Talk:Being and Time

message: It's very difficult to distill from the article the actual point of the work, or its argument, etc.  Even reading the article in its entirety produces a convoluted understanding I believe, but still, a summary would be good.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.190.216 (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are asking for the impossible. The work is meant to defy summarization because it expands on its concepts as much as possible in order to fill a book. It does not condense its concepts. It is written in the grand Hegelian style of concept–play and its point is merely to secure the author's employment in a German university.Lestrade (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That will work.  The reason I asked for citation of the examples given is because I have read them before, but do not remember them from Being and Time.  They may have come from a secondary source, or another text of Heidegger's work.  Amerindianarts 04:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know what section it might be in? Sam 14:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The field is a better example.  The professor I had for lecture seminars on B&T used it, I just couldn't remember its source and felt it should be cited.  This entire article would be much better with inline citation [WP:CITE]. Amerindianarts 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how to do inline citation, normally it is just ...
That is an option, or the Harvard style.  Since the article is on Being and Time it doesn't need to be specified, and a reference such as (H. 263) at the end of a sentence (or Paragraph if it applys to everything in the paragraph) would work.  Explanation of Harvard style is at WP:CITE, I think. Amerindianarts 17:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe the introduction to this article should explain what exactly the work is about in summary 

message: I think this section is definitely improving as its been subjected to heavy editing.  In regards to the crop reference in the second paragraph (as an example of Heidegger's modes of being), I suggest that we instead consider using the example he himself used in Being and Time -  that of the doorknob.  I believe this is to be found in Section 16, pages 102-107 (H.72-77) in Maquarrie and Robinson's translation, first edition.  Basically, when we interact with a doorknob, we are not considering its metaphysically properties or characteristics, we simply turn it.  In short, we simply use it as we see fit, such that anything could be a doorknob really.  Likewise, we only consider what a doorknob is when it fails as a doorknob.  In failure, we move past readiness-to-hand, and consider its presence-at-hand. and on and on...  I admit I usually fall heavy handed on the technical details of this stuff (see my edits in Heideggerian terminology), but I think this one would be really helpful to all readers.  Comments, suggestions?  Sam 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That will work.  The reason I asked for citation of the examples given is because I have read them before, but do not remember them from Being and Time.  They may have come from a secondary source, or another text of Heidegger's work.  Amerindianarts 04:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know what section it might be in? Sam 14:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The field is a better example.  The professor I had for lecture seminars on B&T used it, I just couldn't remember its source and felt it should be cited.  This entire article would be much better with inline citation [WP:CITE]. Amerindianarts 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how to do inline citation, normally it is just ...
That is an option, or the Harvard style.  Since the article is on Being and Time it doesn't need to be specified, and a reference such as (H. 263) at the end of a sentence (or Paragraph if it applys to everything in the paragraph) would work.  Explanation of Harvard style is at WP:CITE, I think. Amerindianarts 17:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being-With 

message: This placement of the tag is inane.  Most of these terms link to other articles which can explain their use in more detail, and because of the detail can explain in terms that represent a more NPOV.  I imagine it was placed by someone who doesn't understand much about philosophical concepts and the detail required in order to explain them without excess generality and POV.  Either that, or they are just too lazy to follow the links. Amerindianarts 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific language, recent tag

message: Why is the table of contents on the right sidebar?
:Probably to eliminate white space.Amerindianarts 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. That wasn't it.  I decreased the image size and moved the TOC left.Amerindianarts 08:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: "pre-theoretical competance".
"propositions make assumptions", this is a one-sentence attempt to summarise a long chapter on apophantic in B&T and can only fail.  Assumptions are unavoidable whether it is a proposition or not according to Heidegger.
"instantiate functions"
"preceding logic", see section on Logos in B&T.
"pre-discursive"
"propositional content"
-- Lucas (Talk) 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peculiar jargon in first section of article 

message: I think trying to cover, as (a) does, interpretation and Being and ontology in one short section is too much.  The idea of interpretative (what german word is this meant to match?) is too involved to get across as part of ontology.  Also the following section says that interpretative phenomenology is a major break with Husserl.  There are no citations and there seems to be a peculiar use of language in explaining it as "interpretive", as pre-x and pre-y.  We need a citation to talk this way about it, better just stick to Heidegger's language, there is also a terminology page on Heidegger's language which it should match and we can redirect to.  I think also the explanation of onotology is better in (b).-- Lucas (Talk) 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I have an overall problem with the way this article appears.  What it lacks is any pedagogical aspect.  It reads mainly for people who already know B&T.  I'm not suggesting that it be aimed at a 12 year old but I think one must keep in mind two kinds of people, a) people already familiar with philosophy who have not read B&T and b) those just becoming familiar with philosophy.  At the moment, as I said, it seems to be aimed at c) those who've already read B&T.
  I zealously agree with this paragraph, and I suggest editors of this page adopt criteria for judging edits:
    the product of the clarity provided to the three kinds of readers.
  Can we acknowledge the absurdity of an encyclopedia written for readers who are already intimate with the covered subjects?
  aphor (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a simpler explanation of Heidegger is desirable.  Indeed, I tried that on the main Heidegger entry a couple months ago.  But the ensuing edit disputes (with User:Lucas) which followed made it a waste of time to continue.  Instead, I came here, and tried a similar approach, though adding more direct citations than I would prefer, in an attempt to preclude edit conflicts.  However, the process has now repeated itself, as my expository comments were extensively rewritten or jettisoned (in favor of irrelevant or dubious content—for specifics, see my edit summaries), and now even the heavily footnoted text, along with the contributions of User:Mtevfrog, have been repeatedly reverted with the above criticism of "peculiar jargon".  So: if we avoid jargon, it won't be verifiably Heidegger, and User:Lucas will revert it as unverifiable or original research (much as he has attempted to do with the Heidegger entry).  But if we verify it, it will be "peculiar jargon" preaching to the converted, and User:Lucas will revert it.  In both cases, interestingly, the reversion will be to a version where User:Lucas' contributions dominate, despite their generally absent or poor references, his documented history of poor editing and incorrigibility in the face of counter-evidence.  This is, or is very close to, a WP:OWN issue, especially since the text Lucas is reverting is extensively verified. 271828182 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment I consider 95% irrelevant, and wholly one-sided.  The only reply you make to the numerous substantive points I made above is that, you think that I will call something peculiar jargon incorrectly.  Ok, there is Heideggerean "jargon", I was not complaining about that, but jargon peculiar to the article (I've made this more explicit by adding a subection to the above copy of the section from the article).  I have no problem with Heideggerean jargon but with using it carelessly and not providing enough background to enable someone to understand it, it is demanding on readers and must be done carefully.  Please note the other issues I mentinoed in the above especially issue of the reader the article aims for (for example one might avoid any mention of "ontology" or "fundamental, basic and underlying ontology" from the first section yet give a good intro to the book.  -- Lucas (Talk) 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preaching to the converted

