An analysis of the two key concepts of Dasein and Truth in Heidegger’s Being and Time
Introduction to Heidegger
Martin Heidegger was a 20th-century German philosopher who made notable contributions to the fields of phenomenology and existentialism. He was influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, Edmund Husserl, Immanuel Kant, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. His influential works include Being and Time (1927) and The Question Concerning Technology (1954).
Even though he is considered to be Husserl’s intellectual heir by many, his existential phenomenology was different from his teacher’s transcendental phenomenology. Husserl’s phenomenology was more science oriented than Heidegger’s, who believed that the deep-rooted meaning of existence cannot be uncovered by science.
Overview of Being and Time
In Being and Time, Heidegger closely analyses the concept of ‘being’, or Dasein. He does this by exploring diverse themes like anxiety, morality, temporality, and historicity. By trying to answer the question — “What is the meaning of being?”, Heidegger is attempting to explain the fundamental problems pertaining to existence. His analysis has had a significant influence on philosophy (especially existentialism), literature, art, and postmodern thought.
Phenomenological Ontology
Consciousness, for each individual, is ‘entangled differently’ with objects of the world. Because of this, there can be no objective description or understanding of the term.
“When one understands consciousness, it is in relation to an object essentially, and thus, there can be no objective account of consciousness.” — Heidegger
To elucidate this, he gives the example of fear. Different individuals have different sources of fear, and varying intensities of fear pertaining to those sources.
Understanding the meaning of the following four terms is important for making sense of Heidegger’s work:
Being: being here/there (which can be known through sciences)
Dasein: The being of the individual to whom the essential structure of Being is revealed (Da-sein translates to ‘there-is’)
Hermeneutics: A matter of self-interpretation; based on subjective interpretation
Phenomenological Ontology: Focusing on the essential nature of experience
The twofold aim of Heidegger’s ontology was to reveal the essential structure of Being and to analyze Dasein.
Heidegger’s methodology, which makes use of hermeneutics and phenomenological ontology, is believed to be a critique of Husserl’s reductionist method. Three motives were to be achieved using this methodology:
- Eradication of the epistemological tradition
- Overcoming the forgetfulness of Being
- Revival of the original existential methods of assessing the phenomenon of human consciousness
Ontological Composition of ‘Dasein’ and ‘Being’
The purpose of doing phenomenology is to know the ‘Being’ itself, claimed Heidegger. The two core concepts of his work Being and Time, which are Dasein and Being, will be discussed in some detail now.
Dasein points to the usage of the term being to mean ‘being there/here’, which, as Heidegger claims, is discoverable by science by the virtue of it being material in nature. However, for a comprehensive understanding of Dasein, it is imperative that the meaning of Being be understood first, and this can only be done through philosophy (which, as compared to science, is more abstract in nature). Being only reveals itself in nothingness (death), and knowing the non-Being through an understanding of being is a prerequisite for knowing the Being.
Heidegger explains Dasein as the ‘destination of Being’ concerned with both, the human being and the individuality of the being of humans. Hermeneutic interpretation helps in discovering the authentic meaning of ‘Being’. Also, through hermeneutics, the basic structures of Being, which Dasein itself possesses, are revealed to Dasein’s understanding of Being.
There are two characteristics of Dasein that make it different from other entities:
- It possesses an understanding of the Being
- It is capable of raising the question of Being
These two point to Dasein’s unique ontological structure.
A distinguishing feature of Dasein is that it is a being-in-the-world. This means that even though it finds itself in the world, the manner of it doing so is entirely different from that of other entities. For it, the world is an array of possibilities, and it is, in itself, capable of being understood in terms of its own possibilities. Its ‘thrownness’ and ‘facticity’ are inevitable, and thus, in this world, it is inescapable. Although, the presence of other entities in the world for Dasein’s interaction is a necessity for it. But, if Dasein is being-in-the-world and engaging with the entities in it, then it is also Being-with-others. This is the justification that Heidegger gives for claiming that Dasein is constantly more than what it factually is, and thus, the world is not a creation of Dasein, nor is it a factual world whose existence does not depend on us. On the other hand, he implies that we are contributing to its creation.
Others are providing that which Dasein works upon, and what Dasein subsequently produces is meant (destined) for others as well. Hence, the factors of ‘where-of’ and ‘towards-which’ pertaining to my engagement with the world are inevitably related to the ‘work-world’ of other people. This is what shapes Dasein’s ontological constitution as a ‘being-with’.
Thus, the three aspects of Heidegger’s Dasein are:
- being-there or existence
- being-with or engagement with the world (intersubjectivity)
- mine-ness or engagement with oneself (subjectivity)
Heidegger claims that nothingness, or death, is supposed to be the homecoming of Sein, or Being. This can be understood to happen in the following sequence:
- Engaging with others in the world
- Determining who I am
- Surrendering to everybody
- Being left with ‘nobody’ (through reduction)
- Revealing of the Being in this nothingness received through surrender
Dasein’s subjectivity is constantly influenced by intersubjectivity: A social world, which has in it others and I, is essential for Dasein. Thus, by comprehending Dasein’s ‘mine-ness’ and its relation to others, we can determine whether its existence is ‘authentic’ or ‘inauthentic’. An authentic existence is one in which there is a keen awareness of one’s own subjectivity and intersubjectivity, whereas an inauthentic existence is one in which there is an excess of influence or imposition upon the average, everyday existence. Thus, the decisive factor of Dasein’s everyday mode of existence is the relationship between subjectivity and intersubjectivity.
