Michael Inwood (1944–2021)

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 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.… (more)

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.… (more)