Abs ac
Se en y- i e yea s a e he publica ion o SuZ, his wo k s ill no in e p e ed in he ligh
o he ques ion o being — ew excep ions no wi hs anding. To commemo a e he se en-
y- i h anni e sa y o he publica ion o SuZ, i is i ing o ake up his ques ion, and o
a end o i s s uc u e and he meneu ic ami ica ions. Re u ning o his ques ion we come
upon and expe ience a phenomenon which Heidegge calls « e o- o o wa d ela edness
o being» and which cons i u es he o emos he meneu ic p e-condi ion o gaining access
o his en i e hough . I is he pu pose o his pape o indica e ha his ela edness sus-
ains Heidegge ’s ascenden al-ho izonal as well as his being-his o ical hinking.
Key wo ds: ques ion o being, exis ence, he meneu ic, Being and Time.
Resumen. La cues ión del se : condición he menéu ica p e ia indispensable pa a la in e p e-
ación de Heidegge
Pasados se en a y cinco años de la publicación de Se y iempo, es a ob a oda ía no se ha
in e p e ado desde la pe spec i a de la cues ión del se , al ma gen de algunas excepciones.
Pa a conmemo a el se en a y cinco ani e sa io de la publicación de Se y iempo, abo da-
emos es e ema y nos ocupa emos de su es uc u a y de sus ami icaciones he menéu i-
cas. Vol iendo a la cues ión que cen a nues o in e és, ija emos la a ención en la expe iencia
de un enómeno que Heidegge denomina « e o- elación» o «p o o- elación» del se que
cons i uye la p e-condición he menéu ica undamen al a la ho a de accede a la o alidad
de su pensamien o. Es e a ículo se p opone indica que es a elación sus en a an o el pen-
samien o ho izon al- ascenden al de Heidegge como su pensamien o ace ca de la his o-
ia del se .
Palab as cla e: cues ión del se , exis encia, he menéu ica, Se y iempo.
En ahona 34, 2002 11-29
The Ques ion o Being: Fo emos He meneu ic
P e-condi ion o In e p e ing Heidegge
Pa is Emad
Uni e si y o Wisconsin-La C osse. Depa men o Philosophy
La C osse, WI 54601 USA
Table o con en s
I. S uc u e o he Ques ion o Being
II. Exis ence, he Si e’ o Re o-
o Fo wa d Rela edness o Being
III. The Yields o he Ques ion o Being
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 11
[…] he keen boldness o he ques ion o being, […] always
sha e s machina ion o beings and i s denial o be-ing and
mus pe se e e in he unease and clea age o a b eakage so
ha hinking o be-ing ne e da es o come o es in a
«wo k.»1
On he occasion o he se en y i h anni e sa y o he publica ion o Sein
und Zei i is i ing o e u n o he ques ion o being (die Seins age) and
o discuss i s s uc u e and he meneu ic impo , since his ques ion cons i-
u es he o emos he meneu ic p e-condi ion o in e p e ing Heidegge ’s
hough . We shall ake up he ques ion o being because se en y i e yea s
a e he publica ion o Sein und Zei his wo k is s ill no in e p e ed and
app op ia ed in he ligh o his ques ion, ew excep ions no wi hs anding.
Conside ing he cu en si ua ion su ounding Sein und Zei , one canno
ail o no ice ha o he mos pa he guiding signi icance o he ques ion
o being, and i s he meneu ic impo a e neglec ed. I is ou conside ed
opinion ha he ailu e o p ope ly a end o he ques ion o being is ul i-
ma ely esponsible o he many misin e p e a ions ha p esen ly bese
Heidegge ’s hough .
I is well known ha Heidegge epea edly e e ed o he ques ion o being
as his one and only ques ion and iewed i as pi o al o his en i e hough .
Whe he i was in Being and Time ha he said « he ques ion o he meaning
o being should be asked»,2o in Con ibu ions o Philosophy ha he inqui ed
«Bu how does be-ing sway?»3in bo h wo ks he s essed he guiding signi icance
o his ques ion o unde s anding he anscenden al-ho izonal o being-his-
o ical pa hways o his hinking. Howe e , when we look closely a ecen
wo ks ha deal wi h Heidegge , especially hose de o ed o Sein und Zei , we
ind ha o he mos pa hey go w ong because hey ei he miscons ue he
ques ion o being, o igno e i al oge he . Cha ac e izing he ques ion o being
as an «e he eal ques ion»,4miscons uing being (Sein) by con la ing unda-
12 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
1. M. HEIDEGGER (1997), Besinnung (F ank u am Main: V. Klos e mann), p. 51. All e e -
ences in he ex o Heidegge ’s Gesam ausgabe use abb e ia ion GA ollowed by olume
and page numbe . Fo de ailed bibliog aphical in o ma ion ega ding his edi ion, see
Heidegge S udies (Be lin: Duncke & Humblod , 2001), p. 187 . All ansla ions om
olumes o Heidegge ’s Gesam ausgabe a e by he au ho . Bold ype inside quo a ion ma ks
and in he body o he ex a e used o emphasis.
