One shouldn’t forget that Pythagorean cryptic utterance: “Do not cut in two what is on the road.”

Philosophy indeed, it seems, is a road. The utterance means then: choose that philosophy and that road to wisdom in which you will not ‘cut in two’, in which you will propound, not contradictions, but firm and unchanging truths. Yet with the introduction of that scission dividing the ontic and the ontological, we find ourselves sitting at the very road cut in two we swore would be untouched. As the philosopher too concerned with the psychophysical, we begin and end with the wrong tools and placements of anything through which one cannot work out of. When Heidegger begins to enter ‘in-the-world’ we begin to see this as a precedent to ramble upon the endless infinite variations that prompt themselves to the physical—a Pollock painting of verbs serving no philosophical use. Through the obvious obfuscation only evident in the confused and the obscuring of Daoist origins do we finally understand the relevance of the entire deviation of authenticities and inauthenticities that permeates a portion of this book. That play of words that becomes the archonic instrument breathing dualisms finds itself losing its charm after every verb is a proverbial transmitting, charioteering, boomeranging (and so on) into new fractal amorphous verbs. The modalities are endless for all and Heidegger gets lost in the complexity while ultimately not doing metaphysics, but rather displacing common orderings of semantics. The case of the phenomenologist who identifies with his phenomenology. Though one may disagree with the book in its entirety, partially nod along or frown with foul intent, one must admire the beautific simplicity of Dasein, the self-reflexive meta-fictionalized Reader whose thoughts are splain in real-time and whose splaying is thought of in itself—though these “places” may not be of use. It’s format certainly is. The book ends with an unfinished question mark. Or rather, a concretized question mark with no discernible answer since the Aletheia of such inquiry would result in absolute blissful theurgy.

That demiurgic intellect placed in the crux of the theurgic One. I solemnly weep, won’t you respond? I am you. Be.
( )

In the "method and framework" of Being and Time, Heidegger's work here has always been missing, and the discussion here is particularly precious and important. Kant’s ontological analysis lacks the subjectivity of the subject, and this is also the history of Descartes’ scholastic philosophy on the mind (Res cogitans) being regarded as objects (ens) or creatures Going back to the restoration of ancient "dialectics", the assertion that beings fit "presence" lacks the definition of "time". Heidegger clearly pointed out that "any understanding of existence must take time as its Horizon”, even if it is more inclined to interpret temporality based on Dasein (Dasein). Through the above deconstruction of the history of existence, the research path of this topic is established: the methodological meaning of phenomenological description is interpretation, and the truth of phenomenology (the unfolding state of existence) is the transcendent truth (ventas transcendentalis). According to Heidegger's ontology, the structure of "intentionality" is described: **perception and the perceived in its perceivedness belong together. Behavior has the structure of directing-oneself-toward, of being-directed-toward.

Intentionality is where the transcendence is. The being to which the intentional act belongs is Dasein. Transcending is an uncovering, and the act of Dasein is intentional. This has a philosophical counterpart in Being and Time:

Its essence lies rather in the fact that in each case it has its Being to be, and has it as its own.

An obvious work of genius and I think Bourdieu is more than right to describe it as polyvocal in being able to be read both in the context of Heidegger’s Nazism and in spite of/abstracted from it. I’ve gotta say though that I only comprehended about a third of it (if that) and the temporality stuff from the second half has really got me in a bind. Another book to be read for the rest of my life though and it is one of the bigguns in the field. ( )

As one of my philosophy professors put it, "whether you like it or not, Heidegger was the clearest thinker of the 20th century." Great choice of words -- not the most important, or most original, or whatever other epithets are printed on the back cover. Heidegger had a very clear notion of what his philosophy was and what it aimed at, in all of its intricacies and subtleties, and that clarity (I mean the clarity of the author's own thought for himself) bursts forth from every page. Whether that clarity is reproduced in the reader's apprehension probably depends on one's background in 20th century phenomenology, Aristotelian metaphysics, and the German language. Having none of these "ready-to-hand," I don't think I'll be attempting a second read. ( )

Magnum opus of one of the great philosophers of the twentieth century. I found his comments on death particularly interesting. While he can be abstruse, a comparison and contrast with the thought of Wittgenstein helped me discover more depth in his writing. ( )