message: I notice there have been problems with disruptive editing on this page.  There is a simple solution to this.  If there is a consensus among editors that a certain version should be the 'stable' one, then any persistent reverts away from that edit (specifically 3 in a 24 hour period) will make the reverter liable to a block, or similar action. 
I propose the current version (19:07 2 Feb 2007) be the stable version for now. 
this refers.
If you support, or disagree, say so and sign with the four tildes.  Best. Dbuckner 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tendentious editing 

message: I'd like to welcome the new editors (271828182, Mtevfrog,  and Dbuckner) to this page.  And hope you help to improve the article.  Please read also some of the comments already made above on the talk page and in the archive.  
While you are working on it remember to keep an eye on the talk page, dont just write in isolation.  I think we all agree that we do want all kinds of wiki readers, to be able to understand something, even if only a little, of B&T, but more than that for them to go and read it for themselves. -- Lucas (Talk) 00:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: -Welcome to newby editors

message: From footnote 4: translators usually render "Sein" as "being", the gerund of "to be", and "Seiend" (singlular) and "Seiendes" (plural) as the verb-derived noun "a being" and "beings,"
This is not accurate. "seiend" is not a verb-derived noun. It's a present participle, corresponding to "being" when used as a present participle. The noun form derived from "seiend" has different forms depending on syntax: "ein Seiendes", "das Seiende" (both singular); "Seiende" or "die Seienden" (both plural). Omc (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seiend"/"Seiendes" is not singular/plural 

message: "The prevailing winds are fairly offputting" says Mtevfrog.  The problem is I'm not an expert on Heidegger, and it is always difficult for a non-expert to make a judgment.  However, I know a troll when I see one, and I'm on a troll hunt.  My judgment is that Mtevfrog and the editor who persists in calling himself an 8-digit number have done good work elsewhere, their contributions seem logical and sound, and well-written, and well-researched.  But there is one person here, whose contributions are not always so welcome.  Is that the general consensus?   The problem is that Wikipedia proceeds by consensus, not by expert credentials, so other methods have to be used.  The method is, draft edits, to whole paragraphs if need be, then make the change in a single edit.  Then get consensus (the good editors can rely on my support, and I can draft reinforcements if necessary), and the edit stays.  Dbuckner 12:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevailing winds 

message: I propose deleting the sections "Rejection of Descartes," "The philosophy of presence," "Being-with," "The scandal of philosophy," and "Time, temporality." Not that these are not topics about which one might want to write, but that in their current state they are not fit for revision. Hence if they are themes to be discussed in the entry, they need to be written again from the ground up. Mtevfrog 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposal; while sections discussing his critique of Descartes and temporality are surely helpful, I think Being-with is a bit narrow and when re-written might better serve the reader if it dealt with the broader concept of Being-in-the-world and 'encountering'.  I might also add that in undertaking a significant and difficult task with multiple strong-willed editors, it would perhaps be in everyone's interest to be patient and try to give adequate time between edits, comments, and drafts, so that everyone can read and digest the information. - Sam 00:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sam, the kind of "flash-edting" that has been taking place here only makes an article "appear" neater, or something, on the page, but it often removes much of the meat.  The problem is that though much of wiki-philosophy has un-referenced material there is still something to be gleaned from it.  I also think there is a big danger here of alienating the average reader if the numerous examples are not included.  Nor do we want too many articles in this area "flash-edited" by the same people, diversity is good. -- Lucas (Talk) 02:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Lucas, I think that the community would respond to your ideas and suggestions better if you followed up yours words with actions, and if you stuck to the topic at hand.  I do not know what you mean exactly when you say "flash-editing," but I do know that what I have trouble with are multiple, long and content-loaded posts/edits made within short periods of time - and you are just as guilty of this as are others.  We all have lives apart from Wikipidia, and it is difficult to spare time to read all of the material, craft a response, and come to consensus when there seems to be so little time allowed for doing so. - Sam 03:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean in asking me to "follow up" on my words, though I'm relatively new to wiki and any advice is welcome.  In any case what I mean by "flash-editing" of an article is this.  Over the years many editors contribute to these articles.  Sometimes long discussions occur in changing the articles.  Then, all of a sudden, certain editors appear and start to radically change the article (deleting large sections, re-ordering text, etc.), they do it over a few days, with multiple edits and almost no discussion.  Thus it is often thoughtless and with no more citations than was there before.  And it often only gives a semblance of an improvement because the text is made to look neater.  Now this way of editing ensures that their own changes will, in turn, be subjected to the same flash-editing in future, so it turns into a sysphusian task.  The time factor is the very one I am concerned with, if one is busy and comes back to a page to find it has been flash-edited that is a problem. -- Lucas (Talk) 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I've been clear enough, and thank you for your explanation of "flash-editing" - but that it not what I am concerned about.  My point above is about volume and content, and that others have time to read the material, understand it in context, and respond. - Sam 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: His view inverts the traditional priority of theory over practice. For him the theoretical view is artificial and comes from just looking at something without any involvement, such an experience is 'levelled off'. For Heidegger this attitude is given the moniker, "present-at-hand" and it is parasitic upon our more fundamental mode of interaction, called "ready-to-hand". Parasitic in the sense that in our history we must first have an attitude or mood toward the world before we can adopt a scientific or neutral attitude toward it. Such a re-evaluation of science allows him to say, for example, that the friend caught sight of across the road is in fact closer than the street upon which one walks, that the voice on a phone is closer than the handpiece, that the glasses pushed back on your head, can be, when not found, considered as remote and far away.
Now the problem is that this passage seems largely to be correct, if not referenced.  The issue of theory and practice are crucial for understanding Heidegger.  The examples given here also are valuable and should not be deleted.  But rather than get into the minutia of this passage, let us see how this theme, which is an important one for Heidegger is proposed to be covered.
I also propose deleting or moving the first section of "Introduction and Summary"  I think it does not serve as a good intro, it is too advanced, dense and jargon-laden (who talks "pre-logical or pre-dicsursive"?) for your average wiki-reader.  A long elaboration is needed before getting into the promordiality of ready-to-hand.  And unlike the above quoted passage it is not pedagogical and is very abstract and without examples.  It would be better later on  on the article.  Something along the lines of an explanation of this "philosophy of presence" or an explanation of the differences between present-at-hand and ready-to-hand might server the intro better.  The topic of Being needs a section on its own and one that does not refer to the more difficult aspects such as the issue of "understanding and interpretation", or the as-structure or the fore-structure.  The current intro tries to cover all these complex issues in two short paragraphs!
-- Lucas (Talk) 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed sections to be deleted 

