Being and Time (Harper Perennial Modern Thought)

I became interested in Heidegger because of his influence on Karl Rahner's earlier work, such as Spirit in the World. I am just finishing my second reading of Being and Time. Sometimes I think I am reading a classic and other times reductionism par excellence. Of course, the Rahnerian in me would point out Heidegger's denial of Absolute Being and thus a person's pre-apprehension of Being as the basis of inquiry and categorical knowledge. So, one wonders about the coherence and unity of Heidegger's project as whole.

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.

My progress with reading "Being and Time," by Martin Heidegger. [Long pause...thinking] Hmmm...I'm going to be honest. I devoted a morning to reading this book. After a few hours of a terrible intellectual struggle, I've come to the conclusion that I must not have what it takes. This work leaves me feeling either very dumb or very angry. I think I'm leaning toward the anger part because a book, thought, idea, any prose at all should be conveyed with clarity and this book does anything but that. I know this book wasn't geared toward the lay reader; rather it was aimed at academia. I also understand that it is a translation of a deeply philosophical work by a highly regarded German philosopher, but this is worst than reading Kant!
I don't get it, am I missing something? I consider myself to have at least a modicum of intellect and have read many-a-book. I get the feeling that I understand what Heidegger is saying, but what keeps nagging at me is that he is spelling it out with a deliberate obscurity. I feel he is being unfair with his giant intellect and making the whole mess too complicated--on purpose. Maybe I'm just not smart enough, although I believe he could have spelled out the little I read in one paragraph!
I am angry with the author because I can see he has something profound to say, but doesn't say it with respect to his reader. The time needed to get through this book would be more than I'm willing to give. I truly want to know how many people feel that same way. The reviews I've read applauding this book's greatness throw me for a loop--are these people being honest? If you're an intellectual giant, a PhD, or some closet scholar that has waded through this work and comprehended it and found something profound, would you at least concede that it might have been written a bit clearer?
Maybe it's not fair of me to rate this book because I haven't read it in its entirety. My justification for a review is to show my disdain at the work's thick unreadable nature. I am giving it two stars because of its "probable" hidden profoundness, but I must emphasize that this profoundness is truly hidden!
Through all this I find a bit of solace in asking: "Was Heidegger smart enough, dynamic enough to make his work clear?" --This is to bolster my doubts that I am not smart enough to wade through it, essentially asking the flip to my fear.

Heidigger's "Being and Time" is one of those books that students of philosophy feel they really ought to read, if only to say they've read it. But reading it and understanding it are two different things. Given that Heidigger, like his fellow Germans Kant and Hegel, was a better philosopher than he was a writer, one will find that digging into his magnum opus can be a rather strenuous and perhaps ultimately unrewarding experience. The prose is so dense as to be all but impenetrable. I had to read this with a printout on hand of Heidiggerian terms (about 30 pages worth!). Even so, I got very little out of this book and would have been better served had I grabbed an "introduction to Heidigger" text instead.

If you're a specialist and you enjoy torturing yourself with this awkward madness, knock yourself out. If you're looking for a philosopher who knows how to make himself understood, try Nietzsche or Schopenhauer.

I believe that an inkling of truth lies within this volume. Essentially, Heidegger is saying that we can understand something profound if we only stop what we are doing and look at what is in front of us. I think everyone should tackle this work, not just philosophy students.

I believe that an inkling of truth lies within this volume. Essentially, Heidegger is saying that we can understand something profound if we only stop what we are doing and look at what is in front of us. I think everyone should tackle this work, not just philosophy students.

Martin Heidegger concept of Dasein (Human or Being There) in relation to BEING & TIME changed my philosophical course. This is Heidegger's Opus written in 1928 should be read after "Intro to Metaphysics" or some of his other smaller easier writings. The book has many great questions & thoughts about how BEING Human is trapped within BEING (Space, Existence) & TIME, but the book gets bogged down with Heidegger's own personal language. In other words: BEING & TIME is as hard to read as the philosophers Hegel or Kant. After finishing the book you may find the need to leave behind any form of Idealism & the many other traps of western philosophical history, or better written: "To Become Authentic" & discover your own means or method of thinking.

Not for the Philosophical Beginner.

this review is not on Heidegger's work itself, but rather on the publishing of the book because chances are that if you are interested in this book you already have an idea of what it entails. i have Harper Perennial Modern Classic version and i think it is absolutely horrible; i find the book chipping away and the spine to be, of sorts, weak, so, if you are planning to but Heidegger's Being and Time I suggest you do but buy a different version.

I think that this is the most important work into XX century philosophy. But if you really want to understand "Sein und Zeit" is very important that you read the book in Heidegger's maternal language: german.

It gave me a headache. I found nothing enlightening about it. I subscribe to the belief that in truth there is beauty and simplicity. In science it can be a simple formula expressing a profound idea such as E=mc^2. I guess it's a great academic exercise for those who have the time. Where's the clarity. I subscribe the KISS concept. Life/being at least in the physical sense appears very short from where I'm sitting. I'd rather embrace life with joy and whatever form my being has taken and savor the time I have. That to me has real meaning. To each his/her own we will probably never know if we got it "right" or

will MH. Or perhaps he finally did.

Whole libraries could be filled with commentaries on Being and Time so there is not much purpose in trying to summarize Heidegger’s philosophy in an the store review.

What I can do is point out what the reader can expect. Heidegger is convinced that his philosophy, or phenomenology more precisely, is able to provide an existential description of humanity that is deeper and more basic than that provided by science or religion.

Thus, while many intelligent people would think that to understand human nature one would want to understand neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and anthropology Heidegger thinks his account of fallenness, authenticity and temporality is on a more profound dimension.

Similarly, some people continue to turn to religious myths for their deep intuitions into humanity. But Heidegger explicitly writes that his phenomenology of the human person is beyond any theological explanation.

And, though the text is beguiling at first, after reading some five hundred pages the Heideggerian account starts to makes sense as concepts are clarified and earlier parts become understandable once one has read later chapters.

However, to be honest, I find the whole project somewhat preposterous. The idea that one philosopher could articulate a theory of human nature that is more accurate and profound than the many insights gained from the sciences just seems absurd.

Granted that the book had an enormous influence on later philosophy as well as German culture I can see why some people would want to read it.

But unless you share the belief that it is possible to sketch an existential account of human nature based purely on philosophical grounds that is valid for all humanity I think it safe to pass on this difficult work. As influential as it may have been in European thought and culture, it did not have much personal influence on this reader despite devoting a lot of time to simply parsing the text. Not that their are no insightful parts. But in my opinion, there are better uses of one’s time than slogging through Heidigger.