2. GA 2/6.
3. M. HEIDEGGER, Con ibu ions o Philosophy (F om Enowning), ansla ed by Pa is Emad and
Kenne h Maly (Blooming on: Uni e si y o Indiana, 1999), p. 5, he ea e e e ed o as
Con ibu ions ollowed by page numbe .
4. T. KISIEL, The Genesis o Heidegge ’s «Being and Time» (Be keley: Uni e si y o Cali o nia,
1993), p. 364. Fo a ho oughgoing c i ique o his wo k, see Tomy S. KALARIPARAMBIL,
«Towa ds Ske ching he “Genesis” o Being and Time» in Heidegge S udies (Be lin: Duncke
& Humbold ), 16/ 2000, p. 189-220.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 12
men al on ology and sociology,5ob usca ing he ques ion o being wi h «an
al e na i e on ological model»,6and he claim ha Heidegge «p i ileges ques-
ioning»7— o men ion only a ew— a e among he mos bla an e o s ha
shape ecen in e p e a ions o Heidegge ’s hough . A glance a he ecen li-
e a u e shows ha mos in e p e e s do no add ess he s uc u e o he ques-
ion o being, and do no ealize ha Heidegge analyzes his ques ion, because
he wan s o show ha being e e be a es in his ques ion. The cu en mis-
in e p e a ions a e clea indica ions ha commen a o s ha e no ye g asped
he ques ion o being as he o emos he meneu ic p e-condi ion o in e -
p e ing Heidegge . Thus i should be clea ha , we mus e u n o his ques-
ion.
Howe e indispu able he impo ance o he ques ion o being is o app o-
p ia ely en e ing in o, and in e p e ing Heidegge ’s hough in gene al and
Sein und Zei in pa icula , i is no ipso ac o clea wha his e u ning is all
abou . To e u n o his ques ion means gaining access o, and expe iencing a
phenomenon, which Heidegge in his analysis o he s uc u e o he ques ion
o being calls « e o- o o wa d ela edness» (Rück- ode Vo bezogenhei )8o
being. Ques ion o being is he o emos he meneu ic p e-condi ion o in e -
p e ing Heidegge because being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o, and e e be -
a es in his ques ion. Thus o see he guiding signi icance o his ela edness
and e e be a ion, we ha e o e u n o he analysis o he s uc u e o he
ques ion o being.
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 13
5. H. DREYFUS (1991), Being-in- he-Wo ld, Camb idge (MA): MIT P ess, p. 145. In i s en i e-
y his wo k is guided by he mis aken assump ion ha
Socie y is he on ological sou ce o he amilia i y and eadiness ha makes he on ical disco e y
o en i ies, o o he s, and e en o mysel possible (p. 145).
This shows how li le D ey us unde s ands Heidegge ’s concep o he wo ld. Al hough
wo ld in Heidegge is no he «sou ce» o any hing, i we insis in calling i a «sou ce», we
should keep in mind ha i is no socie y bu wo ld ha is he on ological «sou ce» o he
disco e y o «en i ies». The eason is simple: like Umwel , socie y oo is inne wo ldly. D ey us
misin e p e s he wo ld because he ails o p ope ly g asp he ques ion o being. Fo mo e
on his ailu e, see no e 14 below.
6. J. MCCUMBER (1999), Me aphysics and Op ession: Heidegge ’s Challenge o Wes e n
Philosophy (Blooming on: Uni e si y o Indiana, p. 208). In his book, McCumbe ails
o app oach Being and Time h ough an analysis o he ques ion o being. Ins ead he
imposes upon his wo k he p econcei ed hesis acco ding o which Heidegge in Being
and Time pu s o h
[…] an al e na i e on ological model, one on which a leas some beings a e gene a ed and shaped
no by o m bu by […] an ac i e, shaping gap (p. 14).
McCumbe assumes ha his gap, is de ec able in he ecs ases o empo ali y. He hus
ails o see ha his empo ali y is a one old. Fo a ho oughgoing c i ique o his un ound-
ed hesis, see Thomas KALARY, «He meneu ic P e-condi ions o In e p e ing Heidegge :
A look a Recen Li e a u e» (Pa One), Heidegge S udies, 18/ 2002, p. 159-180.