message: I respectfully but firmly disagree with the proposals of Lucaas in relation to this entry. Mtevfrog 21:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a plebiscite but a talk page, a blank opinion agreeing or disagreeing is of no interest to us.  -- Lucas (Talk) 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just letting you all know that the "work" of a poor editor has made contributing to this entry too unappealing to continue. Good luck to those with greater patience. Mtevfrog 03:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucaas 

message: ::Well you obviously saw my comment to Sam on flash-editing and Sisyphus.  
::I do feel however, that, far from being absurd, something does need to be said straight up in the intro about Heidegger's use of language.  This is so that, reading the subsequent jargon language in parts of the article, will not be so off-putting.  A "heads-up" is a good idea.  Up to a few days ago there was a link to the Heideggerean terminology page in the intro which is very helpful for people not familiar with Heidegger.  Unless you suggest that the page is for people who already know B&T, this issue of language indeed requires highlighting.  Though I understand that other editors may be enurred to this language and fail to appreciate its importance for newby readers, and especially for certain Anglophone readers who consider B&T's language as obscurantist.-- Lucas (Talk) 06:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need to highlight Heidegger's neologistic language early in the article?

message: This is just to open discussion on these issues, it does not yet propose any particular changes.
What should be the various sections from the book?
We need to agree here also on what needs to be covered in an article on B&T.  The intro is at the moment largely undisputed.  However, the first section on "Being" and many further sections seem to be unclear.  So should we attempt to give a full "summary" of the book?  Which chapters in B&T should be covered which skipped, and why?  Should our summaries be confined to certain spans of pages of B&T or should we attempt over-arching summaries of 100s of pages?
Difficulty of summarising it?
Now it is widely known that B&T is a difficult book, even some philosophers consider it obfuscating, with too many neo-logism etc.  So given that the book is over 500 pages of quite intricately argued positions how can one summarise it?  Or should we avoid summary?  Maybe instead we should try and give "samples" from it and not try to assert some overall definitive meaning or result from it.  Remember also, that the book itself argues against the forgetfulness of this kind of mis-use of assertions, of apophantic talk,etc.
Quantity?
There are only a couple of pages here in the article in comparison to the 500 pages of the book, so even to summarise the first 10 pages of B&T could be enough for an entire article.  
The later re-interpretation of B&T?
There is an argument, though I do not make it, that the idea of Being is not the main "outcome" of B&T and, with that in mind it is possible to start the intro with some more historical or textual information, eg, about how Heidegger got to write the book, the initial reviews of it, a photo of the first (Engish) edition might also be nice.  etc. 
--Lucas (Talk) 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of how to Approach an article on B&T

message: I have started to look over the existing article for things which simply need correcting - for example, Sein und Zeit was not his "first" work.  To be frank, the article is actually not bad in terms of overall accuracy, but I accept that a non-expert may find it hard to follow.  KD Tries Again 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few corrections 

message: Deleted. Mtevfrog 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Lucaas 

message: ::It is bad enough to hold an opinion about someone that is incorrect, but to falsely ascribe what my views are and on matters about which I have never spoken, as you continually do in the above paragraph ("on Lucas"), demonstrates only the desperation with which you try to defend views you have discussed above on this talk page, because, at bottom perhaps, you know they are indefensible.  
::I also find it distracting that you keep trying to spread, and enter into this kind of idle gossip that is unrelated to the article (or the discussions above) and, at the same time, try to pretend it is for the "sake of openness!". -- Lucas (Talk) 04:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Mtevfrog

message: I think that there has been adequate discussion at this point for us to begin a thorough re-write and edit process, and I also believe that it would be wise to do so off of the article page.  This will create a place where there will be no percieved need to revert a standing version, and temper the tendency for off-topic arguments to arise.  I have created Talk:Being_and_Time/draft_critique for the community to hash out the new content to the point of consensus.  
In addition, I believe that the thoughts put forward immediately above by 271828182 and KD are quite appropriate, and the discussion about translation use and terminology are moving along as well, although somewhat slower.  I think that we should start with an intro first, and once that is finishing up, then move on to work on the layout for the rest of the article.
To these ends, then, I will draft a version of the introductory paragraph for the artlce, and post it inside  with a very concise explanation in bullet form.  I suggest that everyone do the same, say by thursday night or friday sometime, and then we can go about making comments, evaluations and new draft suggestions.
Let's keep moving with our progress, but at the same time remember that there is no pressing deadline to rush for, and no requirement that this be perfect, only an improvement. - Sam 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to this method, but I don't believe it is necessary to start from scratch, and sets in train a process that will be very long and difficult. I believe the introduction (Being, Dasein, Time) and section on "Phenomenology in Heidegger and Husserl" are good enough to retain and slowly improve. Or, if it is desirable to go into more detail about the contents of the book, that these sections be added progressively, each time removing the relevant part that currently exists. I repeat my suggestion above about which sections should be immediately deleted as worthless—that is, specifically "Rejection of Descartes," "The philosophy of presence," "Being-with," "The scandal of philosophy," and "Time, temporality." Mtevfrog 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you're right about those sections, but experience suggests it will only lead to energy-sapping problems with Lucas.  KD Tries Again 16:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the lowdown on this entry, brothers and sisters: it suffers from a Scylla and Charybdis. The Scylla is a disruptive editor, who imagines himself a lone wolf. The Charybdis is the herd, paralysed by fear of the wolf, who react by adopting a committee-room approach to each morsel of potential editing by initiating discussions that somehow always fail to make much headway. The herd cannot be blamed for this, because when you see a wolf, you react, and if you're frightened, you cower. But the solution can only be for the herd to agree to conditions that will neutralise the wolf and make it possible to reach the next piece of turf, whether it turns out to be the Promised Land or not. In this case, those conditions are: for all or nearly all to agree to a translation convention (preferably my suggestion not to capitalise being, and to use "beings" not "entity") and to agree that the worthless paragraphs (see above) can be flushed forthwith, and then to back up those decisions if they are undermined by wandering wolves. That's the medicine that will make it possible to throw away those crutches. Hallelujah! Mtevfrog 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think anyone, apart from one person, disagrees with this.  I looked at the worthless paragraphs and agree they are worthless, from a stylistic point of view.  However I can't judge from a philosophical standpoint.  They appear to address issues that are important to the article.  Do you think they are worthless because of the issues they raise, or because they address them in a rambling, ungrammatical and incoherent manner?  Dbuckner 07:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for re-write process (in consideration of above discussion) 

