יוברט דרייפוס (Hebrew Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "יוברט דרייפוס" in Hebrew language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Hebrew rank
5th place
31st place
1st place
6th place
2nd place
10th place
504th place
401st place
low place
5,977th place
2,387th place
2,297th place
580th place
468th place
3rd place
33rd place
9th place
9th place
7th place
32nd place
462nd place
523rd place
325th place
3,255th place
7,681st place
low place
613th place
588th place
2,921st place
1,977th place
3,464th place
3,567th place

amacad.org

berkeley.edu

news.berkeley.edu

sophos.berkeley.edu

books.google.com

  • Woessner, Martin (2011). Heidegger in America. Cambridge University Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-521-51837-6.

dailynous.com

doi.org

dukeupress.edu

read.dukeupress.edu

encyclopedia.com

google.co.uk

books.google.co.uk

nd.edu

ndpr.nd.edu

nytimes.com

openlibrary.org

  • Magee, Bryan (1988). The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 275. ISBN 9780192822017. OL 2043183M. Sartre started out as a Husserlian, and as a phenomenologist he wrote a good novel called Nausea, which is a first-person description of a person's world breaking down. Then he read Heidegger and was converted to what he thought was Heideggerian existentialism. But as a Husserlian and a Frenchman he felt he had to fix up Heidegger and make him more Cartesian. So he starts with the individual conscious subject, but writes about Death, Anxiety, lnauthenticity, Being and Nothing - all the things that Heidegger talks about. The result, Being and Nothingness, is a brilliant misunderstanding of Being and Time. If the story that we've been telling is right, Heidegger was precisely trying to free us from our Cartesian assumptions. When I went to visit Heidegger he had Being and Nothingness on his desk, in German translation, and I said, 'So you're reading Sartre?, and he responded, 'How can I even begin to read this muck?' (His word was 'Dreck'.) That's pretty strong, but I think accurate, since if you treat Heidegger as if he were talking about subjects you turn him back into Husserl.

ox.ac.uk

fhi.ox.ac.uk

rand.org

web.archive.org

worldcat.org

youtube.com