7. J. DERRIDA (1987), De l’ esp i : Heidegge e la ques ion, Pa is: PUF, passim.
8. GA 2/ 11.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 13
I. S uc u e o he Ques ion o Being
Fundamen al on ology begins wi h depic ion o s uc u e o he « undamen-
al ques ion»9o being, i.e., s uc u e o a ques ion, which al hough unasked
and unheeded, has been he spu behind philosophical hinking all along. I is,
he e o e, ai o say ha his depic ion ep esen s a wa e shed in Wes e n phi-
losophy’s p eoccupa ion wi h being. Howe e , in addi ion o i s impo ance
o he his o y o Wes e n philosophy, depic ion o his s uc u e also holds
he key o unde s anding ha Heidegge ’s hinking o being di e en ia es
i sel om he hinking o being, which as me aphysics, has domina ed and
shaped Wes e n philosophy. Equally impo an is ha by analyzing he s uc-
u e o he ques ion o being, Heidegge pu s o h being’s e o- o o wa d
ela edness o his ques ion, and hus p o ides a unique access o he unda-
men al-on ological as well as being-his o ical pa hways o his hinking.
I is impo an o no e ha Heidegge ’s demons a ion o s uc u e o he
ques ion o being comes as a o mal indica ion ( o male Anzeige). I is also
impo an o no e ha being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness — once expe i-
enced — emo es he ques ion o being ou o a ension which in o mal indi-
ca ion o his ques ion p e ails be ween he phase o indica ion and he phase
o ul illmen . In he momen o enac men o he ques ion o being his en-
sion no longe holds: in ha momen we come o expe ience he esonance
o being, i.e., being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o ques ioning.
Speci ically inqui ing in o he meaning o being, ques ion o being is s uc-
u ed, i s by « ha which his ques ion asks abou » (das Ge ag e), secondly by
« ha which his ques ion in e oga es» (das Be ag e) and hi dly by « ha which
his ques ion asce ains» (das E ag e).10 By ou lining his s uc u e, Heidegge
shows ha e o- o o wa d ela edness o being is he momen we ha e o ully
g asp i we wan o en e in o he undamen al-on ological as well as being-his-
o ical pa hways o his hinking. In o de o see his ela edness clea ly, we shall
begin by a ending o he i s and hi d s uc u al i ems in he ques ion o being.
The analysis o he s uc u e o he ques ion o being begins wi h he insigh
acco ding o which e e y ques ion is guided in ad ance by wha he ques ion
seeks, which in he case o he ques ion o being is he meaning o being. Bu
we could no seek his meaning i i we e u e ly unknown o us, which means
ha we mus ha e an access o, and be amilia wi h being and i s meaning.
In aising his ques ion we do no know wha being means bu when
[…] we ask, «wha is being?» we a e si ua ed wi hin an unde s anding o he
«is» wi hou being able o concep ually es ablish wha he «is» con eys.11
I is in iew o si ua edness in, and amilia i y wi h being and i s meaning,
ha in o mal indica i e espec Heidegge iden i ies being as wha is asked
14 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
9. GA 2/6.
10. GA 2/ 7.
11. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 14
abou in his ques ion. The signi icance o his iden i ica ion guides and eaches
in o Heidegge ’s he meneu ic e o s which dis inguish his undamen al-on o-
logical and being-his o ical hinking om adi ional p eoccupa ion wi h being.
Howe e , an impo an consequence o his iden i ica ion is he ealiza ion
ha being and i s meaning equi e a demons a ion and an exposi ion en i e-
ly hei own. As Heidegge pu s i
[…] being, wha is asked abou , demands i s own kind o exposi ion which is
essen ially di e en om he disco e y o beings.12
The same is ue o wha his ques ion asce ains, namely he meaning o
being. This meaning oo equi es i s own concep uali y, which again dis in-
guishes i sel essen ially om he concep s in which beings ob ain hei de e -
mina ion acco ding o meaning.13
Exposi ion and concep ualiza ion clea ly in ol e language. Thus when
Heidegge s esses he need o an exposi ion and concep ualiza ion ha a e
peculia o being and i s meaning, he alludes o he language o being. (This
shows ha as ea ly as he analysis o s uc u e o ques ion o being, Heidegge
«speaks» he language o being. Because his language is no he amilia lan-
guage, any a emp o « ansla e» his language in o a «mo e amilia » language
amoun s o abandoning Heidegge ’s hough al oge he .)
Wha can be said abou being — being we a e al eady amilia wi h and
o which we ha e an access ia si ua edness in, and unde s anding o being?