message: I decided earlier today to remove 3 of my comments from this talk page, as I did not think they were of value to future visitors of this page and the record remains for anybody who wishes to locate it. I gave my reason in the edit summary. This removal was reverted 3 times (so far) in half an hour by one user, despite warnings not to edit my edits, and thus which also constitutes interference with another user's edits on a talk page. Guess who. Mtevfrog 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Retrospectively removing or revising comments on a talk page leaving replies to those comments in the air, or misleading, is bad etiquette.  That they were of no value is not contested, but if you wish to later say they were of no value and retract them then do it properly and just say "sorry my argument was incoherent" or " I made a mistake".  
I notice again that even the paragraph above you have re-edited after another editor's comment was made about it.  -- Lucas (Talk) 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its always a pleasure to receive instruction in etiquette, but it does make a difference from whom one receives the lesson. I can see no excuse for 3 times interfering with another user's edits on a talk page, in spite of requests not to do so. Mtevfrog 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those interested

message: Mtevfrog removed half of the comments (his own) from much of the discussion above.  The discussion now looks incoherent, with comments like "in response to this" meaningless.  So I restored your half.  You also leave us wondering that when you write comments in future you will later retract them.  To retract a comment on wiki talk, all you have to do is say "I'm sorry I was wrong on that, please forget about what I was saying".-- Lucas (Talk) 18:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Priceless.  This is like Origen lecturing on sex. 271828182 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reviewed Lucas' comments for the past week, and now I can myself identify this editor as a malicious troll. I have been able to identitify only two comments that were useful contributions. I believe there is now enough evidence to consider most of his additions to be vandalism, and should be treated as such. Several quality editors seem to be becoming exhausted and seem to feel intimidated (which is what Lucas wants) by his domination of this page and article. Time for intervention. Richiar 13:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Messing up the Talk page

message: Heidegger makes an distinction between Zeit and Zeitlichkeit. The last one is the ontologically founded in Dasein, while Zeit is the time of the clock, so the "scientific time". Maybe someone can look up the english translation of Zeitlichkeit, so we can correct this in the article? -- Tischbeinahe (talk) φιλο 17:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: A little over a third of this article is taken up by a worthless translations section (including a thoroughly useless timeline).  Seriously, what English-speaker (the audience for an English-language article) really cares what year the text was first translated into Croatian?  The one or two people that actually do care can do the research.  This article should spend more time going over the contents of the book it purports to be about.  Ekwos (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadful Translations Section 

message: Does anyone have any further information on this point? StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidegger was forced to prepare the book for publication 

message: If you know Spanish you will know that there is a difference between Ser and Estar. In English there is only ¨to be¨, for both, and in German ¨sein¨, for both. If you really know Spanish and the difference between Ser and Estar, there you have what Heiddeger meant by Dasein. It is just a linguistic issue. Pipo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:C08F:47F8:6716:91D9 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dasein: Estar 

message: Hi all. I'm very new to wikipedia and I did not know the proper etiquette and procedures. I was only seeking to expand this wonderful article on an important book to include another scholar Heidegger influenced, along with his critique. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I promise!
I'd like to propose that the Influence section be expanded to include critique, or to create a separate section for such critique. Lacan was VERY influenced by the central question Heidegger entertained in Being and Time (viz, the question of the 'meaning of being' which is spoken of numerous times in this article), so much so that he was essentially Heideggerian in the first two decades of his career (ie, a hermeneutical phenomenologist - also discussed in this article as characterizing the Heidegger of Being and Time). But by 1964 this changed when he directly took up this question.
My point with my two sentence addition was simply to capture these facts. I think readers would be interested in knowing more detail about the influence of this book, as well as the controversy it stirred and is still stirring. So I began with Lacan. I was hoping others would later expand upon how the other scholars alluded to in this section took up and grappled with elements of Being and Time. It would help situate the book in wider context - a wider 'hermeneutical sphere,' if you will.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tele76 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add something about Heidegger's influence on Lacan, please ensure that the material focuses specifically on Being and Time. Otherwise it is probably not suitable for this article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

text: If you want to make an addition about Heidegger, you should ensure that the addition mentions Being and Time by name and explains how Lacan was influenced by it. Otherwise, it is confusing to readers, who will not necessarily have the background to know that "the question of the meaning of being" is discussed in the first paragraphs of Being and Time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible expansion of 'Influence' section to include critique, or new section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Being and Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316200813/https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/philosophy-185-fall-2007-heidegger/id279547028 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/philosophy-185-fall-2007-heidegger/id279547028
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316200856/https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/philosophy-189-spring-2008/id286628167 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/philosophy-189-spring-2008/id286628167
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is coming from someone who has read this book multiple times, and I mean no disrespect to any of the people who have edited this page... but, this article is, for lack of a better word, crap. It gives very little information about what is contained in the book. Look, the word "ontic" is only mentioned in a reference at the very bottom of the page. Come on! This is a central part of the book. No mention of being-with-others. No mention of the "problematic" concept of destiny, no anxiety. To use my Southern slang, "No nothing". But, if you look up any of these concepts there is an article on them and they are awesome, detailed, and well written. Shouldn't this article contain at least a "bare bones" narrative of the text? Or at least link the very influential and important concepts that articles such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology mentions?
I think this article should function as a hub for the other excellent articles written about this text. Anyone else feel this way? I don't often contribute to Wikipedia, and in the past I've done so anonymously, but because this is an important book to both me and philosophy in general I felt motivated to create an account and make this article better. I'll work on a draft in the near future...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subcomfreak (talk • contribs) 05:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your proposal to improve the article. I agree it needs improvement. If you propose to entirely rewrite the article, however, it would be appropriate to ask other editors for their opinions of your draft before replacing the existing text with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article could be so much better, but it isn't. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Being and Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923205821/http://www.colorado.edu/ArtsSciences/CHA/profiles/zimmpdf/heidegger_deep_ecology.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/ArtsSciences/CHA/profiles/zimmpdf/heidegger_deep_ecology.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ontology is an explicitly formulated theoretical  disclosure of the fundamental structures and constitution of a being. To quote Being and time,“ we reserve the term ontology for the explicit, theoretical question of the meaning of beings”(H,12Stambaugh). As is is further explained, this “amounts to nothing else than interpreting these beings in terms of the basic constitution of their being”(H,10;Stambaugh). Inherently, any “understanding of the "is" without being able to determine conceptually what the "is" means” [is obviously a preontological one](H,5). This is the  normal everyday understanding of being; that Da-sein moves in; for to quote Bing  and Time “we are always already involved in an understanding of being”(H5).The key point to note, in terms of derivation  is that it is from the  preontological understanding that the explicit question of the meaning of being and the tendency toward its concept [is ranted]”(H5). Ontologies can further be divided into general and regional ontologies ; with the former as the “ontological task of a genealogy of the different possible ways of being [that inherently]  requires [the latter] a preliminary understanding of "what we really mean by this expression 'being.'"(H,11). A general ontology “aims at an a priori condition of the possibility not only of the sciences which investigate beings of such and such a type . . .[but] also at the condition of the possibility of the ontologies which precede the ontic sciences and found them”(H,11). General ontology in itself is preceeded by a fundamental ontology  from which alone all other ontologies can originate, must be sought in the existential analysis of Da-sein”(H13). In it is determined the being of Da-sein, for the in  question of the meaning of being it was shown that to work out the question of being means to make a being-he who questions-transparent in its being”(H,6). The order of ontologies in Being and Time if they are to be given are Fundamental ontology (which is regional ontology presupposed by the general one) General ontology, regional ontologies (a priori determination of thematic fields time space : Aristotle’s Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις) ontic sciences (which are not ontologies). To drive the point home,  the question of being it is noted is  “nothing else than the radicalization of an essential tendency of being that belongs to Da-sein itself, namely, of the pre-ontological understanding of being”(H,15)
From The above Quotes like  Thus, in Heidegger's view, fundamental ontology would be an explanation of the understanding preceding any other way of knowing, such as the use of logic, theory, specific ontology[13] or act of reflective thought" Cannot even be wrong. [[Fundamental ontology is a regional ontology that has for its content the existential analysis of Dasein and not understanding preceding any other way of knowing which can be taken as a   problematic attempt to designate the content of general ontology or the question of being.
Διοτιμα (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you are suggesting we do with the article.  This looks close to original research - not necessarily wrong, but for the reasons described in the OR link, we need secondary sources to support what is put in the article. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinds of Ontologies in Being and Time  

