHLY recommended to anyone who would venture into *Basic Problems of Phenomenology*. Is there any truth to this? And, if so, would anyone recommend some propaedeutic readings in Kant?
>
> As a university freshman, I am currently reading KdrV and have progressed up through the Transcendental Deduction. As for Heidegger, besides the introduction to *Being and Time*, I have only as of yet read the first few sections of *Basic Problems*. I am extremely fascinated and excited by Heidegger's thought so far (though I hope that I am not just succumbing to the trap of "curiosity" (Neugier) as a mere *das Man*, and that, in addition, my interests are genuine).
>
> I understand H. has written a work called "Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics." Would this also be recommended for a novice like myself as a suitable initial penetration into H's thought?
>
> Peteris Danenbergs
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---