Michael Inwood (1944–2021)
Teoksen Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction tekijä
Tietoja tekijästä
Tekijän teokset
Hegel: The Phenomenology of Spirit: Translated with introduction and commentary (2018) 21 kappaletta
Χάιντεγκερ 1 kappale
Associated Works
Merkitty avainsanalla
Yleistieto
- Kanoninen nimi
- Inwood, Michael
- Virallinen nimi
- Inwood, Michael James
- Syntymäaika
- 1944
- Kuolinaika
- 2021-12-31
- Sukupuoli
- male
- Kansalaisuus
- UK
- Kuolinpaikka
- Oxford, England, United Kingdom
- Asuinpaikat
- Oxford, England, UK
- Ammatit
- filosoof
- Organisaatiot
- Trinity College, Oxford (Fellow|1967-2011|Emeritus Fellow)
Jäseniä
Kirja-arvosteluja
While Heidegger is a notoriously difficult read, Michael Inwood has written a lucid and eminently readable introduction. This is masterfully done and perfectly fitted to the VSI format - one of the best I have come across in this series.
It's not quite as 'transparent' as the quote on the back would have it but it is accessible as far as Heidegger goes.It starts off fine but as the concepts mount up and intertwine it gets pretty abstruse. There's a wide ground covered with sections on 'authenticity' and the role of art being of most interest to me. If you can get your head around the concepts there's a lot to build on. Inwood provides some concrete examples too so it's not entirely theoretical but the concepts are tricky and elusive at times.… (lisätietoja)
I thought I was keeping my head above water for the first 100 pages or so (out of 134), though whether I could explain it all to somebody else is another matter. Then I just got overwhelmed trying to keep all the technical vocabulary straight, especially as it most involved weird meanings of everyday words. It did not help that the glossary was based on the German terms while the text used English.
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Tilastot
- Teokset
- 12
- Also by
- 6
- Jäseniä
- 857
- Suosituimmuussija
- #29,859
- Arvio (tähdet)
- 3.5
- Kirja-arvosteluja
- 8
- ISBN:t
- 46
- Kielet
- 6
(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.… (lisätietoja)