message: This ontological designation (in its more concrete form) dates back to Aristotle who themathised “first philosophy” as the contemplation  [θεωρεῖ ] of being as being [τὸ ὂν ᾗ ὂν]. Since Aristotle, ontology has always been quantified. He does not say  being [τὸ ὂν ] but being as being [τὸ ὂν ᾗ ὂν]. The qualification is necessary for it delimits and clarifies what the question is about and how it ought to  unfold. As Heidegger repeatedly notes “the being of being [being itself) is note a being”, it is important to qualify this distinction for easy understanding. This is Heidegger’s letter ontological difference that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes is “ the crucial distinction between Being and beings (entities)". To see the relevance of the qualification “itself” in “being itself”, it is necessary to compare all the edits.This can be seen by taking these lines as an example
Original : [Heidegger attempts to revive ontology ] through understanding being itself. (note that the designation was already in the original)
Edit 1: Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through understanding being itself (being of being not beings). 
Edit 2: Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being. 
Edit 3: Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being itself. The question of being asks of the being of being i.e being itself and not the being of beings. As Heidegger notes in the Introduction to Metaphysics “the "question of Being" means asking about beings as such (metaphysics). But if we think along the lines of Being and Time, the "question of Being" means asking about Being as such”
 
Edit 4: Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being.
Edit 1 and 3 are nothing but a clarification of the word “itself”. The first is guided by the assumption that a parenthetical explanation is enough since the designation was already there (if it was poorly written it should have already been removed). Being “itself” qualifies being to mean nothing but the being of being (what is being in general) and not the being of a being (i.e the being of time or history or space). Ontology asks about the being of being, without a qualification like “itself” there is no clear distinction to what is meant; study of a being or study of  of being as a being. 
The Third edit stems from a need to further clarify the edit and to show its relevance by dispelling a (now recurrent but always)unsubstantiated claim of it being poor writing.  Being “itself “ clearly delimits the question to  “asks of the being of being i.e being itself and not the being of beings”. it seems prudent to add a quote from Heidegger who notes that "question of Being" means asking about Being as such”
To attain further clarity, what if  Edit 2 or 4 (with the reason given for the change being that 1 and 3 are poorly written with no substantiation of any kind of what is poor in specific and how it could be fixed) is taken ?. What comes to mind is Heidegger's  Bewailing about the oblivion of being "itself"
Is the  “question of the meaning of being” about a being or being? For any being is a being. Ontology will be  asking for  the meaning of being and not being as such or itself (whatever quantification). To add unnecessary information,  The  Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy article on Heidegger notes In agreement with the quote from the introduction of metaphysics “Metaphysics inquires about the being of beings, but it reduces being to a being; it does not think of being as being. Insofar as being itself  is obliterated in it, metaphysics is nihilism.”
Tell W. J. Korab-Karpowicz, or rather Aristotle himself (itself) That the qualification being itself is poor writing 
. . .Διοτιμα (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  On "itself" in "Being itself" ( ontological quantification or difference) 

message: I am not going to respond directly to Διοτιμα's comments above. I think it is sufficient to note that while a comment such as, "The question of being asks of the being of being i.e being itself and not the being of beings" may possibly be a passable attempt to imitate Heideggerian jargon, it is certainly not good English and as such does not belong anywhere in the article. In normal English, one does not say that a "question of being" or anything else "asks of" something, and I for one think the article should be written in normal English, as much as possible. Διοτιμα, if you cannot find an appropriate way of rephrasing your addition, please leave it out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing amusing going on here. You need to read WP:TLDR. The abbreviation stands for, "Too long; didn't read". The upshot of it is simply that if you want your comments to be taken seriously, you should make them concise and to the point. No one is obliged to read or respond to absurdly long comments, especially not weird, rambling, and barely coherent comments that come across as trolling. Nevertheless, I did read your comment. It does not address my concern that your addition is poorly worded. It appears rather to be an attempt to divert discussion. You write that some argument you attribute to me "condemns all philosophy". My response is: I do not care. We are not here to discuss the legitimacy of philosophy; we are here to discuss how the Wikipedia article about Being and Time should be written. Continue to make absurdly long (and also pretentious and irrelevant) comments and you are simply going to wear out other editors' sympathy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

text: No. You provided no reliable source in which the specific expression "the question of being asks of..." is used. Even if you had, it would have been irrelevant. The fact that a particular source uses a particular expression or phrase does not mean that Wikipedia must do so also. Feel free to suggest an improved or reworded version of your addition. I will consider it on its merits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

text: No, I haven't shifted from anything to anything. Apparently you misunderstood what I wrote, which is strange, since it was perfectly simple. Good writing has always been my concern. Furthermore, I did not claim anything about whether "the question of being asks of" is grammatical, nor for that matter object to the expression "question of" - where did you get that idea? The lead currently uses the expression, "the question of the meaning of being", so why would you assume I object to it? I simply disagree that the expression "the question of being asks of..." is good English. "The question of being concerns...", or or some similar expression, would be more appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note in the lead 