On authentic existence: Existing authentically means knowing oneself while living in and engaging with the world. What Heidegger intends to do here is point out that an authentic existence is achievable. One just needs to overcome one’s forgetfulness. To clarify the ontological status of authenticity, he states that to exist authentically is ‘not to exist as an ontic entity among other entities’. In other words, it is not to be a static being, but one who constantly asks, searches and becomes.
When Dasein exists authentically, it is inherently searching for the answer to the question of Being, while questioning its own existence simultaneously. But Dasein does not have fixed properties. There are times when it is authentic, and there are times when it is inauthentic. Dasein involves the possibility of being something, and there are a number of possibilities that it can choose from. In simpler words, the being of a person is what they have decided to be, and being authentic here would involve being the master of one’s own mind. It is important to note that Heidegger does not intend to imply that Dasein is synonymous with human being, but instead states that there is Dasein of the person.
On inauthenticity: When the ‘mineness/mine’ of Dasein turns into ‘they’, and the self becomes ‘they-self’, Dasein loses itself in ‘they’. When this happens, Dasein loses its authenticity as the person is prevented from relating with the world and understanding it in their own way, thus taking away the possibility of authentic self-understanding. This results in the person’s Dasein being diffused into a kind of Being of the others. However, a solution to preventing inauthenticity is not isolation of a person from others, as the ‘being-with’ aspect is essential for Dasein. This ‘being-with aspect’ is socially defined and culturally inherited, and is not a product of Dasein’s creation. Therefore, it is only by relating oneself in interpersonal contexts that one’s self-understanding starts.
Because we haven’t fully understood (or even attempted to understand) the terms authentic and inauthentic, we have a sense of ‘forgetfulness’ regarding them. The following two points give context to Heidegger’s answer to the question of Being:
- Destruction of the epistemological tradition that led to forgetfulness
- Ontological analysis of the being of person to whom the meaning of Being is revealed
The first point deals with Heidegger’s notion of truth (which will be the focus of further discussion) and the second is what has been discussed for far.
On Truth
Heidegger was of the belief that the ancient Greek conception of truth is correct, and that the scholastic and modern philosophical conception of it was misguided. The latter proposed that truth is to be conceived in terms of conformity between our judgements and facts. Whereas, as per former, there is a horizon of meaning in us that facilitates the cognition of truth prior to all assimilation of it. It is in this regard that he wishes to destroy the existing epistemological tradition in support of his own conception.
Truth as a process of unconcealment: Heidegger’s understanding of truth was of it being a process of unconcealment. This is derived from his ontological structure of Dasein (understood as disclosedness/care). Here he asserts temporality as an existential feature of Dasein. Temporality can be understood in terms of three dimensions, namely past, present and future:
a) Past is important because of ‘thrownness’ and ‘disposedness’ that govern Dasein’s being.
b) Present is characterized by ‘fallenness’ of Dasein.
c) Future is based on projection/understanding.
Heidegger explains ‘thrownness’ as the characteristic of Dasein always finding itself in the world. Also, Dasein’s receptiveness takes form in varying moods, which in turn decide the manner in which the world is disclosed to it. This points to the important of the disposedness aspect of Dasein. Each Dasein has an authentic potentiality for being its own self. The root of any inauthentic experience is idle talk, curiosity and ambiguity, as these entail the closing off/covering up of any real understanding of the world.
Alethia: ‘Alethia’ means truth or disclosing/revealing that which, in some sense, lies hidden. Using this term, he points out that truth is not a transcendentally given reality. Instead, it presupposes and postulates the presence of intelligibility in Dasein.
Therefore, the existence of Dasein is what enables the possibility of unconcealing truth. Also, the fundamental notion of truth as unconcealment is where the propositional conception of truth has been derived from.
On acquiring meaning: Things acquire meaning and are made intelligible when Dasein comports them from their ontological rootedness. In this uncovering, two things are presupposed — what is being uncovered, and another being to which this being is uncovered (Dasein). As per Heidegger, meaning can be understood as involving interpretation (due to the vital relation between hermeneutics and phenomenology). Therefore, an imperative question that is to be asked is — Who or what is raising the question of Being in the first place?
Dasein and unconcealment: Heidegger concludes that uncovering is one of the ways of Being-in-the-world and that Dasein is disposed in this way. Disposedness, which is resting on moods (which are not just a result of subjective minds) is therefore a type of submission to the world. This is explained by Heidegger’s claim that disposedness discloses Dasein as a whole and one has no control over it.
Importance of understanding: Heidegger states that understanding is a mode of Dasein’s existence as it decides the structure of its being. This can be understood in terms of how we always understand it ‘as’ something, as it is revealed to us in accordance with our relating ‘ourselves’ with it. Therefore, the definite meaning that it has for me is unique. It is vital to acknowledge that understanding presupposes a background of pre-understood meanings. If this were not the case, the world would seem confusing. While this realization offers possibilities, it also entails constraints. Therefore, to sum up, it can be said that to understand something is to grasp the possible ways that it can be used, but at the same time, in doing so, the impact of the perspective of my pre-understood meaning would be significant.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, we can conclude that Heidegger firmly believed that philosophical enquiry is both ontological and phenomenological. In this blog, we have attempted to understand the ontological structure of Dasein and looked at its existential structure in terms of the process of understanding. Additionally, we have analyzed his theories in light of being an antithesis to the epistemological ideal that was dominant in philosophy at that time. Also, an important point that Heidegger made is that Dasein is not be be equated with a knowing mind/thinking substance and it is not separated from the world as it is essentially a being-in-the-world.
Heidegger presents a unique conception of the being of a person through their work, which seems to be a relevant subject of contemplation even decades after the publication of Being and Time.
The Thinking Lane 