Ehehehe... uhm, read Heidegger? *whistles* Try Basic Problems of Phenomenology (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/025320478X/hyperjeffhistory), or maybe Ontology: the Hermeneutics of Facticity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0253335078/hyperjeffhistory). (And of course, the classic, Being and Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060638508/hyperjeffhistory).)
Heidegger's big flip was to put ontology (being) before epistemology (learning): that is, that we must exist before we can interact/learn. Further, to truly explore phenomenology (study of consciousness and conscious experience) we must first be in the world, to be conscious of it. Being and Time intimidates people, but I think they're confusing it with Being and Nothingness by Sartre, which needn't confuse people but should still be all buried ten feet deep in a great big hole and left to freaking ROT because Sartre was like the absolute emo-boy ADD posterchild, I swear, the man could NOT stay on topic for longer than thirty seconds AND he's constantly bummed about the results. He's the emo existentialist.
But anyway. Reading Heidegger is probably better than trying to "learn" dialectic, or hermeneutics, because both are best learned by following along as someone else does it. Heidegger is one of the best, and more importantly, he's very clear and concise in his language (and his translations are almost all quite well-done, too). He'll define a thing, with a concrete analogy, and then speak of it not as an abstract but using that analogy to really communicate.
Being and Time is full of examples like this one: to define 'obtrusive', which is the quality of a thing that intrudes on our awareness only once it is absent, he gives the example of the broken lightbulb. Every time you walk in the room, you flip the switch and the bulb doesn't come on -- so the broken light is obtrusive. It stands out by absence (of its light) and makes you realize it exists. Furthermore, the obtrusive element leads to additional awareness that when you walk a room, you flip that switch even though! you know already the light is broken.
I could totally visualize it. I had no problems at all with the guy. I have no idea why people say he's hard, or stuff. Sigh.
I can't recall whether Heidegger had any shorter works that might be helpful for you, but you might want to look up his lectures. He had a bunch, and I've read some of them. He had to have been an amazing lecturer, because he has a very quiet wit, very subtle, and he's very systematic, steady, and thorough in making sure what he intends to communicate, actually is. Plus, his lectures are shorter and wouldn't require you dedicate half your life to reading Being-and-Time, whew.
Btw, unless you're in Europe, it's doubtful you'd learn any of this in a Philosophy 101 class. I don't know if they'd even mention dialectic, given Masq's comments (above). A theology class might raise the topic, maybe. Literary criticism might, from what Masq says.
Alternately (since Masq is a PhD in this stuff), just reply to her post & ask her! If anyone would know the really good intro "here's what it is and how to use it" so you have tools for the rest of your major, she probably would be your best bet. My background is strongly theological, so outside of Heidegger, anyone else I'd suggest is going to drown you in, well, godstuff.
no subject
Date: 4 Dec 2008 04:23 am (UTC)Heidegger's big flip was to put ontology (being) before epistemology (learning): that is, that we must exist before we can interact/learn. Further, to truly explore phenomenology (study of consciousness and conscious experience) we must first be in the world, to be conscious of it. Being and Time intimidates people, but I think they're confusing it with Being and Nothingness by Sartre, which needn't confuse people but should still be all buried ten feet deep in a great big hole and left to freaking ROT because Sartre was like the absolute emo-boy ADD posterchild, I swear, the man could NOT stay on topic for longer than thirty seconds AND he's constantly bummed about the results. He's the emo existentialist.
But anyway. Reading Heidegger is probably better than trying to "learn" dialectic, or hermeneutics, because both are best learned by following along as someone else does it. Heidegger is one of the best, and more importantly, he's very clear and concise in his language (and his translations are almost all quite well-done, too). He'll define a thing, with a concrete analogy, and then speak of it not as an abstract but using that analogy to really communicate.
Being and Time is full of examples like this one: to define 'obtrusive', which is the quality of a thing that intrudes on our awareness only once it is absent, he gives the example of the broken lightbulb. Every time you walk in the room, you flip the switch and the bulb doesn't come on -- so the broken light is obtrusive. It stands out by absence (of its light) and makes you realize it exists. Furthermore, the obtrusive element leads to additional awareness that when you walk a room, you flip that switch even though! you know already the light is broken.
I could totally visualize it. I had no problems at all with the guy. I have no idea why people say he's hard, or stuff. Sigh.
I can't recall whether Heidegger had any shorter works that might be helpful for you, but you might want to look up his lectures. He had a bunch, and I've read some of them. He had to have been an amazing lecturer, because he has a very quiet wit, very subtle, and he's very systematic, steady, and thorough in making sure what he intends to communicate, actually is. Plus, his lectures are shorter and wouldn't require you dedicate half your life to reading Being-and-Time, whew.
Btw, unless you're in Europe, it's doubtful you'd learn any of this in a Philosophy 101 class. I don't know if they'd even mention dialectic, given Masq's comments (above). A theology class might raise the topic, maybe. Literary criticism might, from what Masq says.
Alternately (since Masq is a PhD in this stuff), just reply to her post & ask her! If anyone would know the really good intro "here's what it is and how to use it" so you have tools for the rest of your major, she probably would be your best bet. My background is strongly theological, so outside of Heidegger, anyone else I'd suggest is going to drown you in, well, godstuff.