Philosophy is hard - I read and summarize, so you don't have to, man.
Back from hiatus! New content Mondays and Thursdays.
I'm sorry for the ridiculous request! That book is mildly incomprehensible.
Part of the problem was I couldn't find any online summaries worth a damn to work with.
I used Heidegger in an essay once to discuss Samuel Beckett's Endgame and Waiting for Godot. In both, God is referenced. However, in Endgame for example 'he's dead, the bastard!'. So God must have existd in this world, because the characters know of him, but He has long since deteriorated past anything recognisable as God.That's where Heidegger comes in. It's similar to semiotics in that it needs a signifier and a signified, but here the relationship has broken down. Whilst 'God' (signifier) was relatable to 'God' as a concept (signified), then he 'was', in Heidegger's philosophy. But if (when talking about the abstract) a signified can be removed far enough from its signifier to not resemble it any more, *without* becoming anything else, then it ceases to 'be' in any meaningful sense.So God is not a 'being' in Endgame because he has decayed far past anything recognizable as God or *a* god.
Ha, if you thought "being" was bad, I thought the usage of "self" in "The Sickness Unto Death" in the first page alone was enough to give me a headache.
But, this is only the summary of part one.. what about part two? Does Xzibit have nothing to say about temporality?
This is terrible! I came in here with all these preconceptions about frat boys that I was hoping you'd challenge, and all you do is confirm every one of them!
Here's the Partially Examined Life summary of Being & Time: http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/02/07/episode-32-heidegger-what-is-being/.