message: Note that Dreyfus's commentary concerns only the first part. Dreyfus states his reasons pretty clearly and they seem quite significant relative to any understanding of B&T. Perhaps not coincidentally,  a number of college-type courses also, only deal with first part. Yet all this is ignored in the Wikipedia article?
2602:304:CFA3:D560:FDD4:7944:72C1:A075 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: First and Second Part

message: The addition of " or the human being in the abstract" is problematic in two ways.
1. It is not correctly cited: no page numbe. 
2. It is in absolute contradiction to what the very essence of Dasein should be.
As BnT notes 
"Dasein is never to be taken ontologically as an instance or special case of some genus of entities as things that are present-at-hand" (BnT, H ; 42)
The smaller Concept of Time also notes that
"If this entity is to be determined in its ontological character, then we must not abstract from its specificity as in each case mine"(8E).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dasein 

message: Claim I: As part of his ontological project, Heidegger undertakes a reinterpretation of previous Western philosophy. (“Destruction of metaphysics”) 
There in no Destruction of metaphysics but a Destroying or Destructuring of the History of Ontolog. This stems from the fact that “The destructuring of the history of ontology essentially belongs
to the formulation of the question of being and is possible solely within such a formulation”(H,20). The destruction is limited to ontology (that asks the question of being) and not metaphysics which is about the nature of reality; or the totality of “Western philosophy”. Further more, the destruction does not aim at metaphysics or even ontology as a fixed doctrinal system, but  “its criticism concerns "today" and the dominant way we treat the history of ontology”(ibid). It is concerned with how the question of being relates to ontology, and thus aims at “a loosening of the sclerotic tradition and a dissolving of the concealments produced by it . . .; so as to allow “the question of being   to achieve clarity regarding its own history”(ibid).
Claim II: He wants to explain why and how theoretical knowledge came to seem like the most fundamental relation to being. 
As per  Heidegger, the Destruction is done, since “The question of being attains true concreteness only when we carry out the destructuring of the ontological tradition”.  It thus aims at the destructuring of the traditional content of ancient ontology”;which, since it is limited to the question of being , “is to
be carried out along the guidelines of the question of being” .  This means “pursuing the task of destructuring on the guideline o f the problem of temporality”(H,21). There is nothing about theoretical knowledge or its relation to being. 
Claim III : In Being and Time Heidegger briefly undertakes a destructuring of the philosophy of René Descartes,
How is This even possible?
The projected second part of Being and time would be the Destructuring. As per  Being and time, it was headed :
Part two : basic features of a phenomenological destruction of the history of ontology, with the problematic of Temporality as our clue.
The second subsection of this division would have dealt with Descartes (as per its heading):
2. the ontological foundation of Descartes' 'cogito sum' , and how the
medieval ontology has been taken over into the problematic of the
'res cogitans'  
But only he first two subsections of the first part was published! Where does it take place?
Claim IV : ...but the second volume, which was intended to be a Destruktion of Western philosophy in all its stages, was never written.
Even-though true   (it was never written or published as BnT) , it was covered elsewhere in lectures like Basic Problems and Kant and the Problem. But the claim  “Destruktion of Western philosophy in all its stages” is wrong. BnT notes that  “Within the scope of this treatise, which has as its
goal a fundamental elaboration of the question of being, the destructuring can be carried out only with regard to the fundamentally decisive stages of this history”(H,23).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance you could take on updating the article to incorporate corrections/clarifications?  That section appears to be at least 11 years old, so it's unclear if its author will be here to discuss it with you.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rambling and self-absorbed mini-essay on factual errors in the “Destruction of metaphysics” 

message: According to SUNY Press blurb, x translation: "takes into account the many changes that he made in the final German edition of 1976." I've never heard of "the final German edition of 1976." Tough to imagine Heidegger working on B&T in the year of his death. I don't think he really did.
English translations rely on 1953 "Seventh German Edition"  (but see SUNY marketing blurb???). I think, after all, the SUNY translation, like MacQuarie, was based on the Seventh Germ. ed., the blurb not really withstandng.
The 7th includes probable shortest piece of published writing of his entire career, the "Preface." Which edition removed dedication to Husserl??? Was it restored?
2600:1702:39A0:3720:CCE7:84F6:DABE:C1AA (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication history

message: :So,  for better or worse -- idea was to retain existing content.
:The proposed lede has been up on talk page (above) for several days, inviting discussion.
:It was then reverted with comment "sorry, it is you who must justify your changes; your version is much worse for writing and formatting."
But this comment is an assertion that doesn't explain why it "is much worse for writing." It uses fewer words, to express all existing ideas in lede. It deletes certain details that belong in the body of the article.
I'd appreciate any attempt to make a credible case that proposed lede is "much worse for writing."
2600:1702:39A0:3720:CD58:F9A4:BB19:C4E0 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: new lede

message: Let me "justify" the proposed changes.
====Sentence #1==== 
Adds phrase "in its temporal context."
....... It's called Being and Time -- No?
====Sentence #2====
:Proposed:
"Heidegger maintains that despite its central importance, philosophers have misunderstood and avoided this concept since Plato, applying it solely in the analysis of particular beings."
[25 words]
:Sted:
"Heidegger maintains that this has fundamental importance for philosophy and that, since the time of the Ancient Greeks, philosophy has avoided the question, turning instead to the analysis of particular beings."
[31 words]
:Discussion:
The proposed phrase "since Plato" sted "since the time of the Ancient Greeks:" is a clarification/correction of significant information. Note Heidegger's view  that the Presocratics ("Ancient Greeks") had it "right" and that the concept went wrong beginning with Plato and Aristotle. 
Also, some needless words and phrases can be removed: "the time of" and "for philosophy."
Employing "despite" (sted "and")  explicitly suggests a relationship (albeit ambiguous) between the first claus and what follows within the sentence. "And" as used here, is merely additive.
 