When we inqui e abou being we al eady know ha being is
[…] ha which de e mines a being as a being, ha is, ha in iew o which
(wo au hin) a being, howe e i may be discussed, is always al eady unde s ood.14
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 15
12. GA 2/ 8.
13. GA 2/ 8-9.
14. GA 2/ 8. We conside his cha ac e iza ion o being pi o al o in e p e ing Being and Time,
and he ailu e o p ope ly g asp his cha ac e iza ion esponsible o D ey us’s comple e
misin e p e a ion o his wo k. Wi h he i s s ep ha D ey us akes o en e in o he s uc-
u e o he ques ion o being, he shows how li le he unde s ands his s uc u e. He equa es
Heidegge ’s cha ac e iza ion o being (namely « ha which de e mines a being as a being, ha
in iew o which (wo au hin) a being… is always al eady unde s ood)», wi h a adi ional
[…] o mula ha is su icien ly ambiguous o co e some so o sup eme Being, a cons i u ing ac i -
i y like ha o a anscenden al ego, and he in elligibili y e ealed by ou backg ound p ac ices (p. 12).
Thus he ails o see ha being is ha in iew o which (wo au hin) beings a e unde s ood.
This ailu e is also e iden in D ey us’s a emp o b ing in o English he cen al wo d
wo au hin which he ansla es as «on he basis o which». Being, o wha is asked abou , is
no «a basis» bu « ha in iew o which» (wo au hin) beings a e unde s ood. Wha is a
s ake he e is « iewing», i.e., a phenomenological «ac » ha has no hing in common wi h «bas-
ing» some hing on some hing else. By ailing o g asp being, D ey us pa es he way o
misin e p e ing Di ision I and Di ision II o Being and Time: he miscons ues Di ision I
by aking i as he place in which Heidegge espouses p agma ism a la W. James and J.
Dewy, (c . op. ci ., p. 6) and he misin e p e s Di ision II by aking i as he place in which
Heidegge ad oca es exis en ialism (c ., op. ci ., p. XIII).
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 15

Because we a e al eady amilia wi h, and ha e an access o being, we can say
ha being is wha de e mines a being as a being and is ha in iew o which
a being is unde s ood. This means ha we al eady know ha being is di e en
om beings, which is o says ha we a e al eady amilia wi h, and ha e an
access o he di e ence be ween being and a being. How else would we de e -
mine a being as a being unless we a e guided by being as ha in iew o which
a being is always al eady unde s ood? When Heidegge says ha « he being
o a being “is” i sel no a being»15 he o e s he i s o mal indica i e o mu-
la ion o he on ological di e ence.
This means ha when in o mal indica i e espec Heidegge poin s ou
ha wha is asked abou in he ques ion o being is being, and wha is asce -
ained in his ques ion is he meaning o being, he demons a es ha his hink-
ing is guided in ad ance by wha anspi es (is no assumed) as on ological
di e ence. This makes clea ha he en i e y o he analysis o s uc u e o
ques ion o being is ca ied ou unde he auspices o he on ological di e -
ence — an analysis ha ex ends o he second s uc u al i em ( ha which is
in e oga ed).
Heidegge p oceeds o o mally indica e wha is in e oga ed in he ques-
ion o being by aking ano he look a (o e- iewing) wha is asked abou in
he ques ion o being. He concludes ha since wha is asked abou , namely
being, is always al eady being o a being, wha is in e oga ed mus be a being:
Inso a as being makes up wha is asked abou , and being means being o a
being, wha is in e oga ed in he ques ion o being p o es o be a being i sel .
The la e is, so o speak, wha is ques ioned wi h ega d o i s being.16
Bu how a e we o ind ou which being is o be in e oga ed? Does his
equi e ha we un h ough and examine e e y concei able class and kind o
beings, o is i he case ha he being o be in e oga ed shows i sel undis-
o ed as i is om wi hin he undamen al ques ion o being? Concei ably
any hing and e e y hing is a being. E e y hing we alk abou , e e y hing we
ha e in mind, e e y hing owa d which, one way o he o he , we compo
ou sel es is a being. Gi en his omnip esence o beings, we ha e o say ha
in aising he ques ion o being we a e always con on ed wi h modes and
ways o being:
Being esides in ha ness and wha ness, in eali y, ex an ness, cons ancy, ali-
di y, exis ence and in « he e is».17
When we conside hese modes and ways o being in which being means
being o a being, we ha e o conclude abo e all ha wha has o be in e o-
16 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
15. GA 2/ 8.
16. GA 2/ 9.
17. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 16
ga ed is a being. The ea e , we ha e o p oceed wi h de e mining he p ope
access o his being.
