Martin Heidegger's Sein und Zeit

[Weltschmerz]

Purpose
The purpose of this thread is to discuss a single work of philosophy, namely Martin Heidegger's Sein und Zeit, in English Being And Time.

It is not required that you are actually reading the book. But I have just come 50 pages in my copy so far, and it is well worth reading. Personally I'm no longer content with going solely by other people's opinions about this book. On the other hand I'm issuing this thread because I very much want to discuss it with you.


General notes on the critique of Sein und Zeit
There are some rumours to the effect that the book is impossible to understand. Some people who claim to understand it call it nonsense. I think they are wrong. Others say that Heidegger wrote in the most tedious, strained and difficult way about things that he could have written about in a much more straightforward manner. I can only judge the beginning of the book. Nevertheless, I find both these points of view to be examples of superficial quasi-critical snobbery. The book is not an easy read, but it is not impossible to understand it if you want to. To be able to judge a text you must first have come to understand it, and my hunch is that many of the self-acclaimed critics did a bad job in that regard.

It doesn't even mean much that some critics who have most likely understood the text claim that it is "notoriously difficult" or something like that. They don't help readers in understanding it by saying that. My copy is a translation to Swedish by Richard Matz where in addition many phrases from the original are supplied. In his preface Matz exclaims that the message of the book is there in broad daylight. Let's embrace that spirit in this thread, but also I suggest that we be open to the subtleties of time and being.


The how-to of this thread
For as long as we are discussing Sein und Zeit we are doing the right thing. To keep it alive, and hopefully to make things more lively, I will present selected points from my notes for discussion. These statements, definitions, arguments and ultimately the philosophical questions I wish to be discussed themselves, and not necessarily or even preferrably from a position of general philosophical knowledge. Just go ahead and voice your thoughts.

But first of all, let's warm up with some biographies, pictures, curiosities and so on.

[Weltschmerz]

From the preface by Richard Matz in Martin Heidegger's Varat och tiden (Swedish title) 1992, Bokförlaget Daidalos, Göteborg (my translation):

At the time of writing this book, Heidegger had certain (later abandoned) ambitions to found a new science of being (fundamental ontology). However, his work was in its own way better than what we could expect from such an intention. His famous magnum opus is for the open-minded reader also in no sense any sterile "construction of steel" (Karl Jaspers, who by the way never read the work in its entirety), it is no disciplinary terminological handbook for exercises, nailed to the wall and to learn formally as a prerequisit for further progress. Rather, the work offers a ride through sometimes obscure and sometimes fairer landscapes, where each etape has its own body and outlook, and where the different distances covered are not mechanically put on a pile, but together, smoothly and stringently, build up to a powerful and consistent panorama with an invitation to a continued quest, not to pedantery or imitation, a quest that is an important facet in the ongoing scrutiny of our questionable civilisation.

[Weltschmerz]

[Weltschmerz]

A couple of biographies
Very short:

Philosophers : Martin Heidegger


More:

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

[Weltschmerz]

[Marcus Marulus]

There is also this seminary on Heidegger. It is too big, so I didn't post it, but you can read it through the link. It contains lots of valuable informations and explanations.

Lectures to Heidegger\'s Sein und Zeit

[Weltschmerz]

Thank you, Plethon! Online resources are most welcome, since I'm not planning to buy an English translation.

[Weltschmerz]

Here's a glossary of terms in English. I will study it myself to overcome the aforementioned language related difficulties:

Glossary of Terms in Being and Time by Roderick Munday

[Weltschmerz]

THE SEMINAR
Heidegger's Sein und Zeit is divided in two parts, with an introduction preceeding the first part. All in all the book consists of 83 paragraphs (§1, §2, §3, ..., §83). These paragraphs provide a handy way to refer to different parts of the book, since these are independently there in the same order regardless of what edition you may want to use.

The following motto marks the very beginning of the work. From Martin Heidegger, Being and Time:

'For manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression "being". We, however, who used to think that we understood it, have now become perplexed.' (Plato)

Do we in our time have an answer to the question of what we really mean by the word 'being'? Not at all. So it is fitting that we should raise anew the question of the meaning of Being. But are we nowadays even perplexed at our inability to understand the expression 'Being'? Not at all. So first of all we must reawaken an understanding for the meaning of this question. Our aim in the following treatise is to work out the question of the meaning of Being and to do so concretely. Our provisional aim is the Interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding whatsoever of Being.

But the reasons for making this our aim, the investigations which such a purpose requires, and the path to its achievement, call for some introductory remarks. (Blackwell Publishers, 1978)

[Weltschmerz]

Introduction

EXPOSITION OF THE QUESTION OF THE MEANING OF BEING

First chapter

THE NECESSITY, STRUCTURE AND PRIORITY OF THE QUESTION OF BEING



§1. The necessity of expressedly bringing up the question of Being anew

From the philosophical tradition, Heidegger brings up three commonplace prejudiced opinions and excuses not to deal with the question of Being. It goes without saying that Heidegger does not accept them as excuses. Nevertheless I want us to be concerned with each one of the three items, beginning with this one, explicated by Heidegger with reference to Aristoteles and Thomas Aquinas:



"Being" is the "widest" or "most common" of all concepts.
(Aristoteles, Metaphysica B 4, 1001 a 21)

An understanding of Being is always already implicit in all of what someone perceives in that which is.
(Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II, qu 94 a 2)



Questions:

a) Is it indeed true that Being is the most common and widest of all concepts?

b) Is the concept of Being just another concept? If yes, how so? If no, why not?


(References are provided only for those who want to be concerned with them. The same goes for the questions I pose. Concentrate on the statements in bold and speak your hearts and minds about them.)

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Seekers

"Being" is the "widest" or "most common" of all concepts.
(Aristoteles, Metaphysica B 4, 1001 a 21)

An understanding of Being is always already implicit in all of what someone perceives in that which is.
(Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II, qu 94 a 2)

Yes, it is indeed. Being is the basic concept of the human mind. I don't agree with the Cartesian postulate: Cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") It can be reversed into: I am, therefore I think. Even a small child, not being able yet to think properly, has the feeling of being. It is the foundation of everything.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Yes, it is indeed. Being is the basic concept of the human mind. I don't agree with the Cartesian postulate: Cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") It can be reversed into: I am, therefore I think. Even a small child, not being able yet to think properly, has the feeling of being. It is the foundation of everything.

That strikes me as a nice down to earth way of thinking about concepts. Here's a locus from the beginning of §15 that I stumbled on today:

But this phenomenological treatise, as an investigation of Being, becomes a separate and explicit fulfillment of that understanding of Being always already included in the Dasein*, "living" in every concern with what is.

*See the glossary of terms linked in post #8 for an explanation.

Originally Posted by Seekers

a) Is it indeed true that Being is the most common and widest of all concepts?

Heidegger does think it is.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Seekers

An understanding of Being is always already implicit in all of what someone perceives in that which is.
(Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II, qu 94 a 2)

While Heidegger agrees that Being is the most common of all concepts, he does not take that as an excuse not to deal philosophically with it. The common-ness of Being does not make it a clear concept. The understanding that is implicit in perceptions of that which is, as well as in every human existence already, is not all there is to it. Quite the contrary: Heidegger says that Being is the most obscure of all concepts, calling for a closer and more elaborate inquiry.

[Weltschmerz]

Still in §1, let's move on to the next excuse not to deal with Being:

The concept of Being cannot be defined.