Forum Klix.ba

pizarro wrote:oh nasty, koliko ti to knjiga mjesecno procitas?

Nastasia wrote:

pizarro wrote:oh nasty, koliko ti to knjiga mjesecno procitas?

Na svako 3-4 dana jedna knjiga.

zlo zlo wrote:2x utvrđivanje gradiva
the wheel of time
petnajstologija

4L0n3 wrote:

zlo zlo wrote:2x utvrđivanje gradiva
the wheel of time
petnajstologija

Uh, gdje nabavi ovo?

zlo zlo wrote: ima sve knjige na balkanu u epub formatu

zlo zlo wrote:2x utvrđivanje gradiva
the wheel of time

petnajstologija

horkesh wrote:

zlo zlo wrote:2x utvrđivanje gradiva
the wheel of time

petnajstologija

Kako ti se da pobogu. Hajde prvih nekoliko i nekako, ali kad dođe do one vremenske posude ili kako se već zvala...

zlo zlo wrote:

horkesh wrote:
Kako ti se da pobogu. Hajde prvih nekoliko i nekako, ali kad dođe do one vremenske posude ili kako se već zvala...

zdjela vjetrova

da mi se, super su knjige, napeta priča a kasnije tek je obavezno popratit najdražeg lika Mata i kako će završit s Tylin

MaD_ProfessoR wrote:Igor Mandić; predsmrtni dnevnik

Bloo wrote:

MaD_ProfessoR wrote:Igor Mandić; predsmrtni dnevnik

Čula sam da je izvrsna.
Ima li uopšte kupiti u Sa?

horkesh wrote:Sanderson i Stormlight Archive je vrh, Mistborn meni onako Abercrombie sve knjige fenomenalne, a Erikson i Malazan su mi srcu drage, pročitao sam ih jedno četiri puta sigurno Rothfuss postaje idući Martin koliko mu treba da završi

Zanimljivo, upravo čitam nešto staro od Hobba. Eto, da ne bude da trolam, upisujem se i ja.

MaD_ProfessoR wrote:

Bloo wrote:

MaD_ProfessoR wrote:Igor Mandić; predsmrtni dnevnik

Čula sam da je izvrsna.
Ima li uopšte kupiti u Sa?

Ima

MarlboroGold wrote:Jako

Zaboliće me glava... najviše od Heideggera

As his readers soon notice, Heidegger tends to reject familiar philosophical terms in favour of new ones which he coins himself. He leaves the German Sein or Being more or less as it is, but when it comes to talking about the questioner for whom its Being is in question (i.e. me, a human), he strenuously avoids talk of humanity, man, mind, soul or consciousness, because of the scientific, religious or metaphysical assumptions such words conceal. Instead, he speaks of ‘Dasein’, a word normally meaning ‘existence’ in a general way, and compounded of da (there) and sein (to be). Thus, it means ‘there-being’, or ‘being-there’.

The effect is at once disconcerting and intriguing. Reading Heidegger, and feeling (as one often does) that you recognise an experience he is describing, you want to say, ‘Yes, that’s me!’ But the word itself deflects you from this interpretation; it forces you to keep questioning. Just getting into the habit of saying Dasein takes you halfway into Heidegger’s world. It is so important a term that English translators tend to leave it in the original German; an early partial French translation by Henry Corbin rendered it as ‘réalité humaine’, which created another layer of confusion.

Why, one often wails, can’t Heidegger speak plainly? His tangled and unnatural terms invite parody — as in Günter Grass’ 1963 novel Dog Years, where a character falls under the influence of an unnamed philosopher and goes around calling underdone potatoes ‘spuds forgetful of Being’, and clearing rodents out of the kitchen’s water pipes while wondering, ‘Why rats and not other essents? Why anything at all rather than nothing?’ One might think that, if Heidegger had anything worth saying, he could have communicated it in ordinary language.

The fact is that he does not want to be ordinary, and he may not even want to communicate in the usual sense. He wants to make the familiar obscure, and to vex us. George Steiner thought that Heidegger’s purpose was less to be understood than to be experienced through a ‘felt strangeness’. It is something like the ‘alienation’ or estrangement effect used by Bertholt Brecht in his theatre, which is designed to block you from becoming too caught up in the story and falling for the delusion of familiarity. Heidegger’s language keeps you on edge. It is dynamic, obtrusive, sometimes ridiculous and often forceful; on a page of Heidegger, things are typically presented as surging or thrusting, as being thrown forward, lit up or broken open. Heidegger admitted that his way of writing produced some ‘awkwardness’, but he thought that a small price to pay for overturning the history of philosophy and bringing us back to Being.

ExNihilo wrote:

MarlboroGold wrote:Jako

Zaboliće me glava... najviše od Heideggera

Danas naletih na ovaj odlomak o Heideggerovoj upotrebi jezika, pa me podsjeti na tebe.

As his readers soon notice, Heidegger tends to reject familiar philosophical terms in favour of new ones which he coins himself. He leaves the German Sein or Being more or less as it is, but when it comes to talking about the questioner for whom its Being is in question (i.e. me, a human), he strenuously avoids talk of humanity, man, mind, soul or consciousness, because of the scientific, religious or metaphysical assumptions such words conceal. Instead, he speaks of ‘Dasein’, a word normally meaning ‘existence’ in a general way, and compounded of da (there) and sein (to be). Thus, it means ‘there-being’, or ‘being-there’.

The effect is at once disconcerting and intriguing. Reading Heidegger, and feeling (as one often does) that you recognise an experience he is describing, you want to say, ‘Yes, that’s me!’ But the word itself deflects you from this interpretation; it forces you to keep questioning. Just getting into the habit of saying Dasein takes you halfway into Heidegger’s world. It is so important a term that English translators tend to leave it in the original German; an early partial French translation by Henry Corbin rendered it as ‘réalité humaine’, which created another layer of confusion.

Why, one often wails, can’t Heidegger speak plainly? His tangled and unnatural terms invite parody — as in Günter Grass’ 1963 novel Dog Years, where a character falls under the influence of an unnamed philosopher and goes around calling underdone potatoes ‘spuds forgetful of Being’, and clearing rodents out of the kitchen’s water pipes while wondering, ‘Why rats and not other essents? Why anything at all rather than nothing?’ One might think that, if Heidegger had anything worth saying, he could have communicated it in ordinary language.

The fact is that he does not want to be ordinary, and he may not even want to communicate in the usual sense. He wants to make the familiar obscure, and to vex us. George Steiner thought that Heidegger’s purpose was less to be understood than to be experienced through a ‘felt strangeness’. It is something like the ‘alienation’ or estrangement effect used by Bertholt Brecht in his theatre, which is designed to block you from becoming too caught up in the story and falling for the delusion of familiarity. Heidegger’s language keeps you on edge. It is dynamic, obtrusive, sometimes ridiculous and often forceful; on a page of Heidegger, things are typically presented as surging or thrusting, as being thrown forward, lit up or broken open. Heidegger admitted that his way of writing produced some ‘awkwardness’, but he thought that a small price to pay for overturning the history of philosophy and bringing us back to Being.