On he way o de e mining he being which is o be in e oga ed and ind-
ing he igh access o his being, Heidegge b ings oge he — one migh say
has ily — he meaning o being, and he being which is o be in e oga ed
(bu is as ye no wholly iden i ied) and asks:
In which being is he meaning o being o be disce ned; wi h which being we
ha e o begin in o de o conclude wi h being?18
Heidegge is awa e ha his ques ion is has ily o mula ed, because in a
ma ginal no e he poin s ou ha his ques ion con ains wi hin i sel wo qui e
di e en ques ions. While he i s ques ion «In which being is he meaning
o being o be disce ned?» implies ha his meaning is disce nible in a being,
he second ques ion «Wi h which being we ha e o begin in o de o conclude
wi h being?» implies ha depa ing om a being leads di ec ly o being and
i s meaning. These wo ques ions do no clea ly keep apa he meaning o
being as such and he meaning o being o a being in whose being he mean-
ing o being can be disce ned. Heidegge c i icizes his passage and hus opens
he way o elucida ing i . He says:
He e wo di e en ques ions ollow each o he ; misunde s andable, especial-
ly wi h ega d o he ole o Dasein.19
Indeed he e wo di e en ques ions ollow each o he inso a as «In which
being is he meaning o being o be disce ned?» is a ques ion qui e di e en
om «wi h which being we ha e o begin in o de o conclude wi h being?».
Se ing ou om hese ques ions in o de o ind ou wha is o be in e oga -
ed, and no di e en ia ing he ques ion «In which being is he meaning o
being o be disce ned?» om he ques ion «Wi h which being we ha e o begin
in o de o conclude wi h being?» amoun s o succumbing o he misunde -
s anding ha bo h ques ions ask abou he same hing.20 These ques ions en-
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 17
18. GA 2/ 9. Rega ding his passage, c ., he pionee ing wo k o F.-W. VON HERRMANN (1987),
He meneu ische Phänomenologie des Daseins: Eine E läu e ung on Sein und Zei , ol. 1
(F ank u am Main: V. Klos e mann), p. 59-65.
19. Ibid.
20. Had D ey us g asped he di e ence be ween hese wo ques ions, and had he ealized ha
he meaning o he being o be in e oga ed in he ques ion o being is no he same as he
meaning o being, p esumably he would ha e e ained om saying ha «wha is s udied in
Being and Time ul ima ely is no Dasein bu Dasein’s way o being» (op. ci ., p.14). Since he
meaning o he being o Dasein is no he same as he meaning o being, and because Dasein
is a being in whose being he meaning o being as such can be disce ned, i is w ong o
limi Being and Time o a s udy o Dasein’s way o being. Fo , gi en he di e ence be ween
he meaning o he being o be in e oga ed and he meaning o being, wha is s udied in
Being and Time can also be said o be he meaning o being. Fo his see GA 2, Di ision II,
and GA 24, which Heidegge designa es «The new elabo a ion o Di ision III o Pa One
o Being and Time».
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 17
de misunde s andable he ole o he being o be in e oga ed (Dasein) inso-
a as hey may be aken o sugges ha we can accomplish he exposi ion o
wha is asked abou , i.e., being by depa ing om he being o be in e oga -
ed, and hen iden i y he meaning o his being wi h he meaning o being
as such, i.e., meaning o beings o he han Dasein. Howe e , conside ing he
un olding o undamen al on ology as a whole (which akes he en i e y o
Being and Time and The Basic P oblems o Phenomenology) we ha e o say ha
he meaning o he being o be in e oga ed (Dasein), namely empo ali y
(Zei lichkei ) is no a all he same as he meaning o beings o he han Dasein,
i.e. Tempo ali y (Tempo ali ä ). We disce n he meaning o beings o he han
Dasein in he being o be in e oga ed wi hou con la ing he meaning o he
being o be in e oga ed wi h he meaning o being.
G an ed ha we di e en ia e he meaning o being as such om he mean-
ing o he being o be in e oga ed — which p esupposes ha we unde s and
he ami ica ions o he wo ques ions conce ned wi h «in which being…?»
and «wi h which being…?» — we should be in a posi ion o o mally indica e
he being o be in e oga ed and de e mine he access o his being. Heidegge
s esses he impo ance o his access when he says ha «In iew o ha which
is o be in e oga ed in he ques ion o being, his ques ion equi es ob ain-
ing, and secu ing in ad ance he igh access o a being».21 His conce n wi h
he igh access o he being o be in e oga ed becomes mo e clea when he asks:
Is he poin o depa u e a bi a y o has a ce ain being a p eeminence (Vo ang)
