Status
Available
Genres
Publication
Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1997
Description
Michael Inwood's lucid introduction to Heidegger's thought focuses on his most important work, 'Being and Time', and its major themes of existence in the world, inauthenticity, guilt destiny, truth, and the nature of time.
User reviews
LibraryThing member mavaddat
Heidegger himself is probably clearer about his own ideas and more focused than this introductory text. I recommend just reading one of the many books that were made from Heidegger's lectures.
LibraryThing member LancasterWays
Being unfamiliar with Heidegger's writing, which I'm given to understand is technical and obscure, I'm not able to offer comment regarding Inwood's explication of his thought. That said, I found Inwood's text occasionally illuminating but often unhelpful. Whether or not the lack of clarity is the
Show More
result of Inwood's language, though, or the difficulty inherent in simplifying Heidegger's thought, is unclear. A moderately useful introduction that probably requires supplementation with related texts. Show Less
LibraryThing member dcunning11235
This was a painful read for me. I don't think that this primarily because of the author; it is that much of what Heidegger is saying or might be saying or people claim he is saying is... bunk..? That might be too strong. From my one reading note, my reactions to concepts/ideas/definitions in this
(1) What? No. That's idiotic.
(2) Ok, ok, ok, sure. So what?
(3) The fuck? The-actual-but-not-literal-contoring-the-fuck-ness?
That might be my one complaint. Inwood uses Heidegger's obtuse language even after describing or clarifying it. I'd have preferred a slightly more verbose expansion that got rid of much of the neologisms.
Show More
book more or less fall into one of:(1) What? No. That's idiotic.
(2) Ok, ok, ok, sure. So what?
(3) The fuck? The-actual-but-not-literal-contoring-the-fuck-ness?
That might be my one complaint. Inwood uses Heidegger's obtuse language even after describing or clarifying it. I'd have preferred a slightly more verbose expansion that got rid of much of the neologisms.
Show Less