"Central/fundamental" -- mostly a distinction without a difference; "central" is less pretentious and ordinary, thus less distracting.
See original two clauses: 
"philosophy has avoided the question, turning instead to the analysis of particular beings."
The "concept" (Being), has turned -- without explanation -- into a "question?"
Moreover, nothing explicitly ties the "analysis of particular beings" to this "concept/?question." It's needlessly  ambiguous and might mean an alternate activity, )"instead,'"") that is entirely irrelevant to topic at hand -- rather than merely misplaced.
The proposed phrase eliminates the concept/question ambiguity; "it" refers specifically to "this concept" -- "being" -- as something "applied" to particular beings.
thus: "....applying it [in error,] solely in the analysis of particular beings."
====Sentence #3====
Proposed text: 
"By reawakening this question of the meaning of Being, the work attempts to revive ontology through an analysis of Dasein, "the being to whom the question of being is important." [30 words]
Vs. existing text:
"Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being. He approaches this through a fundamental ontology that is a preliminary analysis of the being to whom the question of being is important, i.e., Dasein." [42 words]
:Discussion:
Beginning with the most specifically defined action contained in the sentence, "reawakening of the question of the meaning of being,"  --from which the other phrases logically follow -- makes the intended meaning more immediately clear.
The other described actions, "attempts to revive ontology" and "a preliminary analysis of the being," are both  more nebulous phrases and refer to actions potentially accomplished through various unstated ways and means. Within this sentence, these to actions  are entirely dependent on the more specific phrase, "reawakening the question."
:Further:
To call an ontology "fundamental" is redundant.
To call an ontology "an analysis" is peculiar and redundant.
To qualify this analysis as "preliminary" relates to the weeds of Heidegger -- and isn't appropriate to the lede, where an explanation of why it's "preliminary" and/or why this is significant is impossible.
I'll probably continue with second graf a little later....
For starters, I'd say of the existing second graf, what or which is its "topic sentence?"
... 
2600:1702:39A0:3720:1C71:84AB:5AEA:935C (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Lede

message: Proposed text: 
"By reawakening this question of the meaning of Being, the work attempts to revive ontology through an analysis of Dasein, "the being to whom the question of being is important." [30 words]
Vs. existing text:
"Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being. He approaches this through a fundamental ontology that is a preliminary analysis of the being to whom the question of being is important, i.e., Dasein." [42 words]
:Discussion:
Beginning with the most specifically defined action contained in the sentence, "reawakening of the question of the meaning of being,"  --from which the other phrases logically follow -- makes the intended meaning more immediately clear.
The other described actions, "attempts to revive ontology" and "a preliminary analysis of the being," are both  more nebulous phrases and refer to actions potentially accomplished through various unstated ways and means. Within this sentence, these to actions  are entirely dependent on the more specific phrase, "reawakening the question."
:Further:
To call an ontology "fundamental" is redundant.
To call an ontology "an analysis" is peculiar and redundant.
To qualify this analysis as "preliminary" relates to the weeds of Heidegger -- and isn't appropriate to the lede, where an explanation of why it's "preliminary" and/or why this is significant is impossible.
I'll probably continue with second graf a little later....
For starters, I'd say of the existing second graf, what or which is its "topic sentence?"
... 
2600:1702:39A0:3720:1C71:84AB:5AEA:935C (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence #3

message: Here's my analysis of the five currently existing sentences of second graf of lede. This analysis is followed by the proposed (three) replacement sentences (three lines). The three proposed sentences are written with the goal of improving readability while retaining all "essential" information presented in current version (seven lines).
=====the current five sentences:=====
1)
Heidegger wrote that Being and Time was made possible by his study of Edmund Husserl's Logical Investigations (1900–1901), and it is dedicated to Husserl "in friendship and admiration". 
This  “topic sentence” is structurally non-functional as such. The underlying insight  pertains to the book’s use of Husserl’s phenomenology; title of Husserl's main work is a detail that belongs in body, not lede. Regardless, the fact that Heidegger is, to an uncertain and debatable extent, a phenomenologist, offers little help in a brief summary.
ALSO note that in American usage at least, quotation marks correctly appear outside of punctuation in most instances (& certainly this instance).
2)
Although Heidegger did not complete the project outlined in the introduction, Being and Time remains his most important work.
Significance of first clause is unexplained. It’s of very limited value and a negative distraction, in a brief description of the book. Thus the information doesn’t belong in the lede. 
Regarding second clause, "although" and "remains" are curious word choices. "Although you'd expect X, what happened was Y." How is this construction intended to apply in this sentence?
3.
It was immediately recognized as an original and groundbreaking philosophical work, and later became a focus of debates and controversy, and a profound influence on 20th-century philosophy, particularly existentialism, hermeneutics, deconstruction, and the enactivist approach to cognition. 
We already know it’s a “philosophical” work — so no need to again identify it as such.
Merely mentioning “debates and controversy” without further explanation begs the question. The book’s relationship to existentialism is introduced in sentence #4, making its mention here awkward. A list of related philosophies doesn’t provide immediate insight to “Being and Time.”
4.
Being and Time has been described as the most influential version of existential philosophy, and Heidegger's achievements in the work have been compared to those of Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and Science of Logic (1812–1816). 
This is needlessly long-winded.(See proposed sentence 2, below).
5
The work influenced philosophical treatises such as Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness (1943).
Lacking adequate structure, this graf scatters mention of other philosophers throughout almost randomly while providing too much information that is (at best) marginally relevant to a brief overview of B&T. Please see comment regarding sentence 3, above. 
————
1.
Being and Time, immediately recognized in 1927 as original and groundbreaking, has been described as Heidegger's magnum opus, a key document of existentialism -- with wide-ranging impact on related forms of philosophy as well as on cognitive science.
this combines the useful information in original sentences two and three plus first half of # four.
2.
Its stature in the history of philosophy has been favorably compared with that of the major works of Kant and Hegel. 
retains second half of original sentence #4.
3.
Being and Time employs Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, and is dedicated to Husserl "in friendship and admiration”.
retains useable information in original sentence #1 and places at end of graf, given its non-essential value to lede.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:34A1:D41C:6F63:8114 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Second graf of lede