in wo king ou he ques ion o being?22
In o de o o mally indica e wha is o be in e oga ed, we mus ha e an access
o a being ha is a p eeminen being. The p eeminence o his being makes
i an exempla y being and opens in ad ance he igh access o his being. The
o mal indica i e ques o wha is o be in e oga ed eaches a decisi e s age
when we ealize ha he being o be in e oga ed is a p eeminen and exempla y
being. Bu wi h his ealiza ion we ha e no ye de e mined which being is he
exempla y being. Tha is why Heidegge asks: «Which is his exempla y being
and in wha sense is his being a p eeminen being?»23 No soone does he aise
his ques ion ha he ecognizes he isk ha comes along wi h his wo d «exem-
pla y». Tha is why in a ma ginal no e he explici ly c i iques his wo d and
says ha i is «misunde s andable».24
In an e o o speci ically iden i y he p eeminen being, i is misunde -
s andable o call he being o be in e oga ed an exempla y being, because his
wo d could be aken o mean a being which is an «example» and as such belongs
18 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
21. GA 2/ 9.
22. Ibid. We ansla e Vo ang wi h p eeminence in o de o dis inguish i om p io i y, i.e.,
om a wo d wi h s ong ies o epis emology.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 18
o a class. The connec ion wi h a class is wha makes he designa ion «exem-
pla y» isky. As long as we a e aken in by he no ion o membe ship in a class,
we ail o see he p eeminence o his being in a p ope ligh . Fo , his p eeminence
has no hing o do wi h membe ship in a class. The being o be in e oga ed is p e-
eminen , no because i is an «example» o , and belongs o a class bu because i
is si ua ed in an unde s anding o he «is». I is his si ua edness ha makes pos-
sible o his being o be he being whe ein he meaning o being can be dis-
ce ned, and i is his si ua edness ha accoun s o he p eeminence o , and he
igh access o his being. The only way o use he wo d exempla y app op i-
a ely is o use i agains he backg ound o si ua edness in, and unde s anding
o he «is». We can say hen ha he being o be in e oga ed is p eeminen
among beings because o i s si ua edness in he unde s anding o he «is». I he
p eeminence o his being is because o i s si ua edness in unde s anding o
he «is», hen his unde s anding is wha p o ides an access o his being.
Howe e , si ua edness in unde s anding o he «is», i.e., unde s anding o
being, and p eeminence o he being o be in e oga ed, as well as he access o
his being a e mani es in ce ain compo men s ha a e cons i u i e o his
being. Heidegge enume a es hese compo men s when he says:
I we a e o explici ly aise he ques ion o being and o enac his ques ion as
comple ely anspa en o i sel , hen, ollowing elucida ions we ha e gi en so
a , elabo a ion o his ques ion equi es us o explica e he way we u n ou gaze
owa d being, he way we unde s and and concep ually g asp meaning, p e-
pa e he possibili y o he igh choice o he exempla y being, and wo k ou
he genuine kind o access o his being.25
By enume a ing hese compo men s and by naming each speci ically, Heidegge
indica es ha wi hou excep ion hese compo men s a e compo men s o a
being ha is si ua ed in unde s anding o being. Acco dingly, u ning he gaze
owa d being no less han o he compo men s (g asping meaning, p epa ing
he possibili y o he igh access o his being) mani es s a being ha unde -
s ands being. I is in iew o he showing powe o hese compo men s ha
Heidegge says ha hey a e cons i u i e o ques ioning and o he being o
ques ione :
Tu ning he gaze, unde s anding and g asping o , choosing and access o, a e
cons i u i e compo men s o ques ioning and a e hus hemsel es modes o
being o a ce ain being ha we ques ione s ou sel es always a e.26
Taking cognizance o hese compo men s, and bea ing in mind ha each
mani es s unde s anding o being, we ealize ha ques ioning is no an adden-
dum o unde s anding o being bu inhe es in his unde s anding. We also
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 19
25. Ibid.
26. GA 2/ 9- 10.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 19
his ela ionship, Dasein unde s ands i s being «in some way and wi h some
explici ness». To say ha Dasein unde s ands i s being mo e o less explici ly
is o say ha his unde s anding is ne e comple e — i is ongoing. Mo eo e ,
o say ha Dasein unde s ands i s being mo e o less explici ly is o say ha
his unde s anding does no u n he being o Dasein in o an objec o e lec-
ion. This means ha he mo e o less explici unde s anding o Dasein’s being
does no occu in he ealm o e lec ion. And he eason o his is clea : inso-
a as his unde s anding is unde s anding o wha Dasein has o be as a pos-
sibili y, and because his possibili y canno be objec i ied as ac uali y, Dasein’s
unde s anding o i s being is no accessible o e lec ion and objec i ica ion.
P esen ing one o Heidegge ’s ounda ional insigh s, he las sen ence in
his passage has a guiding signi icance ha ex ends o ques ion o being, and
ia his o undamen al-on ological as well as being-his o ical pa hways o his
hinking. I eads:
I is peculia o his being ha i s being is disclosed o i sel wi h (mi ) and
h ough (du ch) his being.37
We call his sen ence ounda ional because by he use Heidegge makes o
he wo ds wi h and h ough his sen ence pa es he way o unde s anding
ha being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o exis ence o Dasein (no exclusi ely
o ques ioning) which among o he hings mani es s he enac men o ha
ela edness. The guiding signi icance o he wo ds «wi h», and « h ough» is
such as o elucida es exis ence and ia his Heidegge ’s undamen al-on o-
logical, and mu a is mu andis his being-his o ical hinking. The e o e, ou
a emp o unde s and ha being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o exis ence o
Dasein — an a emp ha is guided by his ounda ional insigh — begins
wi h aking a close look a hese wo wo ds.
I should be poin ed ou ha when Heidegge says ha i is peculia o
Dasein ha i s being is disclosed o i sel wi h his being, he e he wo d «wi h»
does no imply ha disclosedness (E schlossenhei ) comes along wi h, o ha
i accompanies Dasein’s being. Ra he , he e his wo d wi h should be aken in
he sense o «in acco dance wi h». In his sense hen when we ead ha Dasein’s
being is disclosed o i sel «wi h» his being, we unde s and his disclosedness
as wha happens in acco dance wi h Dasein’s h ownness in o disclosedness o
being. This demons a es ha he wo d «wi h» is Heidegge ’s i s o mal indi-
ca ion o h ownness (Gewo enhei ) o Dasein in o disclosedness o being.
I should also be poin ed ou ha when Heidegge says ha i is peculia o
Dasein ha i s being is disclosed o i sel h ough his being, he wo d « h ough»
does no imply ha Dasein goes in o his disclosedness a one end as i we e,
and comes ou o i a he o he end. Ra he , his wo d « h ough» should be
aken in he sense o «by means o .» In his sense hen when we ead ha
26 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
37. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 26

Dasein’s being is disclosed o i sel « h ough» his being, we unde s and his
disclosedness as wha happens by means o his being. Disclosedness happens
by means o his being, because Dasein is he being ha p ojec s-open i s
h ownness in o disclosedness o being. This demons a es ha he wo d
« h ough» is Heidegge ’s i s o mal indica ion o p ojec ing-open o En wu .
Ha ing es ablished ha «wi h» o mally indica es h ownness in o dis-
closdness o being, and « h ough» o mally indica es p ojec ing-opening o
disclosedness o being, we e u n o ou ounda ional sen ence. To say ha i
is peculia o Dasein ha i s being is disclosed o i sel wi h and h ough his
being, is he same as saying ha Dasein is a h own-p ojec ing-open, i.e., a
gewo ene En wu . Dasein is a h own-p ojec ing-open, because i p ojec s-open
he disclosedness o being in o which Dasein is h own. When we look closely
a his « h ownness,» his «p ojec ing-open» — a his «wi h», and « h ough» —
we ealize ha wi h his ounda ional sen ence Heidegge pu s o h a com-
po men . Fo o be disclosed in i s being Dasein enac s a compo men ha
in ol es h ownness and p ojec ing, i.e., is a h own-p ojec ing-open. I is by
exclusi ely holding his compo men in his ega d ha Heidegge ci cum-
sc ibes exis ence:
We call exis ence he being i sel owa d which, one way o he o he , Dasein can
compo i sel , and somehow always compo s i sel .38
And his is no a compo men ha is wholly new o us. We came ac oss his
compo men , albei wi hou explici ly calling i a compo men , when we
spoke o he possibili y o be he asking o he ques ion o being; when
we add essed being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o he disclosed possibili y o
ques ioning. By add essing he asking o he ques ion o being as a possibili-
y o be, by s essing being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o ques ioning, we p e-
supposed he enac men o a compo men , which as h own p ojec ing-open,
is Dasein’s way o compo ing i sel owa d i s being. This compo men is
no hing o he han enac men o exis ence. Now inso a as being is e o- o o -
wa d ela ed o ques ioning and inso a as ques ioning p esupposes he enac -
men o exis ence, we ha e o say ha being is also e o- o o wa d ela ed
o exis ence. We see mo e clea ly being’s ela edness o exis ence when we
examine his enac men closely.
As compo ing owa d he being ha Dasein is, exis ence is dis inguished
by a anscending, o su passing inso a as when exis ence is enac ed, (when
h own p ojec ing-open o disclosedness o being comes o pass) Dasein su -
passes i s own being as well as he beings among whom Dasein is. This means
ha in each and e e y ins ance when Dasein expe iences wha «is» (be i a
chai o a god ha is) Dasein su passes i s own being as well as beings among
whom Dasein is, since Dasein p ojec s-open he disclosedness o being in o
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 27
38. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 27
which Dasein is h own. I is in ull conside a ion o his su passing ha
Heidegge says o being ha i is no hing o he han anscendence:
Being and s uc u e o being su pass each and e e y being and e e y possible
exis en (seiende) de e mina ion o a being. Being is anscendence pu e and sim-
ple.39
The compo men ha is called exis ence is he enac men o a su passing,
i.e., enac men o anscendence o being. This has signi ican consequences o
g asping being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o exis ence.