message: 1)
Heidegger wrote that Being and Time was made possible by his study of Edmund Husserl's Logical Investigations (1900–1901), and it is dedicated to Husserl "in friendship and admiration". 
This  “topic sentence” is structurally non-functional as such. The underlying insight  pertains to the book’s use of Husserl’s phenomenology; title of Husserl's main work is a detail that belongs in body, not lede. Regardless, the fact that Heidegger is, to an uncertain and debatable extent, a phenomenologist, offers little help in a brief summary.
ALSO note that in American usage at least, quotation marks correctly appear outside of punctuation in most instances (& certainly this instance).
2)
Although Heidegger did not complete the project outlined in the introduction, Being and Time remains his most important work.
Significance of first clause is unexplained. It’s of very limited value and a negative distraction, in a brief description of the book. Thus the information doesn’t belong in the lede. 
Regarding second clause, "although" and "remains" are curious word choices. "Although you'd expect X, what happened was Y." How is this construction intended to apply in this sentence?
3.
It was immediately recognized as an original and groundbreaking philosophical work, and later became a focus of debates and controversy, and a profound influence on 20th-century philosophy, particularly existentialism, hermeneutics, deconstruction, and the enactivist approach to cognition. 
We already know it’s a “philosophical” work — so no need to again identify it as such.
Merely mentioning “debates and controversy” without further explanation begs the question. The book’s relationship to existentialism is introduced in sentence #4, making its mention here awkward. A list of related philosophies doesn’t provide immediate insight to “Being and Time.”
4.
Being and Time has been described as the most influential version of existential philosophy, and Heidegger's achievements in the work have been compared to those of Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and Science of Logic (1812–1816). 
This is needlessly long-winded.(See proposed sentence 2, below).
5
The work influenced philosophical treatises such as Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness (1943).
Lacking adequate structure, this graf scatters mention of other philosophers throughout almost randomly while providing too much information that is (at best) marginally relevant to a brief overview of B&T. Please see comment regarding sentence 3, above. 
————
1.
Being and Time, immediately recognized in 1927 as original and groundbreaking, has been described as Heidegger's magnum opus, a key document of existentialism -- with wide-ranging impact on related forms of philosophy as well as on cognitive science.
this combines the useful information in original sentences two and three plus first half of # four.
2.
Its stature in the history of philosophy has been favorably compared with that of the major works of Kant and Hegel. 
retains second half of original sentence #4.
3.
Being and Time employs Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, and is dedicated to Husserl "in friendship and admiration”.
retains useable information in original sentence #1 and places at end of graf, given its non-essential value to lede.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:34A1:D41C:6F63:8114 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: the current five sentences:

message: (-edited comment, see history)
If you’d like to expand this article, please avoid excessive reliance on primary sources. The reason for this avoidance is adequately explained elsewhere in guidelines, essays  &  etc. -- if not already obvious. 
I’ve recently added a substantial number of secondary sources to both the  “Being and Time” and “Introduction to Metaphysics” Wikipedia articles -- and of necessity to this process, largely changed them.
Previously both articles had relied mostly on personal explanations and commentary based on selected citations from the primary source. (It's a non-credible model, presently followed by most or all of the other W. articles on specific H. texts.). 
I've not managed to completely remove this material from either article, and perhaps a little bit is tolerable. One could call "it"  "original research" -- but if at all reasonable, it's probably not very "original." Some effort at sourcing can pay off.
But also, try to limit new material here to substantive cited information that may offer insight. Example 
:WRONG: "Jane Smith said 'it's all bullshit!' 
:RIGHT:  "the biochemist Jane Smith's testing of many samples during 1999 indicated that their source was a bull." 
Or SOMETHING like that -- difficult and perhaps not always successful.
2601:405:4A80:9E50:8DEF:D4A3:CCB9:6EBE (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand this article

message: This section should be either re-worked or scrapped because, as currently written, almost all of it is NOT directly relevant to B&T. 
"In Being and Time Heidegger briefly refutes the philosophy of René Descartes (in an exercise he called "destructuring)..." It then makes a brief comment on supposed intentions for unwritten "second volume."
The remainder of the section speaks in generalities about Heidegger's career "in later works...." (NOT B&T) and then takes a stab at defining "Destruction" without adequately linking the term to B&T or its basic concepts.
Moreover, the sourcing is limited and hard to assess.
Yes, the Descartes thing is important to the book's central themes, but this isn't stated. And maybe yes Heidegger's methodologies are of interest but not very clear.
Not sure if I'm that interested.
Perhaps the concept of destructuring (as method) can be folded into "Phenomenology/hermeneutics/etc," and the Descartes thing left to explicaiton of subject/object (not), under "Being-In the World" talk.
2601:405:4A80:9E50:1DAF:583F:3272:E892 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Destructuring of metaphysics

message: Under the new heading, "Methodologies," an additional section on hermeneutics is probably appropriate. Potentially material can be simply imported from other Wikipedia articles, but from what I've seen, they're a bit weak.
The existing copy under "Methodologies" on destructuring and phenomenology is also weak, but justifiable, I suppose.
Optimally, and obviously, the material should be directly tied to B&T.
===Hermeneutics===
I added a brief segment on Hermeneutics. Available Wikipedia material elsewhere doesn't seem sufficiently related to B&T and/ore sourced. The stuff I added (one source) is weak and can be certainly be expanded, improved, etc. 
If the article is to present a list of H's methodologies, certainly hermeneutics should be included. If nothing else the material I added can be a placeholder -- pending improvements.
2601:405:4A80:9E50:618A:75BB:D83B:2346 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodologies

message: I added a brief segment on Hermeneutics. Available Wikipedia material elsewhere doesn't seem sufficiently related to B&T and/ore sourced. The stuff I added (one source) is weak and can be certainly be expanded, improved, etc. 
If the article is to present a list of H's methodologies, certainly hermeneutics should be included. If nothing else the material I added can be a placeholder -- pending improvements.
2601:405:4A80:9E50:618A:75BB:D83B:2346 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Hermeneutics

message: I've imported (and heavily edited) a few sentences from other wikipedia articles, along with their sources or lack thereof. 
The result is very muddy but the "new material" is slightly more relevant than previously existing (which I mostly left alone).
2601:405:4A80:9E50:EC84:6DC3:55DA:BE2 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: phenomenology

message: I moved material on "phenomenology" and "hermeneutics" to the heading "Methodologies."
2601:405:4A80:9E50:D8FA:C73C:4B0:9225 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Material from "background"

message: I removed material on "letting be" and technology. With relation to Heidegger, these topics are invariably discussed in relation to his works that are other than (not) B&T.
Also added Adorno stuff. The segment is still a rat's nest -- but I reorganized slightly. I'd actually like to entirely remove a few more bits that seem (to me) especially obscure or obvious.
Probably adding something about Rorty would be appropriate. This is however, beyond me.
2601:405:4A80:9E50:14E0:CF7D:985E:593D (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut some stuff -- hope no oxen gored. Still a weak section. Nothing explicitly about post-modernism -- that's his main influence! Nothing on Rorty.
2601:405:4A80:9E50:D532:441A:FF1E:99F8 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: I've reorganized some material and removed bits here and there. Although sourced, I felt that these removed bits headed deeply into the weeds  without adequately tying (now omitted) details to the "Big Picture."
My overall goal is largely to improve the article's readability rather than impose a particular point of view.
2601:405:4A80:9E50:E0A4:33EF:CBDB:143B (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sympathetic summary of recent edits

message: Remains a particularly weak section. It gives little sense of the subject, particularly as it relates to B&T.
2601:405:4A80:9E50:CDF0:5269:54BD:D6A7 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Destructuring