When we speak o being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o exis ence, we
should keep in mind ha i is as anscendence ha being is e o- o o wa d
ela ed o exis ence. Being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o exis ence — e e -
be a es he ein — inso a as enac men o exis ence is wha sus ains he com-
po men called ques ioning o which as we ha e seen being is e o- o o wa d
ela ed. To expound on his a bi u he , we can say ha since enac men o
exis ence is enac men o anscendence, and because being is anscendence pu e
and simple, and because being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o ques ioning, we
ha e o say ha being is also e o- o o wa d ela ed o exis ence inso a as
exis ence is he being o Dasein as ques ione . Thus we es ablish ha exis ence
is he «si e» o which being is e o- o o wa d ela ed.
I is in iew o he su passing o anscending ha occu s as exis ence, as well
as in conside a ion o de e mina ion o being as anscendence pu e and sim-
ple ha Heidegge ejec s as i ele an any a emp ha wan s o educe an-
scendence and anscenden al in undamen al on ology o be Kan ’s and
Husse l’s anscenden al hinking.40 Fo , nei he o he hese wo hinke has
access o exis ence o Dasein, ha is he «si e» whe ein being’s e o- o o -
wa d ela edness is mani es as anscendence.
III. The Yields o he Ques ion o Being
Guided by a conce ed e o o b ing o ligh he s uc u e o he ques ion o
being as well as he ques ioning ha un a els his s uc u e, we a e now in a posi-
ion o ga he oge he he ou come o his e o and o add ess wha his
jou ney in he domain o he ques ion o being yields. We add ess his yield
di ec ly when we poin o a ci cle ha uns om being’s e o- o o wa d ela -
28 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
39. GA 2/ 51.
40. On his poin see M. HEIDEGGER, «Zum Einblick in die No wendigkei de Keh e», in
Vom Rä sel des Beg i s: Fes sch i ü F.-W. on He mann, ed. Paola-Ludo ika Co iando
(1999), Be lin: Duncke & Humbold , p. 1-3. One o he many laws o T. Kisiel’s The
Genesis o Heidegge ’s «Being and Time», is p ecisely he ailu e o g asp anscendence and
anscenden al in e ms o he enac men o exis ence. C ., ibid, p. 313 . When Kisiel
speaks o Heidegge ’s enewed in e es in Kan and assumes ha anscendence is an ex en-
sion o Kan ’s anscenden al hinking, he (Kisiel) be ays a undamen al lack o unde -
s anding exis ence acco ding o undamen al on ology.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 28
edness o ques ioning, and om ques ioning back o being’s e o- o o wa d
ela edness. We add ess his yield di ec ly when we allude o a ci cle ha uns
om he ques ion o being o exis ence and o undamen al on ology and om
exis ence and undamen al on ology back o ques ion o being. I goes wi hou
saying hen ha his e o- o o wa d ela edness sus ains Being and Time in
which Heidegge un olds he pa hway o anscenden al-ho izonal hinking. I
also goes wi hou saying ha his e o- o o wa d ela edness sus ains
Con ibu ions o Philosophy in which Heidegge un olds he pa hway o being-
his o ical hinking. Wha b ings us o his conclusion is he ealiza ion ha
ques ioning succeeds in un a eling he s uc u e o he ques ion o being,
because ques ioning is ha o which being is e o- o o wa d ela ed. This
ela edness o eshadows wha mus be called belongingness o his ques ion
o, and i s empowe men by being, which is one o he many insigh s ha we
gain om a close eading o Heidegge ’s Con ibu ions o Philosophy.
The e o- o o wa d ela edness o being o he ques ion o being b ings
an unsu passable ligh o Dasein and shows ha i is being as such ha shapes
he un olding o he en i e cou se o undamen al on ology. I e o- o o -
wa d ela edness o being o he ques ion o being b ings ligh o Dasein and
o undamen al on ology, hen his on ology mus be g asped in he ligh o
e o- o o wa d ela edness o being o Dasein ia he ques ion o being. And
his shows how i ele an i is o speak o a «Heidegge I», «Heidegge II», a
«Dasein-o ien ed e sus a being-o ien ed»41 phase in Heidegge ’s hinking.
Gi en his e o- o o wa d ela edness o being o ques ioning, we ha e o
say ha ques ion o being is a ques ion ha di ec ly and unmis akably is unde
he sway o being. Which is ano he way o saying ha his ques ion is nei-
he an e he eal ques ion no deli e s an al e na i e on ological model, no
concei es being in adi ional e ms, no is an ac i i y p i ileged by he human
subjec bu is a ques ion ha comes om being because being is e o- o o -
wa d ela ed o, and e e be a es in his ques ion.
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 29
41. See J.J. KOCKELMANS (1985), Heidegge on A and A Wo k, Do d ech : Ma inus Nijho ,
p. 76.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 29